Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

Apologies for absence were received from:

·       Cllr Philip Whitehead (who attended in his capacity as the Local Member) – substituted by Cllr Dominic Muns

·       Cllr Kelvin Nash – substituted by Cllr Jerry Kunkler

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 19 September 2024 as a true and correct record.

On the proposal of the Vice-Chairman, seconded by Cllr Dominic Muns, it was:

Resolved

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 19 September 2024 as a true and correct record.

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

There were no declarations of interest.

To receive any announcements through the Chair.

The Vice-Chairman reported that Cllr Sam Pearce-Kearney had replaced Cllr Dr Brian Mathew MP as a Committee member. He also noted that Cllr David Bowler has been added as a substitute member of the Committee.

The Vice-Chairman stated that he was looking forward to working with the new members and gave his thanks to Cllr Mathew for his work on the Committee.

The Council welcomes contributions from members of the public.

Statements

Members of the public who wish to speak either in favour or against an application or any other item on this agenda are asked to register no later than 10 minutes before the start of the meeting. If it is on the day of the meeting registration should be done in person.

The rules on public participation in respect of planning applications are linked to in the Council’s Planning Code of Good Practice. The Chairman will allow up to 3 speakers in favour and up to 3 speakers against an application, and up to 3 speakers on any other item on this agenda. Each speaker will be given up to 3 minutes and invited to speak immediately prior to the item being considered.

Members of the public and others will have had the opportunity to make representations on planning applications and other items on the agenda, and to contact and lobby their local elected member and any other members of the planning committee, prior to the meeting.

Those circulating such information prior to the meeting, written or photographic, are advised to also provide a copy to the case officer for the application or item, in order to officially log the material as a representation, which will be verbally summarised at the meeting by the relevant officer, not included within any officer slide presentation if one is made. Circulation of new information which has not been verified by planning officers or case officers is also not permitted during the meetings.

Questions

To receive any questions from members of the public or members of the Council received in accordance with the constitution which excludes, in particular, questions on non-determined planning applications.

Those wishing to ask questions are required to give notice of any such questions in writing to the officer named on the front of this agenda no later than 5pm on 14 November 2024 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 18 November 2024. 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 Committee members prior to the meeting and made available at the meeting and on the Council’s website.

The Committee noted the rules on public participation.

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

In response to a query about why costs had been approved for application PL/2022/09535 when the appeal was listed as being refused, the Head of Development Management, Andrew Guest, explained that there were multiple reasons for refusal and that the inspector had not upheld all of them.

On the proposal of the Vice-Chairman, seconded by Cllr Stuart Wheeler, it was:

Resolved

To note the planning appeals update for the period between 6 September and 8 November 2024.

Cllr Tony Pickernell arrived at 3:10pm.

Demolition of existing buildings and construction of five dwellings and associated works.

Public Participation

·       Mr Alistair Gordon – spoke in opposition to the application

·       Mr Bill Donald – spoke in opposition to the application

·       Mr Neil Jones – spoke in opposition to the application

·       Mr Richard Cosker (RCC Town Planning Consultancy) – spoke in support of the application

·       Mr Nick Church (Gaiger Brothers) – spoke in support of the application

·       Mr Sam Gaiger (Gaiger Brothers) - spoke in support of the application

·       Cllr Pam Moscrop (Urchfont Parish Council) – spoke in opposition to the application

The Senior Planning Officer, David Millinship, introduced a report which recommended that the application for the demolition of existing buildings, including the local garage, and construction of five dwellings and associated works, be granted. Key details were stated to include the principle of development, highway impacts, the design and the impact on the historic environment.

Attention was drawn to comments from neighbours of the proposed development that had been received since the report had been published. The officer confirmed that none of the comments changed the conclusions of his report. He also drew the Committee’s attention to the incorrectly listed planning references in condition 9 of the report and advised them to update this condition if they were minded to approve the application.

The officer explained that the proposed development was considered to preserve the setting of nearby listed buildings, so would enhance the appearance of the conservation area that bisected the site. Although it was acknowledged that the proposed development would result in the loss of an employment site, it was not in conflict with Core Policy 35 (Existing Employment Land) of the Wiltshire Core Strategy. The erection of five new dwellings would deliver new homes on a site allocated for development in the Urchfont Neighbourhood Plan.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of officers.

Details were sought on how long the site had operated as a commercial premises, as well as the number of people that had commented on the application. It was confirmed that commercial activity had taken place on the site over many decades and that around 140 responses had been received.

The Committee noted that it would not be necessary for the applicant to apply for a separate listed building consent, as the party wall with the nearby Grade II listed building would not be impacted.

Officers explained how Wiltshire Council’s inability to demonstrate a four-year housing supply impacted how they had assessed the application. It was noted that the housing land supply was a material consideration, as it placed greater emphasis on the tilted planning balance in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). However, although the proposed development would make a small positive contribution towards meeting the housing land supply, it was explained that the starting points for decision making were the Wiltshire Core Strategy and Urchfont Neighbourhood Plan. The Core Strategy did not have any specific policies that protected employment sites in villages, as it did for market towns and service centres.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 83.

Application to vary condition no. 2 and 3 on planning consent ref: 20/08600/FUL to enable the outbuilding currently permitted for an annexe use, to also be used for holiday let purposes.

Public Participation

·       Mr Howard Waters - spoke in support of the application

·       Cllr Jackie Waddel (Urchfont Parish Council) – spoke in opposition to the application

The Conservation and Planning Officer, Joe Leesam, introduced a report which recommended that the application to vary conditions 2 and 3 on planning consent ref: 20/08600/FUL to enable the outbuilding, currently permitted for an annexe use, to also be used for holiday let purposes, be approved. Key details were stated to include the principle of development, the overdevelopment of the site, as well as the design and visual impacts.

Attention was drawn to proposed changes to the wording to condition 3 of the report. It was explained that the changes added greater clarity about the proposed usage of the site for holiday accommodation and placed a 28-day limit on the continuous use by a single person or group. In addition, the officer suggested that an informative be added to advise the applicant that dropping the kerb of the pavement in front of the dwelling would require the appropriate licence, even if permission for the development was granted.

The officer emphasised that there would not be any significant adverse visual impacts from the proposed development, as it was for the conversion of an existing annexe. Similarly, there would not be any significant negative highway impacts. Sufficient parking would be provided, with three spaces for the main dwelling and a separate parking space for the holiday annexe.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of officers. Details were sought about restricting the maximum stay and no-return period for holiday makers to 28 days. It was explained that this was a common requirement to ensure that holiday accommodation was used for the intended purpose. However, it would be possible for the Committee to amend the no return period if they felt that it was appropriate to do so. 

Members of the public then had the opportunity to present their views to the Committee as detailed above. 

The Unitary Division Member, Cllr Philip Whitehead then spoke in opposition to the application.

In response to the points raised by the public and Unitary Division Member, it was explained by officers that it was their view that there would not be any negative impacts upon the conservation area in which the development was located, as there would not be any physical changes to the appearance of the outbuilding. They also did not feel that granting permission would set a precedent for the erection of holiday accommodation in the gardens of neighbouring properties, as the proposed development was in an existing outbuilding.

It was highlighted that some of the other outbuildings on the site did not have planning permission and that their removal was a matter for the enforcement team.

In order to begin the debate, it was proposed by the Vice-Chairman, seconded by Cllr Stuart Wheeler, that the application be granted.

A debate followed where the demand for holiday accommodation was discussed. It was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 84.

Demolition of existing dwelling (Use Class C3), and erection of replacement dwelling, garage, hard and soft landscaping and associated works.

Public Participation

·       Mr Robert Bailey - spoke in opposition to the application

·       Mr Dan Roycroft - spoke in support of the application

·       Cllr Alan Phizacklea (Aldbourne Parish Council) – spoke in opposition to the application

The Conservation and Planning Officer James Repper introduced a report which recommended that the application for the demolition of existing dwelling (Use Class C3), and erection of replacement dwelling, garage, hard and soft landscaping and associated works, be approved. Key details were stated to include the scale and appearance of the development as well as its impact on the North Wessex Downs National Landscape.

The officer explained that the proposed development was located in open countryside approximately a kilometre outside of the village of Aldbourne. Whist it was outside of defined settlement boundaries, the proposed development met the exception policies in the Wiltshire Core Strategy as it was replacing an existing dwelling. Although the proposed development was taller than the exiting bungalow, it was highlighted that the design, in the vernacular style, conformed to guidance in the National Landscape’s management plan and that the scheme had not received any objections from the council’s landscape team.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of officers.

Details were sought on how the footprint of the proposed dwelling compared to the existing bungalow on the site. It was explained that the footprint was similar in size to the existing structure, although the height would increase from 5.91 metres to 8.92 metres. It was reported that a Policy HC25 from the old Kennet District Local Plan specified that a replacement dwelling should not be substantially larger. However, an inspector had found that the definition of substantial was imprecise.

It was clarified that the North Wessex Downs National Landscape had been invited to comment on the application, but they had not done so.

It was also noted that there had been changes to the original design which had seen the proposed replacement dwelling moved further from the northern boundary of the site to allow enhanced planting.

In response to a query about whether it was necessary for the detached garage for the property to be two storeys high, officers reiterated that there had been no technical objections from statutory consultees.

Members of the public then had the opportunity to present their views to the Committee as detailed above.

The Unitary Division Member, Cllr James Sheppard then spoke in objection to the application.

Officers then had the opportunity to respond to the points raised by the public and Unitary Division Member.

In order to begin the debate, it was proposed by the Vice-Chairman, seconded by Cllr Dominic Muns, that the application be granted.

A debate followed where issues such as the landscape impact, external lighting, design and elevated position of the development, were discussed. In response to queries it was stated that permitted development rights would allow the existing bungalow to be extended into the loft.

 At the conclusion of the discussion on the proposal, it  ...  view the full minutes text for item 85.

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.