Browse

Agenda and minutes

Venue: Wessex Room, Corn Exchange, Market Place, Devizes SN10 1HS

Contact: Tara Shannon  Democratic Services Officer

Items
No. Item

1.

Apologies

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

Minutes:

Apologies were received from Cllr Nick Fogg MBE.

 

 

2.

Minutes of the Previous Meeting

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 29 November 2018.

 

Supporting documents:

Minutes:

The minutes of the meeting held on 29 November 2018 were presented for consideration, and it was:

 

Resolved:

 

To approve and sign as a true and correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 29 November 2018.

 

3.

Declarations of Interest

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

Minutes:

There were no declarations of interest.

 

4.

Chairman's Announcements

To receive any announcements through the Chair.

Minutes:

The Chairman announced that as there was a yellow weather warning in force and as snow was forecast we would keep an eye on the weather. If necessary he would cancel the meeting so that people could get home safely.

 

5.

Public Participation

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 2.50pm 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 24 January 2019 in order to be guaranteed of a written response. In order to receive a verbal response questions must be submitted no later than 5pm on28 January 2019. 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.

 

Minutes:

The rules on public participation were noted.

 

6.

Planning Appeals and Updates

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

Supporting documents:

Minutes:

The report on completed and pending appeals was presented for consideration.

 

Resolved:

 

To note the updates.

 

7.

Planning Applications

To consider and determine the following planning applications.

Supporting documents:

Minutes:

The following planning applications were considered.

 

8.

18/07283/FUL - Land at St Marys Close, Potterne, Wiltshire - APPLICATION WITHDRAWN

Demolition of garage blocks and erection of a pair of semi-detached dwellings along with the provision of new parking spaces.

 

Supporting documents:

Minutes:

The Chairman announced that application 18/07283/FUL, Land at St Marys Close, Potterne, Wiltshire, had been withdrawn by the applicant after publication of the agenda.

 

9.

18/06977/FUL - Land at Uphill, Friars lane, Urchfont, SN10 4SA

Erection of 8 Dwellings together with Associated Works.

 

Supporting documents:

Minutes:

Public Participation

Mr Malcolm Smith, spoke in objection to the application

Mr Jim Stevenson, spoke in objection to the application.

Ms Nicola Sage, spoke in objection to the application.

Ms Jenny Holt, spoke in support of the application.

Mr Kieren Dobie, Agent, spoke in support of the application.

Mr Richard Cosker, Design Team, spoke in support of the application.

Cllr Trevor Hill of Urchfont Parish Council spoke in objection to the application.

 

Senior Conservation/Planning Officer Morgan Jones, introduced a report which recommended that the application for the erection of 8 dwellings together with associated works be granted subject to conditions and a section 106 legal agreement.

 

The application had been amended to reduce the number of dwellings from nine to eight. These dwellings would be served by a single point of access at the south-west corner of the site onto Friars Lane. Two of the eight dwellings would be affordable housing. This figure met the requirement of policy H3 of the Urchfont, Wedhampton and Lydeway Neighbourhood Plan (UWLNP) which required 30% of the development to be affordable housing. It was noted that there had been a mistake in section 8.92 of the agenda report, where it should read 2 affordable homes rather than 3.

 

Key details were stated to include the following:

 

Highway safety had been raised as an issue. However, the Highways Authority were happy with the layout of the development. The plans had been amended to include a footpath at the front of the scheme, so one of the issues raised by the parish council had been addressed.  However the parish council were also concerned about increased vehicle movements and their effect in particular on Crooks Lane and the access to the B3098. The Highways Authority recognised that Crooks Lane  was narrow in places, but felt that it was sufficient to cope with a development of the proposed scale. Landscape impact was also considered an issue by objectors.

 

The development was considered to be of an appropriate design and layout and to meet the need for affordable housing identified in the UWLNP on this allocated site.

 

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer. In response to a question regarding whether the proposed estate road would be adopted by Wiltshire Council, the officer stated that the Highways Authority would not be looking to adopt this road. However, if the application were to be approved, the section 106 legal agreement would secure a scheme for the management and ownership of the estate road. In response to a question regarding protecting significant parcels of agricultural land the officer explained that as this site had been allocated for residential development in the UWLNP, these issues would have been looked at during the allocation process.

 

Members of the public then had the opportunity to present their views to the

committee as detailed above.

 

The unitary division member, Cllr Philip Whitehead, spoke in objection to the application. Cllr Whitehead explained that the main reason  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

10.

18/10309/FUL - Old Manor Farm Yard, Old Manor Farm, Chandlers Lane, Bishops Cannings, SN10 2JZ

Demolition of agricultural buildings and erection of two detached dwellings and associated works.

 

Supporting documents:

Minutes:

Public Participation

Mr Richard Cosker, RCC Town Planning, spoke in support of the application.

Mr Anthony Heath, Architect, spoke in support of the application.

Mr James Robson, spoke in support of the application.

 

Senior Conservation/Planning Officer Morgan Jones, introduced a report which recommended that the application for the demolition of agricultural buildings and erection of two detached dwellings and associated works be refused.

 

Attention was drawn to two late representations, one from Bishops Cannings Parish Council who stated they had no objection to the application and a third party letter of support for the application.

 

Plans and photographs were shown to the meeting and key details were stated to include the following:

 

The site was comprised of former agricultural buildings associated with Old Manor Farm. The Old Manor Farmhouse itself, which was Grade II Listed, lies to the south of the site and was within the applicant’s ownership. The Farmhouse had been damaged by fire but planning permission and listed consent had been granted for all of the dwelling to be rebuilt. The whole site lies within the Bishops Cannings Conservation Area and the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

 

Key issues for consideration were stated to be the principle of development; design and impact on heritage assets & landscape character; ecological impact; and the impact on highway safety.

 

The Wiltshire Core Strategy (WCS) and Devizes Area Neighbourhood Plan (DANP) classed Bishops Cannings as a small village. Therefore it did not have a defined ‘limits of development’. However, ‘infill’ was allowed if it met the housing needs of the settlement. Infill was defined as ‘the filling of a small gap within the village that it is only large enough for not more than a few dwellings, or generally only one dwelling’. The site was on the periphery of the village and therefore the planning officer felt that it would not represent infill. This was one of the reasons the application was recommended for refusal.

 

It was stated that the conservation officer felt that the proportions of dwelling 1 were too large. As it was close to the Grade II listed farm house it would compete visually with it, rather than appearing as a subservient ancillary building. It was also stated that the overall scheme would harm the setting of the listed building and the character and appearance of the conservation area. This was another reason that the application was recommended for refusal.

 

Members of the public then had the opportunity to present their views to the

committee as detailed above.

 

The unitary division member, Cllr Philip Whitehead, spoke in support of the application. Cllr Whitehead felt that this site was central in the village and therefore the new dwellings would represent infill. The current agricultural buildings were ugly and deteriorating in condition, causing a blight on the village. The applicants had stuck to the pre-application advice on the design of the dwellings and therefore felt it was upsetting that the conservation officer had not chosen to support the application.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

11.

18/08304/FUL - Garage site adjacent 22 Saxon Rise, Collingbourne Ducis, SN8 3HQ

Demolition of garages and erection of two dwellings and associated works.

 

Supporting documents:

Minutes:

Public Participation

Ms Rachel Steer, RCC Town Planning, spoke in support of the application.

 

Senior Planning Officer, Morgan Jones, introduced a report which recommended that the application for the demolition of garages and erection of two dwellings and associated works be granted subject to conditions and the completion of a S106 legal agreement to secure off site public open space contributions.

 

Attention was drawn to updated comments from the Highways Officer. The report had stated that there would be a net loss of a car parking space. However, it was clarified that there would in fact be a net gain of 2 car parking spaces. Therefore, the Highways Officer was happy with the number of parking spaces being provided. It was also noted that parking provision could be withdrawn at any time by the applicant, Aster Group, as it was private land.

 

Key details were stated to include the following:

 

The application proposed the demolition of an existing garage block and the redevelopment of the site with a pair of semi-detached dwellings. The site was within the village of Collingbourne Ducis, which was defined as a large village. The site was within the defined ‘limits of development’ and the design and scale were deemed acceptable. There was limited impact on neighbour amenity. The main issues with the proposal were parking and the loss of green space/recreational land.

 

There would be a loss of a small amount of grass verge which was deemed public open space. This loss would be recompensed by a financial contribution via a section 106 legal agreement.

 

Members asked for clarification regarding the parking situation. In response the officer stated that the site currently had 10 open air parking spaces and 6 garages. However, only 3 of the garages were in use, hence the requirement to provide 13 new parking spaces. The 3 garage users had been offered garages in a nearby block. The application provided 12 open air parking spaces, which brought the total of spaces to 15, resulting in the net gain of 2 parking spaces.

 

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

 

The unitary division member, Cllr Ian Blair-Pilling, spoke in objection to the application. Cllr Blair-Pilling had called the application in as he was aware there was strong feeling within the community currently living in Aster Group homes regarding parking spaces. Therefore he felt that the matter should be aired publically. Although it was noted that the number of parking spaces provided had changed.  

 

Cllr Mark Connolly proposed a motion that the application should be granted with conditions and the completion of a S106 legal agreement to secure off site public open space contributions, as recommended by the Planning Officer. The proposal was seconded by Cllr Paul Oatway, QPM.

 

A debate followed where the following issues were discussed:

 

Some members stated that whilst the application met with policy, they were not sure that it met the needs of the community.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

12.

18/09811/FUL - Stables Cottage, Lower Chute, SP11 9DX

Demolition of Stables Cottage and the erection of two dwellings with access and parking.

 

Supporting documents:

Minutes:

Public Participation

Mr John Pead,  spoke in objection to the application

Ms Ann Rudland,  spoke in objection to the application.

Ms Annie Griffiths, spoke in objection to the application.

Ms Stella Coulthurst, applicant, spoke in support of the application.

Mr Aaron Smithm Agent, spoke in support of the application.

Cllr Jim Haines of Chute Parish Council spoke in objection to the application.

Cllr Sue Stock of Chute Forest Parish Council spoke in objection to the application.

 

Development Management Team Leader, Karen Guest, introduced a report which recommended that the application for the demolition of Stables Cottage and the erection of two dwellings with access and parking be granted subject to conditions.

 

Attention was drawn to an error in paragraph 2 of the officer report, which stated that Collingbourne Ducis Parish Council had objected. In fact, it was Chute Parish Council and Chute Forest Parish Council who had objected. It was also noted that at the request of third parties, councillors had been provided with a full copy of the wording of Wiltshire Core Strategy policy CP2 (Delivery Strategy), as this had not been copied out in full in the officer report. In particular, attention was drawn to the section on Outside the Defined Limits of Development and the criteria that sets out when infill development would be acceptable in small villages.

 

Key details were stated to include the following:

 

The site was situated in the main built-up parameters of the village of Lower Chute, which was defined as a Small Village by Wiltshire Core Strategy policies CP1, CP2 and CP26. The site was situated within the Chute Cadley/Lower Chute Conservation Area. Whilst there were listed buildings in the vicinity of the site, none were situated immediately adjacent to or on the site. The site was also within the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). The application proposed the demolition of the existing bungalow on the site and it’s replacement with two new one-and-a-half storey dwellings.

 

It was stated that the principle of development was acceptable and would constitute ‘infill’. No objections had been raised by the conservation officer. It was stated that the application would not cause significant harm to neighbour amenity or highway safety, and that the ecologist had confirmed that the application would not cause harm to protected species. 

 

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

 

The unitary division member, Cllr Blair-Pilling, spoke in objection to the application. Cllr Blair-Pilling stated that he had called the application in due to strength of public opinion against it in the local community. Once again the principle of infill development was the crux of the matter. It seemed that there was a degree of interpretation involved in determining whether a development was infill as defined in WCS CP2 and different people came to different conclusions.

 

Cllr Mark Connolly proposed a motion that the application be granted with conditions as per the officer recommendation.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.

13.

18/08874/FUL - Hawthorn Farm, The Street, Marden, SN10 3RQ

Demolition of existing buildings in mixed use and construction of single detached family dwelling.

 

Supporting documents:

Minutes:

Public Participation

 

Ms Kate Fielden from the Campaign to Protect Rural England,  spoke in objection to the application

Mr Richard Cosker from RCC Town Planning, spoke in support of the application.

Ms Sandra Lovell, Architect, spoke in support of the application.

Mr James Purves, Applicant,  spoke in support of the application.

Cllr Julia Lloyd-Hughes of Marden Parish Council spoke in support of the application.

 

The Planning Officer Nick Clark, introduced a report which recommended that the application for the demolition of existing buildings in mixed-use and the construction of a single detached family dwelling be refused.

 

The officer read the definition of ‘infill’ to the committee as it was pertinent to the application. The definition stated that infill was ‘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 development must also be within the built area of the village.

 

Key details were stated to include the following:

 

The site was not within the recognised Limits of Development of the village, was outside of the built area of the village and was not within a small gap. Therefore it could not be considered ‘infill’. As such it would be contrary to WCS CP1, CP2 and Core Policy 18 of the Pewsey Community Area Strategy.

 

Consultation responses were summarised by the officer. There had been 10 letters of support from local residents and the parish council supported the application. The Conservation Officer, the Campaign to Protect Rural England and 5 local residents had objected to the application.

 

The officer stated that a redevelopment of the site that reflected the agricultural nature of the site and the character of the village may potentially be considered favourably. However, it was felt that the proposal was of excessive size and scale and that the Georgian design would be out of keeping. As such, it did not meet the requirement of WCS CP57 and CP58.

 

Therefore it was stated that the application was contrary to policy and as such it was recommended for refusal.

 

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

 

The unitary division member, Cllr Paul Oatway, spoke in support of the application. Cllr Oatway thanked members for visiting the site. He stated that Hawthorn Farm was derelict, it would never farm again and the current buildings were an eyesore. The applicants were not developers but were active members of the village community who would live in the proposed dwelling. There was a unique mix of buildings in the vicinity of the site and it was not felt that the application would stand out. In fact the high quality design of the dwelling would meet with CP57.

 

Cllr Paul Oatway, QPM, proposed a motion to approve planning permission with conditions (against officer recommendation), with the final wording of the conditions delegated to officers. This was seconded by Cllr Stewart Dobson.

 

A debate followed where the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13.

14.

18/10206/FUL - Harestone House, Church Lane, East Kennett, SN8 4EY

Proposed development of four dwellings, and the extension and alterations to the existing property known as Harestone House, with associated change of use of equine yard, removal of modern barn & stables, and the introduction of car parking and WC facilities for church visitors.

 

Supporting documents:

Minutes:

Public Participation

Mr Graham Kitchen, Warden of East Kennett Church, spoke in support of the application.

Mr Howard Waters, Agent, spoke in support of the application.

Cllr Leslie Jenkinson of East Kennett Parish Council spoke in support of the application providing the redevelopment was sensitive.

 

The Planning Officer Ruaridh O’Donoghue, introduced a report which recommended that the application for the proposed development of four dwellings, and the extension and alterations to the existing property known as Harestone House, with associated change of use of equine yard, removal of modern barn & stables, and the introduction of car parking and WC facilities for church visitors be refused.

 

Key details were stated to include the following:

 

East Kennett was a small village and as such was only suitable for ‘infill’ development. There were no listed buildings on the site however there was a mix of buildings, from modern stable blocks to historic buildings like Harestone House that could be considered to be significant unlisted buildings. The site was currently being unofficially used as a builders storage yard which was unsightly. The site was adjacent to the grade II listed building Christ Church. The site was within the Avebury World Heritage site and the AONB.

 

The proposal included 4 new dwellings and a large extension to Harestone House. As well as a change of use from an equine yard, the removal of modern stables and the introduction of toilet facilities for the church. All dwellings would utilise the shared access off Church Lane. The courtyard would also provide a parking area for the church, consisting of 10 parking spaces and a small footpath through to the church.

 

The officer stated that the harms of the scheme included the following. It could not be considered infill development as it was on the edge of the village (not the filling of a small gap) and was more than a few dwellings, and would therefore be contrary to WCS CP1 and CP2. The design was not deemed to meet the high standards required by CP57 of the WCS. It was also felt that the high density urban nature of the development would not preserve or enhance landscape character and therefore conflicted with WCS CP51.

 

However, it was noted that the scheme did have benefits. These were stated to include the dedicated parking for the church, which would reduce parking problems on Church Lane and the public benefit to the village of the proposed WC’s. There was also a benefit to removing the current buildings on the site.

 

On balance the officer stated that it was not felt that the benefits outweighed the harm and therefore the scheme was recommended for refusal.

 

Members of the public then had the opportunity to present their views to the

committee as detailed above.

 

The unitary division member, Cllr Jane Davies, spoke in support of the application. Cllr Davies stated that East Kennett was a small, vulnerable village that had no community facilities. The neighbouring church and the majority of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 14.

15.

Urgent items

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

 

Minutes:

There were no urgent items.