Agenda item

Demolition of two dwellings and vacant commercial buildings and replacement with six dwellings.

Public Participation

Mr Alex Oliver, spoke in objection to the application.

Mr Alex Whittle, spoke in objection to the application.

Mr Michael Spencer, spoke in objection to the application.

Mr Donavon Love, Applicant, spoke in support of the application.

Mr Tom Jakes, Agent, spoke in support of the application.

Cllr Robert Carpenter-Turner of Alton Parish Council spoke in objection to the application.

RuaridhO'Donoghue, Senior Planning Officer presented a report which recommended that planning permission be granted with conditions for the demolition of two dwellings and vacant commercial buildings and their replacement with six dwellings.

Key details were stated to include whether the development was acceptable in principle; whether the scheme constitutes high quality design; whether the scheme would preserve or enhance the historic environment; whether the scheme would have an acceptable landscape impact; whether the proposal would have a negative impact on highway safety; whether the site can be adequately drained and whether there would be harmful impacts on protected species or habitats.

Attention was drawn to the late observations.

Some late submissions from a third-party objector had been published with the agenda. These consisted of a visual impact assessment and a light pollution statement. The third-party objector had submitted updated versions of these documents, which superseded the versions in the agenda and these were circulated to the committee. The late objections were considered, and officers did not change their recommendation.

There had also been a late consultation response from the Wiltshire Council Ecologist who reported that they supported the application, subject to conditions.  If approved, the development should be carried out in strict accordance with the mitigation and enhancement measures outlined in the ecological report. They also stated there should be no additional lighting installed. The officer explained that these conditions were already included as part of the recommendation.

Photos of the site were shown, which the officer described to the committee. There were two dwellings in a poor state of repair and other dilapidated commercial buildings. The site lay in open country side, within the North Wessex Downs AONB and there was a listed building nearby.

The proposal was stated to be the demolition of the buildings and their replacement with six dwellings. The dwellings were all to be of a similar appearance, comprising black stained timber for the walls and natural slate tiles for the roofs. Each property would also have a stainless-steel flue. All the properties had the same ridge heights, although the site was not totally level, so the properties would not all be at the same level. There was dedicated parking for each property, dedicated bin storage and cycle storage was also provided. House types, elevations and floor plans were shown.

It was stated that there was an extant planning permission on the site for five dwellings and that this was a significant material consideration. Even with an additional dwelling, the footprint of the application was stated to be less than the footprint of the extant permission.

The more sensitive boundaries of the site had more sympathetic fencing proposed, in the form of hazel hurdles, or post and cleft chestnut pale fencing.  It was judged that there would be no harm caused to heritage assets and the proposal complied with Wiltshire Core Strategy (WCS) Core Policy 58. The Highways Authority had reported that there was a safe and suitable means of access to the highway and that parking met with the adopted standards. There had been no objections to the drainage scheme. The proposal would achieve a biodiversity net gain as the landscaping scheme included more native species and the introduction of bat, bird and hedgehog boxes.

The site was currently an unused brown field site which would be brought back into use as a result of the proposal. On balance the officer recommendation was to approve planning permission with conditions

There were no technical questions.

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

The unitary division member, Cllr Paul Oatway, QPM, spoke in objection to the

application. It was stated that the although the village was not opposed to development of the site in principle, six houses on this plot constituted overdevelopment. The design of the houses was not in keeping with the area. The Parish Council had not been consulted early in the process and 90% of the community opposed the development. The parking was also felt to be an issue. Especially in the summer, there was considered to be a lack of parking in the area. The positioning of some of the parking bays also meant that people would have to reverse out into the road, which could be quite busy - this was felt to be dangerous. Cllr Oatway QPM referred the meeting to the CPRE consultation response which he agreed with. He also felt that the proposal was contrary to WCS Core Policy 58 as the development would not enhance the setting of the nearby Grade II Listed building (Mill House) and may cause harm to it.

In response to public statements the officer stated that he had spoken to the Urban Design officer who had given advice to one of the objectors. The buildings were not back to back. There was no guidance in Wiltshire Council Policy regarding the distances required between dwellings which were not back to back. The Urban Design officer was not in possession of all the information when they gave their advice.

The objectors and Parish Council had stated they much preferred extant scheme. However, it was noted by the officer that there had been some objections to it. The Highways Authority had stated that the proposal was safe. Unfortunately, it was common that there was a lack of engagement between developers and the local parish council. There was no absolute requirement for people to do this, although it was disappointing when engagement did not occur. With regards to the CPRE comments regarding the impact on Mill House, the conservation officer had disagreed with their assessment.

Cllr Mark Connolly proposed a motion to grant planning permission with conditions as per the officer recommendation. No one seconded the motion.

Cllr Paul Oatway QPM, then proposed a motion to refuse planning permission, against officer recommendation. This was seconded by Cllr Ian Blair-Pilling.

Cllr Richard Gamble stated that if this application had come in when there was no extant planning permission on the site, then it would be easy to refuse as it was in open countryside. However, the extant permission complicated the situation. The extant scheme was more traditional, with cottage type houses and had the broad support of community. He felt that the current proposal did not have support due to the design of the houses, which were alien to the area and community. Therefore, he felt that the application was contrary to WCS Core Policy 51 as it did not have regard to the locally distinctive character of the settlement. He also felt it was contrary to WCS Core Policy 57 as the development did not enhance the character of the settlement and was not informed by a thorough understanding of the locality and the development site. Therefore, he would not be supporting the application.

Many of the members agreed that there were numerous peripheral reasons that the application was disappointing. However, the main issue was that the proposed design simply did not fit in and was out of character with the area. Therefore, they felt that they could not support the application.

Cllr Mark Connolly stated that the principle of development had already been established due to the extant permission. It was hard to determine if six dwellings would constitute overdevelopment. The overall footprint of those dwellings was less than that of the extant permission. Although members had concerns about the parking and highway safety, the Highways Authority had stated that it was acceptable and therefore they could not refuse on that basis. However, he felt that the design of the site was inappropriate and did not fit its setting. Therefore, he would not be supporting the application.

Members felt that the scale, layout and design of the properties were issues of concern. The impact on the area and the landscape were also considered to be an issue, along with the impact on heritage (designated and non-designated) assets, namely a listed building and the canal.

At the conclusion of the debate it was;

Resolved:

To refuse planning permission, against officer recommendation, for the following reasons:

The proposed development, by virtue of its scale, design, materials and layout, would not enhance local distinctiveness, would not respond positively to exiting townscape and landscape features and would not be sympathetic to or conserve historic buildings. As such, the proposal is considered to be contrary to Core Policy 57 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy 2015.

The proposed development, by virtue of its scale, design, materials and layout, has not taken account of the locally distinctive character of Honeystreet and its landscape setting, nor the need to protect against intrusive light pollution. The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to Core Policy 51 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy 2015 and to paragraph 172 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2019 which requires great weight to be given to the conservation and enhancement of the landscape and scenic beauty of, amongst other things, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. 

The proposed development, by virtue of its scale, design, materials, layout and proximity, would cause less than substantial harm to the setting of the grade II listed Mill House and the nearby Kennet and Avon Canal.  There are no identified public benefits that would outweigh this harm.  As such, the proposal is considered to be contrary to Core Policy 58 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy and the policies contained within the historic environment chapter of the National Planning Policy Framework 2019.