Agenda item

Public Participation

Maggie Thackway spoke in objection to the application.

Professor Nigel Brown spoke in objection to the application.

Ian Buick spoke in objection to the application.

Derek Tanswell spoke in support of the application.

Edward Drewe spoke in support of the application.

Cllr Keith Muston, Chairman Chapmanslade Parish Council, spoke in objection to the application.

Jemma Foster, Senior Planning Officer, introduced the report and members were informed that a previous application for a temporary agricultural workers dwelling on the site had previously been refused by the Council which went to appeal but the appeal had been dismissed. Members were informed of the material differences between the previous refused application and the current submission. Reference was made to what the planning inspector concluded as part of the previous appeal, which included an acceptance, that there was an agricultural justification for an agricultural worker’s dwelling on the site. The reason the appeal was dismissed was due to an unacceptable impact on the special landscape area.

The key issues were identified as; the principle of the development (with due regard made to the previous appeal decision), the impact upon the character and appearance of the special landscape area and potential neighbouring amenity impacts, as well access and highway matters and recommend that planning permission should be granted.

Members of the Committee had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer however no questions were asked.

Members of the public, as detailed above, had the opportunity to speak on the application.

Local Member Councillor Fleur De Rhe-Philipe spoke to the application highlighting: concerns about the impact on the special landscape area and that any further development would have a detrimental impact, and furthermore cast doubt about whether there was a need for the applicant to be on site 24 hours a day. 

A motion was moved to refuse planning permission by Councillor Pip Ridout and seconded by Councillor Jerry Wickham.

A debate followed and the key points included: the provisions of Core Policy 48 and paragraph 6.66, the need for the committee to have consistency when making decisions and the decision of the Inspector. 

At the end of the debate it was;

RESOLVED

To refuse planning permission for the following reasons:

1.            The site is located in the open countryside, outside the limits of development for Chapmanslade as defined in the Wiltshire Core Strategy. Residential development in this location is restricted by Core Policy 48 which first requires a thorough scrutiny of available accommodation found locally and within nearby settlements (as directed by para 6.67 pursuant to CP48); and secondly, there must be a demonstrable essential need to justify a new dwellinghouse to be erected in the open countryside for the purpose of protecting the countryside and maintaining its local distinctiveness. In this particular case, the Council is not satisfied that there is an essential need for this proposal and the applicant has failed to appraise local housing opportunities as required by the adopted Core Strategy; and, for these reasons, the application is considered contrary to CP48 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy and paragraph 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

2.            The site is located within the Corsley Heath to Chapmanslade Greensand Ridge Special Landscape Area and the Council concludes that the proposal would have a detrimental and harmful impact that would not be sympathetic to its special character and local distinctiveness; and for these reasons, the application is considered contrary to CP48 (and associated paragraphs 6.66-6.67) and CP51 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy and Saved Policy C3 of the West Wiltshire District Local Plan as well as being contrary to the NPPF and specifically paragraphs 17 and 109.   The Council moreover submits that even if the applicant was able to make a convincing argument for the erection of a temporary dwelling on the site and in the location proposed, the harm that would be caused to the Special Landscape Area would not be outweighed.