Agenda item

Public Participation

John Polhill spoke in objection to the application

Maddy Palmer spoke in objection to the application

Helen Goodig spoke in objection to the application

Sandra Tuck, Agent, spoke in support of the application.

Tom Griffiths, Applicant, spoke in support of the application

Mike Wilmot, Head of Development Management, introduced the report which recommended approval be granted for an Extension to existing building (Use Class B8), extension to service road, landscaping and associated works.

Late representations had been received which referred to the original application, where the previous occupiers had applied for the extension and since then they had vacated the premises. Head of Development Management explained that the application presented by the owners was still acceptable.

Key issues included; the principle of development, design issues, the impact on the immediate area, impact on amenity, highway and access considerations and the section 106 agreement.

Members of the Committee had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer. Details were sought on: The relevance of Core Policy 1, whether a market analysis had been carried out, details were sought on the neighbouring unit’s planning permission for an extension; distance between the proposed turning area and the closest residential property,

In response to the questions it was noted that: the property size was not big enough to require an impact assessment; the neighbouring planning permission had been granted via delegated authority in 2017, although the extension had not yet been built and had until 2020 to be commenced.

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

Following the public forum, Members requested to ask further technical questions, which the Chairman accepted. Further details were sought on: whether a S106 was still active on the land which had been designated for recreational use and the planning history of the property.     

In response, it was noted that: part of the application site was subject to a S106 agreement, which was made in 1994, which restricted the site to sports and recreational purposes. The Section 106 agreement made no provision for public use of the site for recreational purposes. In 2004 the Local Planning Inspector recommended modifying the plan by removal of the proposed designation as it served no useful purpose and there was a suitable public recreation facility close by. This had been accepted by the District Council. Subsequently, the District Council produced a Leisure and Recreation Development Plan in 2009 which set out existing sports and recreation facilities that would be protected. The application site was neither identified or included in that plan. For these reasons the S106 no longer served any useful purpose. It was also noted that not all of the planning history had been included In the report, only the planning history relevant to the application.

Local member, Councillor Alford, had to opportunity to speak on the application which included the following points: the local authority’s responsibility to enforce the s106, details of how core policy 1 and core policy 34 was relevant to the application.

A motion to refuse planning application was moved by Cllr Philip Alford and seconded by Cllr Pip Ridout.

A debate followed and the key points included: no evidence of an economic need within the area and adverse impact on the residential property. At the end it was;

Resolved

To refuse planning permission for the following reasons:

1.         The proposed development lies outside of the Limits of Development brought forward for Atworth from the West Wiltshire Local Plan and retained in the Wiltshire Core Strategy.  The proposal therefore conflicts with polices CP1 and CP2 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy which do not permit development outside these limits, other than that permitted by other polices in the Wiltshire Core Strategy. Whilst these other polices include CP34, the proposal does not comply with the criteria set out in that policy, for the reasons set out in 2  below.

2.         The proposed development does not comply with Core Policy 34. In particular, the extension is not considered essential to the wider strategic interest of the economic development of Wiltshire; and the construction and use of the proposed road extension and  turning head, coming so close to the adjacent residential property, will have an adverse impact on the amenity that residents of that property can reasonably expect to enjoy. The proposal is therefore not considered to be sustainable development.