Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

Apologies were received from Cllr Stewart Dobson who was substituted by Cllr Jerry Kunkler.

Apologies were also received from Cllr Nick Fogg MBE.

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 9 July 2020.

The minutes of the meeting held on 9 July 2020 were presented for consideration and it was;

Resolved:

To approve and sign the minutes as a true and correct record.

To receive any declarations of disclosable interests or dispensations granted by the Standards Committee.

Cllr Richard Gamble declared for transparencies sake that he had a non-pecuniary interest in agenda item 7a, 18/09889/FUL Land at South Street, Avebury as he was a former resident of Avebury and the former Portfolio Holder for Heritage, Arts and Tourism. He declared that he would consider the application on its merits with an open mind as he debated and voted on the item.

To receive any announcements through the Chair.

The Chairman explained the procedure should a recess be required.

The Council welcomes contributions from members of the public.

During the ongoing Covid-19 situation the Council is operating revised procedures and the public are able participate in meetings online after registering with the officer named on this agenda, and in accordance with the deadlines below.

Guidance on how to participate in this meeting online.

Statements

Members of the public who wish to submit a statement in relation to an item on this agenda should submit this is electronically to the officer named on this

agenda no later than 5pm on Monday 7 September 2020.

State whom the statement is from (including if representing another person or

organisation), state points clearly and be readable aloud in approximately 3

minutes. Up to three speakers are allowed for each item on the agenda.

Questions

Those wishing to ask questions are required to give notice of any such

questions electronically to the officer named on the front of this agenda no later than 5pm on 3 September 2020 in order to be guaranteed of a written response. In order to receive a verbal response questions must be submitted no later than  5pm on 7 September 2020.

Please contact the officer named on the front of this agenda for further advice.

Questions may be asked without notice if the Chairman decides that the matter is urgent. Details of any questions received will be circulated to members prior to the meeting and made available at the meeting and on the Council’s website; they will be taken as read at the meeting.

The Chairman detailed the procedure for the meeting and the procedures for public participation which were set out at item 5 of the agenda.

To receive details of the completed and pending appeals, and any other updates as appropriate.

The Chairman proposed a motion that the Committee note the updates for the period of 25/06/2020 to 28/08/2020, this was seconded by Cllr Paul Oatway QPM. It was;

Resolved:

To note the report on completed and pending appeals.

To consider and determine the following planning applications.

The following planning applications were considered.

Erection of dwellinghouse with garaging and access.

Public Participation

·       Stephen Thomas, Chairman of the Avebury Society spoke in objection to the application.

·       Dave Scattergood provided a statement in objection which was read out by the Democratic Services Officer.

·       Aaron Smith, Agent, spoke in support of the application.

·       Steve Croft of Centurion (Western) Limited (Applicant) spoke in support of the application.

·       Stephen Stacey, Chair, Avebury Parish Council spoke in objection to the application.

Nick Clark, Senior Planning officer, presented a report which recommended that planning permission be granted with conditions for the erection of a dwellinghouse with garaging and access.

Key details were stated to include the following, the principle of the development; impacts on the character and appearance of the area and the impact on the heritage setting of the Stonehenge & Avebury World Heritage Site, the nearby Avebury Conservation Area and nearby non-designated heritage assets.

Slides were shown to the meeting, showing the location of the site, adjacent land owned by the applicant and its location in relation to heritage assets and the conservation area.

The proposal was for a one and half storey 4 bedroom dwelling with a detached garage/study and access would be via South Street. There was a retaining wall along the front of the site, which was about 3 foot high and was made up of sarsen stones. This wall also ran alongside the adjacent play area and Barley Cottage, the neighbouring property to the West. 

There had been a number of objections, from Avebury Parish Council; the Avebury Society; the Campaign to Protect Rural England and 9 local residents. The main objections raised included that the proposal did not meet the identified housing need in Avebury for 1 and 2 bedroom dwellings; that the size of the proposed dwelling would dominate September Cottage (opposite); the loss of continuity of the sarsen wall; damage to this wall and the impact on the play area.

It was stated that although the proposal would not meet the identified need for 1 and 2 bedroom dwellings in the area, it would meet housing need in general, so this would not be sufficient to refuse the application.

With regard to September Cottage it was stated that the proposed dwelling would be slightly offset from September Cottage and due to the retaining wall and planting above would not impede the view. Therefore, it was concluded that there would be no harm to the heritage significance of September Cottage.

It was explained that the sarsen wall was approximately 50 metres in length in its totality and a 6 and a half metre length of the wall would be removed to form the new access to the site. The stones would be reused to form the return walls into the site and this was a condition recommended if approval was granted. The wall was not listed and not in the conservation area. However, it was a non-designated heritage asset. It was stated that the level of harm caused by breaking into the wall for the site access would be minimised  ...  view the full minutes text for item 33.

Retention of glazed doors to 2 original cart door openings.

Public Participation

·       Mark Pettitt, Agent spoke in support of the application.

·       Mrs. Middleton, Applicant spoke in support of the application

·       Confirm that we had one from Pewsey PC that was after the deadline but was circulated to the Committee and case officer.

Pippa Card, Senior Conservation/Planning Officer presented a report which recommended that listed building consent and planning permission be granted subject to conditions for the retention of glazed doors to 2 original cart door openings.

Slides were shown to the meeting, showing the barn’s location, plans of the barn and photographs showing the glazed doors.

It was explained that the glazed doors had been installed without the benefit of listed building consent or planning permission in 2017 and the Council was made aware of the unauthorised works via an enforcement complaint received on 17th February 2020. The applicants were now seeking to rectify the situation by submitting the two applications to gain permission for the works to the grade II listed barn.

The main consideration was the impact that the doors had on the special interest of the listed building i.e. were the changes harmful to the significance of the designated heritage asset. The special interest of the grade II listed barn lay in its simple vernacular construction of timber framing with a combed wheat reed thatched roof.

Originally the building would have had two sets of paired timber threshing doors fixed to these openings, so that they could be closed to protect the crop stored within from the elements. These doors had been lost over time and although the list description notes that there were cart doors in the second bays, there was no evidence that they were in situ at the time of listing (30th October 1987) or that they had been removed since listing. It was known by officers from visits carried out since 2010 that the barn did not have doors then.

In 1991 a change of use was approved from storage to one for activities relating to the production of cider. The current owners had realised a need to provide a secure building for the storage and protection of the product and associated equipment within the building.

Adaptive reuse of any redundant farm building could safeguard the building from deterioration by providing it with a long-term use, particularly so when in secure ownership and having an active use protects the building for the foreseeable future.

In terms of the building’s character, it would originally have had solid timber doors. The glazed doors had enclosed the barn to the elements rather than blocking them up: the doors were in sections and could be fully opened due to them being fitted into runners enabling them to be fully opened for access, as required. The glazed doors also preserved the view through the building that was possible prior to the changes. This approach was considered to be in line with Historic England guidance.

The NPPF requires that the proposals be assessed on the level of harm caused  ...  view the full minutes text for item 34.

Any other items of business which, in the opinion of the Chairman, should be taken as a matter of urgency 

There were no urgent items.