Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from:

Cllr Evans

Cllr Williams was present as a substitute.

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 20 February 2014 (copy herewith).

The minutes of the previous meeting held on 20 February 2014 were presented. It was;

Resolved

To approve and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 20 February 2014, as a true and accurate record.

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

There were no declarations of interest.

To note any announcements from the Chairman.

The chairman outlined the procedures for the meeting. There were no further announcements.

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 (4 clear working days, e.g. Wednesday of week before for a Wednesday meeting). 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 Chairman outlined the procedure for public participation. No questions had been submitted from the public or Councillors.

To agree the Alton Village Design Statement as planning policy to be used in future meetings of the Eastern Area Planning Committee.

Public Participation

No members of the public registered to speak on this application.

Mike Wilmott, Area Development Manager, outlined the officer’s report which recommended that the Village Design Statement (VDS) for The Altons be approved as a material consideration for the purposes of development management.

The VDS outlined the characteristics of the village and the surrounding countryside focusing on the landscape setting, shape of the settlement and the nature of the buildings noting that the VDS had been carried out according to Wiltshire Council’s Village Design Statement Protocol.

There were no technical questions.

The members entered into debate focusing mainly on the amount of work put into the VDS.

It was;

Resolved

To APPROVE The Alton Village Design Statement as a material consideration for the purposes of development management.

To receive details of the following Rights of Way report:

Wiltshire Council parish of Baydon path 2 (part) and path 11 (part) diversion order and definitive map modification order 2013.

(See Agenda Supplement 1).

Public Participation

Mr Bernie Gribble spoke in objection to the application.

Mr Colin Philips spoke in objection to the application.

Sally Johnson spoke in support of the application.

Mr Michael Wood spoke in support of the application.

Mr Tony Prior spoke in support of the application.

Mr Peter Gallagher spoke on behalf of the Ramblers Association in objection to the officer’s recommendation.

Local Member Cllr Sheppard spoke in objection to the application.

Sally Madgwick, Rights of Way officer (RWO), outlined the officer’s report which recommended the Wiltshire Council Parish of Baydon Path 2 (part) and Path 11 (part) Diversion Order and Definitive Map Modification Order 2013 is sent to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and that Wiltshire Council takes a neutral stance in the proceedings.

The RWO outlined the description of the existing routes and the proposed changes highlighted on page 12 of the agenda, focusing in particular on the planned development that would obstruct the paths, which had been granted planning permission. The applicant had supplied an alternative route and agreed to pay costs relating to the order. The RWO stated that the application must be considered by the inspectorate. The RWO proceeded to outline the evidence in support and objection to the order, and detailed the implications of the order with regard to the width of the new path and the surface area.

No technical questions were asked.

Members of the public were given the opportunity to address the Committee as detailed above.

The meeting was adjourned for 2 minutes whilst the Chairman consulted with Mr Neil Weeks, the legal representative from Wiltshire Council.  

Cllr Sheppard spoke as the local member for the application and spoke in support of the Officers recommendation. Cllr Sheppard supported the new route and noted the old route was dangerous for horse riders especially in winter.

The RWO responded to comments made by the public on the obstruction of Baydon path 11, noting that the applicant had made an application to divert the route from the obstruction but the two applications had to be handled separately with the planning application taking priority, as such the current application had to be taken first.   

The Committee then entered debate on the order which focused on the Baydon 11 path obstruction. The committee asked if the two applications could be submitted to the Secretary of State together. The RWO advised the committee that the law does not allow two applications at a time as each application has to stand wholly on their own.

A suggestion was made that the community get together to discuss the problem and create a statement of common grounds. The committee was advised that that would delay the process meaning the application would have to come back to the committee. It would be quicker to go to the Secretary of State and have a community meeting in the mean time, at the end of the debate, the Committee:

Resolved

To forward the Wiltshire Council Parish of Baydon  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19.

To consider and determine the following planning applications.

The committee considered the following applications.

Public Participation

Mr David Couison spoke in objection to the application.

Elizabeth Kellett spoke in objection to the application.

Mr Charles Reiss spoke in objection to the application.

Mr Richard Cosker spoke in support of the application.

Mr Hepworth, Alton Parish Council, spoke in objection to the application.

Local Member Cllr Oatway spoke in objection to the application.

The Planning Officer outlined the report which recommended the application be granted planning permission with conditions. The Planning officer outlined the details of the site, noting access to the development would be via a narrow lane although highways had not objected to the application..

The new proposal would be to demolish the existing 2 dwellings and replace by the erection of three dwellings and associated works

The key planning policy considerations were noted as being:

The National Planning Policy Framework chapters; 6 – Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes, 7 – requiring good design, 11 – conserving and enhancing the natural environment, 12 – conserving and enhancing the historic environment.

The Kennet Local Plan 2011: PD1, NR4, HC5, HC6, HC24, NR6 and NR7.

The emerging Core Strategy was also referred too although this is still at an emerging stage and therefore only carries limited weight.

The Planning Officer outlined the consultations that had been undertaken noting that 22 objections had been received. Concerns from environmental health in regards to the noise from the saw-mill opposite could, in the view of the officer, be resolved, with conditions attached to the application.

The committee were then invited to ask technical questions on the application. The main focus of which was based on the adequacy of the environmental measures relating to the noise.

Members of the public (above) were then invited to speak on the application during which there was a 5minute adjournment due to the rain making the speakers hard to hear.

Local Member Cllr Oatway spoke in objection to the application noting that the design was out of keeping with the area of outstanding beauty and that there had been many objections and no support from the local area. Cllr Oatway mentioned that if the application was an appropriate development then there would be support.

Members then entered into debate on the application, and the main concerns were summarised as being: The impact on the character and appearance of the area and the need for the developers to speak with the community and the parish council to agree a suitable development and, at the end of the debate, the Committee:

Resolved

To REFUSE planning permission for the following reasons:

The proposed development would be incongruous with the village of Honeystreet in terms of its scale, design, character and massing and would consequently be contrary to Policies PD1 and HC24 of the adopted Kennet Local Plan 2011, Chapter 7 of the National Planning Policy Framework with particular regard to paragraphs 58, 60, 61 and 64 and the Honeystreet Village Design Statement.

Public Participation

Mr Philip Newton spoke in support of the application.

Mr George Lewis spoke in support of the application.

Mr Mike Lockhart, Shalbourne Parish Council, spoke in support of the application.

Local Member Cllr Wheeler spoke in support of the application.

The Area Development Manager outlined the report which recommended the application be refused planning permission for a single storey extension and replacement garage. The Area Development Manager outlined the details of the proposal noting that it was similar to a previous application which had been refused by the committee. The Homestead is a grade 2 listed building located in the conservation area of Shalbourne village. The site is also located within the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. 

The key planning policy considerations were noted as being:

The Kennet Local Plan 2011: policy PD1 – General development principles.

The Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act with regards to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.

Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act with special regard to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the conservation area.

Planning Policy Statement 5 – Practice guide.

The Shalbourne Conservation Area Statement.

The emerging Core Strategy was also referred too although this is still at an emerging stage and therefore only carries limited

The Area Development Manager outlined the consultations that had been undertaken noting that there had been no objections.

The committee were then invited to ask technical questions on the application which focused on whether planning permission for the previous extension had been granted before or after being given listed status. It was noted that the extension was granted after being listed. 

Members of the public (above) were then invited to speak on the application.

Local Member Cllr Stuart Wheeler spoke in support of the application stating that the new extension had a natural look and the development would benefit the local community as the dwelling would become a suitable family home. Cllr Wheeler also noted that adding extensions to listed buildings can add to their history.

The Area Development Manager commented stating that the dwelling had already been allowed an extension and another of this scale would be too much. The reason the property is listed is because of its national importance not just a local importance

Members then entered into debate on the application and the main concerns were summarised as being the lack of change from the original application, the over powering of the new extension on the original house and the affect this would have on its history and listed status. Arguments were made quoting the English Heritage Conservation Principles, Policy and Guidance document stating that  the consequence of not undertaking periodic renewal is normally more extensive loss of both fabric and heritage values. The replacement garage was discussed noting this would provide a third bedroom for the property making it  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22.

This was a counterpart application to 14/07057/FUL item number 22.

The Area Development Manager outlined the report which recommended the application be refused listed building consent. The listed building considerations were similar to those set out in the report for the accompanying planning application. 

Resolved

To REFUSE listed building consent for the following reasons:

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.

There were no urgent items.