Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

No apologies were received.

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 30 May 2013.

The minutes of the meeting held on 30 May 2013 were presented for consideration. It was,

Resolved:

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

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

Councillor Charles Howard declared a non-pecuniary interest in Item 6a. Cllr Howard stated that he was personally acquainted with the applicant and would leave the meeting for the Item.

Councillor Paul Oatway declared a non-pecuniary interest in Item 6a. Cllr Oatway stated that he was a close acquaintance of the applicant and Chairman of the Parish Council and wanted to speak on their behalf. As a result of this Cllr Oatway stated that he would not sit on the committee for the item

To receive any announcements from the Chairman.

The Chairman gave details of the emergency exits in case of a fire.

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 in person no later than 5.50pm on the day of the meeting.

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. The rules on public participation in respect of planning applications are detailed in the Council’s Planning Code of Good Practice.

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 Thursday 13 June 2013. 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.

There were no questions submitted.

To consider and determine the following planning applications.

Public Participation

Mr Alex Oliver (Architect) spoke in support of the Application.

Mr Michael Kitching (Transport Consultant) spoke in support of the application.

Cllr Paul Oatway spoke in support of the application on behalf of Milton Lilbourne Parish Council.

The Chairman left the room for this item following the Declaration of Interest made at the start of the meeting. Vice Chairman Cllr Mark Connolly chaired this item in the absence of Cllr Charles Howard.

The Planning Officer introduced the report which recommended refusal, as well as drawing attention to and summarising late items as attached to these minutes. The key issues were stated to include the principle of the proposed development and its consideration as an ‘infill’ site. Other considerations included; the scale and harmony of the planned development, the access to the site and impact on highway safety.

The Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer. These included adopted road status, and the turning space available to vehicles on the driveway.

The Local Member, Councillor Jerry Kunkler then spoke in support of the application.

A debate followed on the size and stature of the lane upon which the development was situated. During the debate issues of capacity, road safety, pedestrian safety and suitability were discussed. At the end of the debate it was,

Resolved:

That planning permission be DELEGATED to officers, to APPROVE subject to creation of conditions relating to standard time scales of development, materials landscaping and tree protection and turning space on the driveway.

Public Participation

Mr George Lewis (Agent) spoke in support of the application.

The Planning Officer introduced the application and details of the report which recommended that planning permission be refused. The main issues for consideration were the character and setting of the listed building and the preservation and enhancement of the Shalbourne Conservation Area.

The Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the Officers.

The Chairman then read a statement from Divisional Member, Cllr Stuart Wheeler who outlined his support for the application.

Members then debated the scale of the extension, when added to the existing extension and  the impact that the planned works would have on the preservation of the building and its setting and its architectural and historic interest..

At the culmination of the debate it was;

Resolved:

To REFUSE planning permission for the following reason:

The scale of the proposed extension in relation to the original dwelling and the deviation away from the established plan form would harm the character and setting of the listed building and diminish its significance as a designated heritage asset. The extension would also fail to preserve the character or appearance of the conservation area.  As such, the proposal is contrary to government policy contained within Section 12 of the NPPF, guidance contained in the PPS5 Practice Guide, policy PD1 of the adopted Kennet Local Plan 2011 and supplementary planning guidance contained in the Shalbourne Conservation Area Statement.

Following the debate had in the previous item (13/00054/FUL), members

Resolved:

To REFUSE listed building consent for the following reason:

The scale of the extension in relation to the original dwelling and the deviation away from the established plan form would harm the character and setting of the listed building and diminish its significance as a designated heritage asset.  As such, the proposal is contrary to government policy contained within Section 12 of the NPPF and guidance contained in the PPS5 Practice Guide.

Mr Appleby (Agent) spoke in support of the application.

Mr Owen White representing Ludgershall Town Council spoke in objection to the application.

The Area Development manager introduced the report and outlined the key areas for consideration. These included the impact on the character and appearance of the  Conservation Area; its effect on the amenities of nearby residential properties, and the provision of parking facilities to serve the new dwellings.

Members then asked technical questions of the application around parking and the flats above shops policy. Members also questioned the listed building status of the surrounding buildings. These were clarified as being buildings of local architectural significance, but were not listed.

Local Member Cllr Christopher Williams addressed the committee and outlined his opposition to the development. Cllr Williams stated that the design was not sympathetic to the surrounding area, did not provide sufficient parking arrangements and proposed unsuitable arrangements for vehicle access.

The Committee then debated the application and questioned the access to and from the site. Members also discussed the parking arrangements and character and appearance of the proposed building.

At the culmination of the debate it was,

Resolved:

To REFUSE planning permission for the following reasons:

REASON

The proposed development would have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the Ludgershall Conservation Area, with its open ground floor frontage, elevational treatment and roof design being not in keeping with the two significant unlisted buildings on either side of the site frontage. This would conflict with policy PD1 of the Kennet Local Plan and with paragraph 137 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

The proposed parking arrangements are contrived and would, in practice, be unlikely to work satisfactorily due to the restricted space for manoeuvring.  When combined with the restricted visibility from the access point, the end result is likely to have an adverse impact on road safety, with vehicles potentially reversing onto the A342.  This would conflict with policy PD1 (4) of the Kennet Local Plan.   

No members of the public spoke in support or objection to this application.

The Area Development Manager outlined the report and the key areas for consideration including the impact on road safety and appearance on the area.

The application was brought back to committee following the previous decision to defer and delegate the application to officers, to negotiate an amended position for the new access. The applicant had not wished to change the position of the access and so the application was brought back to the committee for a decision

Members then entered a discussion around the impact and appearance of the planned access on the landscape. Following the debate it was,

Resolved:

To REFUSE the application for the following reason:

REASON

The construction of this access in this location on this quintessentially rural lane would have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the landscape of this part of the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, by the introduction of an essentially urban feature and the excavation of the bank. This would conflict with policy PD1 (3) of the Kennet Local Plan and paragraph 115 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

There were no urgent items to consider.