Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

Apologies were received from:

·       Cllr Kelvin Nash and

·       Cllr Paul Oatway QPM, who was substituted by Cllr Jerry Kunkler.

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 7 January 2021.

The minutes of the meeting on 7 January 2021 were presented for consideration and it was

Resolved:

To approve and sign the minutes as a true and correct record.

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

Cllr Iain Wallis declared for the sake of openness and transparency a non-pecuniary interest in agenda item 8a, Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 - The Wiltshire Council Parish of Ogbourne St Andrew Path No. 38 Definitive Map and Statement Modification Order 2020. Cllr Iain Wallis stated that he worked for DEFRA and as such was ultimately responsible to the SoSERFA. However, he confirmed that he did not work in a department directly related to Rights of Way.

To receive any announcements through the Chair.

There were no Chairman’s announcements.

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

Mike Wilmott, Head of Development Management, gave an update on the appeals report contained within the agenda.

Mr Wilmott drew attention to two items which required corrections:

·       On page 17, application 19/09834/FUL, Clock House, Honeystreet, SN9 5PS. This was a Committee decision, the officer recommendation was to approve and the appeal decision was to allow.

·       On page 18, application 20/03969/FUL, The Isis, London Road, Devizes, SN10 2DS. The appeal decision was to dismiss.

Mr Wilmott stated that 14 of the 21 appeals were dismissed and three of the appeals that were allowed were due to Wiltshire Council currently being unable to demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites.

Cllr Philip Whitehead proposed that the committee note the report, this was seconded by Cllr Stuart Wheeler. It was

Resolved:

To note the appeals report for the period of 20/11/2020 and 02/07/2021.

To ensure COVID-19 public health guidance is adhered to, a capacity limit for public attendance at this meeting will be in place. You must contact the officer named on this agenda no later than 5pm on Tuesday 13 July if you wish to attend this meeting. Places will be allocated on a first come first served basis and all requests may not be accommodated if there is high demand.

Statements

Members of the public who wish to submit a statement in relation to an item on this agenda should submit this in writing to the officer named on this agenda no later than 5pm on Tuesday 13 July.

Submitted statements should:

·       State whom the statement is from (including if representing another person or organisation);

·       State clearly whether the statement is in objection to or support of the application;

·       Be readable aloud in approximately three minutes (for members of the public and statutory consultees) and in four minutes (for parish council representatives – 1 per parish council).

Up to three objectors and three supporters are normally allowed for each item on the agenda, plus statutory consultees and parish councils.

Those submitting statements would be expected to join the online meeting to read the statement themselves, or to provide a representative to read the statement on their behalf.

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 electronically to the officer named on the front of this agenda no later than 5pm on 8 July 2021 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 12 July 2021.

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 members prior to the meeting and made available at the meeting and on the Council’s website. Questions and answers will normally be taken as read at the meeting.

The Chairman detailed the procedure for the meeting and the procedures for public participation which were set out at item 6 of the agenda.

To consider and determine the following planning applications.

The following planning applications were considered.

PL/2021/04659 (planning permission) and PL/2021/05084 (listed building consent).

Demolition of outbuilding and erection of a single storey extension to the grade II listed Sharcott Manor.

Public Participation

Mrs Claire Lloyd, applicant, spoke in support of the application.

Mr James Lloyd spoke in support of the application.

Mr Nigel Keen, agent, spoke in support of the application.

Nick Clark, Senior Planning Officer presented a report which recommended that planning permission be refused for the demolition of an outbuilding and erection of a single storey extension to the grade II listed Sharcott Manor. (Planning permission and listed building consent).

Attention was drawn to a late objection which had been received. The objection and pictures sent in to accompany it had been circulated to all committee members and could be seen on the planning portal. It was clarified that the pictures were taken in 2017.

Key considerations were whether the demolition of the outbuilding would harm the heritage significance of the grade II listed Sharcott Manor and whether the replacement single storey extension would harm the heritage significance of the grade II listed Sharcott Manor.

The planning officer summarised the key legislative and policy issues that related to the applications. It was stated that for grade II listed buildings Wiltshire Council should have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historical interest which it possessed.

The officer summarised relevant paragraphs of the National Planning and Policy Framework (NPPF). Paragraphs 193, 194, 195 and 196 stated that great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation and that harm should not be caused to the asset. If harm (whether substantial or not) was to be caused, there should be clear justification for it and any harm should be outweighed by public benefit. 

Attention was also drawn to Wiltshire Core Strategy (WCS) Core Policies 57 and 58. Which in summary stated that proposals should protect, conserve and where possible enhance the historic environment and that proposals require a high quality of design.

Slides of the main building, its grounds and the outbuilding were shown to the meeting along with plans of the proposal. The outbuilding used to contain staff quarters and laundry facilities.

The officer stated that the outbuilding was in a poor state of repair and had long term maintenance issues which pre-dated the current ownership. Structural engineers employed by the applicants had concluded that the building was beyond economic repair. However, costings were not provided and the building was repairable.

The proposed extension had a similar footprint to the outbuilding but was connected to the main house and would be built using brick and rusty steel cladding with a green roof.

In regards to the two main considerations before the committee, the officer stated that demolition of the outbuilding would cause harm to the heritage significance of the grade II listed building, there was no public benefit to outweigh the harm caused and the proposal was contrary to local and national planning policies. The officer also stated that the proposed extension was not of a high quality design and would fail to conserve the significance  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

To consider the following Rights of Way item.

The following Rights of Way item was considered.

To consider the recommendation that the Order be forwarded to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (SoSEFRA) with a recommendation from Wiltshire Council that the Order be confirmed without modification.

Public Participation

Ms Susannah O’Brien, landowner, spoke in objection to the application

Mr Timothy O’Brien spoke in objection to the application.

Mr Alan Woodford spoke in support of the application. (Mr Woodfords statement was read by the Democratic Services Officer as Mr Woodford was isolating due to COVID-19).

Ms Carolyn Davis spoke in support of the application.

Mr Norman Beardsley, Wiltshire Bridleways Association, spoke in support of the application.

Cllr John Hetherington, Ogbourne St Andrews Parish Council spoke in support of the application.

Craig Harlow, Definitive Map Officer, Rights of Way & Countryside presented a report which recommended that the Order be forwarded to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (SoSEFRA) with a recommendation from Wiltshire Council that the Order be confirmed as made.

The officer explained that the Order had been made under Section 53 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to record a public bridleway in the parish of Ogbourne St Andrew.

Slides were shown to the meeting with photos and maps showing the route. The route formed a natural link between two existing rights of way and was requested by Ms Carolyn Davis. One of the photographs shown was of the entrance to the route from OSTA6 and showed that there was no gate present. The officer explained that a gate had been added after the Order was applied for.

Representations and objections were detailed by the officer as follows:

·       31 user evidence forms had been submitted claiming use of the route.

·       13 of those users claimed to use the route on horseback or bicycle.

·       26 users claimed to use the route on foot.

·       1 objection had been received from the affected landowner.

The key legislation was summarised by the officer, as detailed in the agenda report. It was highlighted that evidence was key to the process. There was evidence to show that the route had been used for over 20 years and it was important to note that the desirability, the environment, need, privacy concerns or health and safety were irrelevant for the application under section 53 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Only the evidence could be considered.

The officer explained that there was a conflict in the evidence provided by the landowner and the users of the route.

13 users claimed to have used the route on horseback or bicycle. The officer explained that there were no set number of users required for an order to be confirmed. The number of people using the route in this way seemed to be a reasonable expected use due to the rural nature of the route and the low population in the area. There was evidence to suggest that it had been used as a route for a full period of 20 years.

There was no evidence to suggest that during that period there had been no intention to dedicate the route as there was no evidence of signs being put up. The landowner stated that people using the route  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

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.