Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Dr Brian Mathew.

To approve as a true and correct record the minutes of the previous meeting held on 3 February 2021.

The minutes of the meeting held on 3 February 2021 were presented for consideration, and it was,

Resolved:

To approve and sign as a true and correct record of the minutes of the meeting held on 3 February 2021.

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

Councillor Nic Puntis declared an interest in Item 7b as he knew the landowner, however he clarified that he would approach the vote in a fair and openminded manner.

To receive any announcements through the Chair.

The Chairman made those in attendance aware of the Covid regulations that were in place for the meeting.

The Chairman proposed that the meeting would follow an order different to that previously published in the agenda. It was,

Resolved:

That the meeting would follow the following order of items; 7c, 7d, 7a and 7b.

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 Monday 16 August.

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 Wednesday 11 August 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 Friday 13 August.

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.

No questions had been received from councillors of members of the public.

The Chairman welcomed all present. He then explained the rules of public participation and the procedure to be followed at the meeting.

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

Clarity was sought regarding the applications which had received appeals against Non-Determination.

The Chairman moved that the Committee note the contents of the appeals report included within the agenda as Supplement One. It was,

Resolved:

To note the Planning Appeals Update Report for 18 August 2021.

To consider and determine the following planning applications.

To consider and determine the following planning applications:

Ground floor extensions to provide enlarged garage, conversion of existing bedrooms into new lounge and office. Installation of dormer windows to provide first floor accommodation with new staircases.

Public Participation

Dale Evans spoke in support of the application.

Cllr Richard Campbell spoke on behalf of Box Parish Council.

Development Management Team Leader, Simon Smith, presented a report which outlined ground floor extensions to provide enlarged garage, conversion

of existing bedrooms into new lounge and office. Installation of dormer windows to provide first floor accommodation with new staircases.

Details were provided of the site including the principle of development, impact upon heritage assets, design and scale, impact on residential amenity and impact upon landscape.

Members of the Committee had the opportunity to ask technical questions regarding the application. Details were sought on the additional height of the building if planning permission was to be granted as well as whether the property would be used for business purposes.

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

A debate then followed with the following issue being a central point of discussion. It was acknowledged that there are few houses in the area therefore the impacts on neighbours must be considered more than normal. It was also acknowledged that negotiation had taken place between the Agent and Planning Officers, with a revision having taken place in Condition 4.

A motion to move and accept the officer recommendation was moved by Councillor Trotman and seconded by Councillor Bucknell. Amendments were accepted to restrict further development by the withdrawal of permitted development rights and a further amendment to Condition 4 to only refer to a specific window.

At the conclusion of the debate, it was,

Resolved:

That Planning Permission and be GRANTED, 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:

Location, block plan and existing elevation – 010/2020/2A

Block Plan – 010/2020/12A

Proposed South West and North East elevation – 010/2020/10A

Proposed North and South elevation – 010/2020/11B

Proposed first floor plan – 010/2020/9A

Proposed ground floor plan – 010/2020/

Proposed sections – 010/2020/13

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

3 The reconstituted stone and clay tiles used for all new walls and roofs respectively shall match that of the existing building in material, colour, texture and method of laying.

REASON: In the interests of visual amenity and the character and appearance of the locality.

4 Before the additional accommodation hereby permitted is first occupied, all new first floor windows in the North and South elevations as well as the new first floor bedroom dormer window closest to the boundary with Reapers Cottage in the North-East elevation (all specified elevations as labelled on the submitted plans) shall all be glazed with obscure

glass only and to an  ...  view the full minutes text for item 65.

Retrospective Erection of summerhouse in rear garden.

Public Participation

Liz Matthews spoke in objection of the application.

Development Management Team Leader, Simon Smith, presented a report which outlined a retrospective erection of a summerhouse in the rear garden.

Details were provided of the site including the principle of development, impact upon heritage assets, design and scale, impact on residential amenity and impact upon landscape.

Members of the Committee had the opportunity to ask technical questions regarding the application. Details were sought on whether the application would have been approved had it initially been presented as proposed now. Additionally, whether it would be possible to ensure that if permitted that the slate could never be removed as well as whether Council Officers would be able to determine the wood colour used.

Additional details were also sought on what the enforcement process would be if the proposed works, if granted, had not been caried out within three months. Also, whether a Section 106 agreement could be used for positive engagement. The date of original construction was also questioned.

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

The local Unitary Member, Councillor Nick Botterill, was unable to attend the meeting, therefore Democratic Services Officer, Ben Fielding read out a statement regarding the application on his behalf

A debate then followed which centred on how the Committee believed that the summerhouse that had been constructed had breached Core Policies 57 and 58. Construction without permission as well as the impact upon the nearby Grade II* listed chapel were discussed as well as the potential removal of trees within a conservation area.

Additionally, the importance of enforcement was discussed by the Committee and how enforcement must take place. It was suggested that the Chairman discuss this with the relevant Cabinet Member.

A motion to move and accept the officer’s recommendation was moved by Councillor Tony Trotman, however no seconder was found, and the motion consequently fell.

A motion to refuse the officer’s recommendation to grant planning subject to conditions was moved by Councillor Steve Bucknell and seconded by Councillor Gavin Grant. The reasonings for refusal were cited as being Core Policies 57 (i), (iii), (vii) and 58, as well as the requirement of sections 12 and 16 to the NPPF.

At the conclusion of the debate, it was,

Resolved:

That planning permission be refused for the following reason:

By reason of its design, siting and exterior finish, the building is considered to be a poor and inappropriate form of development in this sensitive location inside of a Conservation Area and surrounded by listed buildings. In particular, the development is considered to adversely impact upon, and cause harm to, the setting of the Grade II listed “Woodlands” and Grade II* listed Baptist Chapel, both of which are in immediate proximity of the building. No public benefit identified to outweigh that impact and harm. Accordingly, the development would be contrary to the requirements of policies CP57 (i), (iii) and (vii) and CP58 to the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 66.

Two storey extension and internal alteration.

Public Participation

James Marshall spoke in support of the application.

Development Management Team Leader, Lee Burman and Senior Conservation Officer, Caroline Ridgwell presented a report which outlined a two-storey extension and internal alterations.

Details were provided of the site including the impact on heritage assets (Listed Buildings and Conservation Area), related development plan policy and national guidance compliance and the site

history.

Members of the Committee had the opportunity to ask technical questions regarding the application. Details were sought regarding the height of the roof in relation to the original plan.

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

The Local Unitary Member, Cllr Martin Smith, then spoke regarding the application acknowledging that the decision was dependant on the potential harm and benefits to the property.

A debate then followed which centred on the importance of preserving and protecting listed heritage buildings. The lack of public comment on the application was also acknowledged.

A motion to move and accept the proposal to refuse the application for Full Planning Permission was moved by Councillor Tony Trotman and seconded by Councillor Ashley O’Neill.

A motion to move and accept the proposal to refuse the application for Listed Building Consent was moved by Councillor Tony Trotman and seconded by Councillor Nic Puntis.

Resolved:

To refuse the application for Full Planning Permission for the following reason:

The development proposed by virtue of its scale, form, positioning and design character would result in harm to the significance and value of the Listed Building. The proposals are therefore in conflict with CP57 (i & iv) & CP58 (iii) Wiltshire Core Strategy (2015); and paragraphs 194,199, 200 & 202 National Planning Policy Framework (2021).

To refuse the application for Listed Building Consent for the following reason:

The works proposed would harm the significance of the heritage assets and their setting though loss of historic fabric, architectural detail and understanding of the building’s origin. There are less harmful ways to achieve improvements to the building. The works as shown would be contrary to section 16(2), 66(1) and 72(1) of The Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Area) Act 1990, the NPPF (paras 194,199, 200, 202 & 204 the BS7913, as well as CP58 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy.

Change of use of land from agriculture to equestrian. Erection ofagricultural storagebarn withincorporated equestrianrehabilitation area.Siting ofhorse walkerand rainwaterharvesting tankand creation ofhardstanding.

Public Participation

Ian Cain spoke in objection of the application.

Tony Kernon spoke in support of the application.

Development Management Team Leader, Lee Burman, presented a report which outlined Change of use of land from agriculture to equestrian. Erection of agricultural storage barn with incorporated equestrian rehabilitation area. Siting of horse walker and rainwater harvesting tank and creation of hardstanding.

Details were provided of the site including the principle of development, impact on heritage assets, impact on highways, impact on character and appearance of the locality, impact on residential amenities and impact on ecological interest.

Members of the Committee had the opportunity to ask technical questions regarding the application. Details were sought on whether ecology surveys had been completed and were up to date. Confirmation was provided that all necessary surveys had been completed including for newts, bats, protected species and hedgerows. Additionally, the designations of land for equestrian and agricultural use were questioned and queries were raised as to the agricultural permitted development rights which may apply to the wider landholding/site.

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

The Local Unitary Member, Councillor Chuck Berry, then spoke regarding the application, acknowledging the points made by both the applicant and main objector. Points made included the opportunity of using conditions to contain significant inconvenience to neighbouring properties as well as reference to the agricultural store.

A motion to move and accept the officer recommendation was moved by Councillor Howard Greenman and seconded by Councillor Gavin Grant. An amendment was accepted to add a condition to restrict the use of the use of the barn and horse walker for equestrian rehabilitation activities to only take place between the hours 09:00 in the morning and – 18:00 in the evening from Monday to Sunday and including Bank Holidays.

At the conclusion of the debate, it was,

Resolved:

That permission is GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

Conditions: (8)

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:

KCC2820/07 - Block plan

KCC2820/06 10/20se - Location plan

KCC2820/08 10/20se - Proposed storage/rehabilitation building: elevations and floor plan

KCC2820/09 10/20se - Proposed horse walker

KCC2820/10 01/21se - Proposed rainwater harvesting tank

Received 10/02/2021

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

3 The development hereby permitted shall only be operated solely on the basis of the approved full livery arrangements and at no time shall the site offer or provide for DIY livery services.

REASON: In the interests of highway safety.

4 The facilities hereby approved including the horse walker, horse spa and horse treadmill shall be for the sole use of horses accommodated  ...  view the full minutes text for item 68.

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.