Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

Apologies were received from Cllr Nick Fogg

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 5 January 2017.

A motion was proposed by Cllr Peter Evans and seconded by Cllr Paul Oatway QPM, that the minutes of the Eastern Area Planning Committee held on 5 January 2017 were an accurate record.

Resolved:

To approve and sign the minutes of the meeting of the Eastern Area Planning Committee on 5 January 2017 as an accurate record

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

Cllr Paul Oatway QPM and Cllr Richard Gamble both declared a non-pecuniary interest in respect ofapplication 16/10483/FUL due to their prior contact with the local residents. Both councillors declared they would not vote on this application.

To receive any announcements through the Chair.

The Chairman had no 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 by phone, email or in person no later than 5.50pm on the day of the meeting.

The rules on public participation in respect of planning applications are detailed in the Council’s Planning Code of Good Practice. 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.

Members of the public will have had the opportunity to make representations on the planning applications and to contact and lobby their local member and any other members of the planning committee prior to the meeting. Lobbying once the debate has started at the meeting is not permitted, including the circulation of new information, written or photographic which have not been verified by planning officers.

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 Thursday 9 February 2017 in order to be guaranteed of a written response. In order to receive a verbal response questions must be submitted no later than 5pm on Monday 13 February 2017. 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 explained the rules of public participation and confirmed that no questions had been submitted from members of the public

To receive details of the completed and pending appeals, and any other updates as appropriate.

The written update on appeals was received.

In addition to the written report it was noted that the appeal in respect of application 15/11397/FUL had been dismissed.

Members congratulated officers on the appeal success rate.

To consider and determine the following planning applications.

Public Participation

Ms Jan Tomlin, applicant, spoke in support of the application

Ms Catherine Hovey, applicant, spoke in support of the application

Mr Andrew Williamson, of Avebury Parish Council, spoke with regard to the application.

The Development Management Team Leader, Karen Guest, introduced the report which outlined the application for the change of use of the vacant part of an existing building to a book sales/exchange store and a visitor information centre, and confirmed that this included no physical alterationsto the building.

The officer recommended that the application be approved for the reasons set out in the report. Key issues included the principle of the change of use; the impact on heritage assets; the parking implications; and the highway safety impact. The officer highlighted that the proposed use was low key, it would bring an unused building back into use, and that any highway safety impact would not be severe.

Members of the Committee were invited to ask technical questions of the officer. There were none.

Members of the public were then invited to speak as detailed above.

The local unitary division member, Cllr Jemima Milton, spoke in reference to the application and explained that she was happy to support the application with the conditions outlined in the officer’s report but that she felt it was a shame that the adjoining public toilets had not yet been brought back into use.

Cllr Mark Connolly, seconded by Cllr Jerry Kunkler, moved that the application for planning permission be granted subject to the conditions outlined in the officer’s report.

In the debate that followed, the following points were discussed: that bringing the property back into community use would be positive; that the “resident-only” status of the adjoining car park should be reinforced; and that the potential impact on the footfall of the post office in another part of the building could also be positive.

At the conclusion of debate, it was

Resolved:

To grant planning permission, subject to the following conditions:

1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

REASON: To comply with the provisions of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans and documents: Application Form, Location Plan and Drawing No. AVE-01 Rev 1 'Proposed Shop'.

REASON: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

3 The part of the building to which the application relates shall be used as a voluntary book sales/exchange store and visitors information centre and for no other purpose (including any other purpose in Class A1 of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended) (or in any provisions equivalent to that class in any statutory instrument revoking or re-enacting that Order with or without modification).

REASON: The proposed use is  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16.

Public Participation

Mr John Kirkman, neighbour, spoke in objection to the application

Mr Peter Crozier, agent, spoke in support of the application

Mr Peter Crofton-Atkins, on behalf of the applicant, spoke in support of the application

Mr Roger Hicklin, on behalf of CRPE, spoke as a consultee in objection to the application

RuaridhO’Donoghue, Senior Planning Officer, introduced the report which outlined the application for the demolition of the existing bungalow; the erection of a replacement dwelling with associated garaging, turning, landscaping, private amenity space; and the creation of a new vehicular access. The officer explained that this was a resubmission of a previous application (ref: 15/12652/FUL). Four late submissions had been received in response to the consultation process.

The officer recommended that the application be refused for the reasons set out in the report. Key issues were stated to include: the principle of a new dwelling in relation to Core Policy HC25; the scale of the development and its resulting impact on the rural character and landscape of the area; and its bulk, height and general appearance. The officer reported that there were no exceptional circumstances that would outweigh the detrimental impact the proposal would have on its surroundings.

Members of the Committee were invited to ask technical questions of the officer. In response to queries, a comparison was provided between the existing and proposed dwellings (in terms of percentage increase in floorspace) including the first floor.

Members of the public were then invited to speak as detailed above.

In response to comments raised during public participation, the planning officer clarified that the height and bulk of the building should be considered alongside the percentage increase in floorspace; and that the useable space for dwellings was more applicable to commercial properties.

Cllr Connolly, seconded by Cllr Dobson, moved that the application be refused for the reasons presented in the officer’s report.

In the debate that followed, the following points were made: that in comparison to the existing building, the proposed dwelling was much larger in terms of both bulk and height; that the building was well designed but inappropriate for the proposed location; and that the replacement of the bungalow would be beneficial but that this proposal would not be a suitable replacement.

At the conclusion of debate, it was,

Resolved:

To refuse planning permission for the following reasons:

1) The scale of the replacement dwelling and garage is significantly larger than the original structure. As such, it does not comply with the terms of saved Policy HC25 of the Kennet Local Plan listed in Annex D of the Wiltshire Core Strategy 2015.

2) By reason of its height, size, scale and positioning in the open landscape the proposed dwelling would have a detrimental impact upon the landscape character and scenic quality of the area and the North Wessex Downs AONB. There are no material circumstances sufficient to justify approval against conflict with Core Policies 51 and 57 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 17.

Public Participation

Mr Robert Hall, resident, spoke in objection to the application.

Ms Joanna Webster, resident, spoke in objection to the application.

Mr Eric Webster, resident, spoke in objection to the application.

Mr Richard Daniel, applicant, spoke in support of the application.

Mrs Judith Daniel, applicant, spoke in support of the application.

The Development Management Team Leader, Karen Guest, introduced the report which outlined the application for the erection of a shed within the rear garden of a cottage located within the Ramsbury Conservation Area. The officer then read out a late submission to the consultation process.

The officer recommended that the application be approved for the reasons set out in the report. Key issues were stated to include the impact on the character and appearance of the conservation area and the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB); and the impact on residential amenity. It was highlighted that the proposed development would be taller than a typical shed but that this did not necessarily equate to harm since it would not be readily viewable from public areas. It was also highlighted that the neighbours’ outlook would change as a result of the proposal but that it would not result in a loss of amenity.

Members of the Committee were invited to ask technical questions of the officer. In response to queries it was confirmed that the development would most likely take up 53% of the applicants’ garden; and that the height of the development from ground level would be 3.8m.

Members of the public were then invited to speak as detailed above.

In response to points raised during public participation, the officer reminded members to consider whether the application would be likely to cause harm to the character and appearance of the conservation area; that outbuildings could be used for ancillary purposes without the need for planning permission; that the building would be predominantly built from concrete but would be timber clad; and that it would include a skylight and two entry points.

Cllr Stewart Dobson, seconded by Cllr Paul Oatway, moved that the application be refused because the proposal would not preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area due to its excessive size.

In the debate that followed, the key issues discussed included: the size and design of the proposal; its impact on the conservation area; and its impact on the amenities of the occupiers of surrounding properties. The use of the building was questioned, given its size, which was felt to be disproportionately large for its purpose.

Concerns were expressed that constructing such a building in the proposed location would be harmful to the character and appearance of the conservation area, as it would take up a significant amount of the rear garden and would be much taller than a standard shed and other typical outbuildings and structures in the vicinity. It was identified that the level of harm to the conservation area would be ‘less then substantial’.

At  ...  view the full minutes text for item 18.

Any other items of business which, in the opinion of the Chairman, should be taken as a matter of urgency 

There were no urgent items