Agenda item

Demolition of three detached dilapidated buildings and their replacement with a single dwelling including new access.

Public Participation

Mr Andy Sheppard, spoke in objection to the application

Ms Nicky Hughes,  spoke in objection to the application.

Ms Imogen Snook-Brown, spoke in objection to the application.

Mr Craig Alexander, Agent, spoke in support of the application.

Lt Col Hugo Lloyd, Applicant, spoke in support of the application.

Mr John Delaney, resident, spoke in support of the application.

Morgan Jones, Senior Planning Officer, presented a report which recommended that planning permission be refused for the Demolition of three detached dilapidated buildings and their replacement with a single dwelling including new access.

Key details were stated to include the following: the application property was Court Close Farm, 2 White Street, Easterton which comprised a Grade II Listed Building of 16th century origin and outbuildings. These buildings were within the curtilage of the listed building and were therefore considered to be curtilage listed structures. There were also other buildings on the site, a pole barn and corrugated hut. The application site included the pole barn and corrugated hut and agricultural land to the south and east of the listed dwelling and outbuildings. The site was within the Easterton Conservation Area.

The application sought full planning permission to demolish the existing agricultural building within the field and the erection of a dwelling which would be accessed via a new access from the High Street (B3098). The proposal also involved the demolition of the pole barn and corrugated hut building.

Core Policy 12 ‘Spatial Strategy: Devizes Community Area’ identified Easterton as a ‘small village’. As such, only ‘infill’ development is acceptable. Infill was defined within the WCS as the filling of a small gap within the village that was only large enough for not more than a few dwellings, generally only one dwelling. The application site lies on the outskirts of the village outside the main built up area of the settlement on agricultural land. As the site was within open countryside, outside the built up area of the village it was therefore considered that the proposed development would not amount to a form of infill. The proposed development was considered to conflict with Chapters 4 & 5 of the National Planning Policy Framework and Core Policies 1, 2, and 12 of the WCS and therefore the principle of residential development was unacceptable in planning policy terms. It was also stated that the application would harm the landscape character. Therefore, the application was recommended for refusal.

Attention was drawn to the late observations; three late letters had been received proposing support for the application as it was sympathetic and would improve the area.

Members of the committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer. Details were sought on the issue of infill, it was felt that if the site backs onto gardens, then surely it is within the village boundary and the application could be classed as infill. In response it was stated that infill referred to the filling of a small gap and the small villages do not have defined limits of development in the core strategy. The officers felt that the site did not represent a small gap and was outside of the village.

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

The unitary division member, Cllr Philip Whitehead, spoke in support of the application. Cllr Whitehead gave the opinion that the core policy did not cover small villages and did not correctly cover the principle of infill. It also did not say what to do with rusty old agricultural buildings. The application would represent an improvement to the site. Cllr Whitehead urged the Committee to refuse the application.

In response to public statements the Officer stated that some of the public statements made were not accurate. The site was not ‘former’ agricultural land, it’s current status in planning terms was agricultural land. The proposed building was a barn, on top of a hill, in the middle of a field – this did not constitute infill and therefore was contrary to policy. The application failed the locational test and also had issues regarding character and appearance. References to other Committee decisions that were being used as precedents were not comparable. The Committee must look at the application before them.

Cllr Connolly proposed a motion to refuse planning permission, as per the officer recommendation. This was seconded by Cllr Paul Oatway QPM.

A debate followed where the main issues raised were as follows. Most Cllrs agreed that the Planning Officer was correct and that the application did not represent infill. The site was in an agricultural field on the edge of a village. It was stated by some that the infill policy may need updating to make it clearer and that derelict barns may also need a policy of their own. Policy makers were urged to consider this. Other’s felt the policy was already clear. Some Cllr’s reiterated that what the committee had decided at previous meetings was not relevant as each application had to be considered on its merits. Whilst some supported the conversion of barns if appropriate and in the right place, it was felt that this was neither appropriate or in the right location. Some did support the application but understood why the officer had made the refusal recommendation.

At the conclusion of the debate it was;

Resolved:

That planning permission be refused as per the officer recommendation.

REASON:

1.         The proposed development, due to the position of the site within the open countryside on the edge of the village of Easterton, would conflict with the settlement strategy of the Wiltshire Core Strategy. The site is within an agricultural use outside of the built up area of the village and the redevelopment of the site to accommodate a new detached dwelling would not represent ‘infill’. The development does not respect the existing character and form of the settlement and would result in an unnatural extension to the built environment. Furthermore, it has not been demonstrated that the development has been designed to meet the housing needs of the settlement. 

The proposed development is therefore deemed to be unsustainable and would conflict with the Council's plan-led approach to sustainable development. The Council can demonstrate a deliverable 5 year housing land supply within the East Housing Market Area and there are no exceptional circumstances or material planning considerations which justify the approval of the proposed development.

In light of the above the proposed development is considered to conflict with Chapters 4 ‘Decision-Making’ and 5 ‘Delivering a Sufficient Supply of Homes’ of the National Planning Policy Framework and Core Policy 1 'Settlement Strategy', Core Policy 2 'Delivery Strategy' and Core Policy 12 Spatial Strategy: Devizes Community Area of the adopted Wiltshire Core Strategy.

2.         The proposed dwelling, by reason of its location, overall form, design and appearance, along with the proposed access, would have a harmful impact on the character and appearance of the site. The provision of a new purpose built dwelling would result in the loss of the agricultural use and character of the site, which coupled with the proposed design, would harm the existing appearance of the landscape and the character and appearance of the Easterton Conservation Area. The development would result in less than substantial harm to the designated heritage asset and the public benefits of the scheme would not outweigh the harm that would be caused to the heritage asset.

In light of the above the proposed development is considered to conflict with Chapters 12 ‘Achieving Well-Designed Places’, 15 ‘Conserving & Enhancing the Natural Environment’ and ‘ 16 ‘Conserving & Enhancing the Historic Environment’ of the National Planning Policy Framework (2018), Core Policies 51 ‘Landscape’, 57 ‘Ensuring High Quality Design’ and 58 'Ensuring the Conservation of the Historic Environment' of the adopted Wiltshire Core Strategy (2015), and Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.