Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

Apologies were received from:

·       Cllr Nick Errington

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on Thursday 3 February 2022.

The minutes of the meeting held on 3 February 2022 were presented.

Resolved:

To approve as a correct record and sign the minutes.

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

Declarations of interest were received from:

Cllr Rich Rogers, who declared a non-pecuniary interest in agenda item 7a, PL/2021/08473, 1 Bourne View, Allington, SP4 0AA as he knew the owner of the site. Cllr Rogers declared that knowing the applicant did not prejudice his view and that he would keep an open mind while he debated and voted on the item.

For transparency, Cllr Nabil Najjar declared an interest in agenda items 7b and 7c, due to him being the portfolio holder for Arts, Heritage and Tourism. This was a non-pecuniary interest and therefore Cllr Najjar declared he would keep an open mind while he debated and voted on the items.

To receive any announcements through the Chair.

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 29 March 2021.

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 wishing to make statements would be expected to attend the 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 Thursday 24 March 2022,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 28 March 2022.

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.

To receive details of completed and pending appeals and other updates as appropriate for the period of 21/01/2022 to 25/03/2022.

The committee received details of the appeal decisions as detailed in the agenda.

To consider and determine planning applications in the attached schedule.

The Committee considered the following planning applications.

Erection of single 2-storey 3 bed dwelling (Outline with some matters reserved)

Public Participation

Peter Banks spoke in objection to the application.

Jonathan Ross spoke in support of the application.

Richard Hughes (Development Management Team Leader, South) presented a report which recommended that planning permission be approved with conditions for the erection of a single 2-storey 3 bed dwelling (outline with some matters reserved).

Key details were stated to include the principle of development, character of the area, residential amenity, highways issues, trees and ecology.

The officer ran through the slides as published in agenda supplement 1, which included maps showing the site, proposed site plans, indicative elevations and floorplans, and pictures of the proposed site. The officer explained that the road to the site was owned by Wiltshire Council but was not an adopted road. The road to the site was narrow. There was a parking area next to the site which local residents used. The proposal included 2 parking spaces.

Members of the committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer. In response the officer explained where within the site the dwelling was located, which was towards the access and car parking area, with the end elevation parallel to the A338. The officer stated that he believed the neighbouring parking area was owned by Wiltshire Council. In response to further questions, it was stated that the dwelling was not large, but average for a modern house and that its proposed location was about a metre away from the bank along the A338. 

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

The unitary division member, Cllr Rich Rogers, spoke in objection to the application. Cllr Rogers stated that there was a lack of clarity regarding the shared access, the access road in the close was very narrow, there was already a lack of parking in the area which would be exacerbated by the development. He explained that Wiltshire Council had previously contacted residents regarding double parking in the narrow access road, a problem he felt that had arisen due to the lack of available parking. Cllr Rogers highlighted visual impact as an issue as the proposed dwelling would be prominent when viewed from the A338, which would alter the existing rural character of the area. He also stated that the proposed dwelling was too big for the site and that any future residents would be exposed to noise and pollution from the A338.

Cllr Rogers proposed a motion that the application be refused, against officer recommendation, for the same reasons the 2008 application had been refused. Including that the proposal was an overdevelopment of the site which would exacerbate existing parking and highway issues in the area, and have an adverse impact on residential amenity, and the general amenity of the rural area. This motion was seconded by Cllr Carbin.

During debate Members of the Committee expressed a variety of views, including that the location of the site meant that residents on the estate had to use cars as there  ...  view the full minutes text for item 70.

FUL & LBC applications for:

Proposed Extension of White Hart Hotel providing 22 No. new hotel bedrooms, relocation of back of house facilities infill of ground floor and façade changes to St Johns Street.

Public Participation

There were no public speakers on this item.

Richard Hughes, (Development Team Leader, South) presented a report which recommended that subject to confirmation from Wiltshire Council Ecology that the revised generic assessment had been agreed between the Council and Natural England, to approve, subject to conditions the proposed extension of White Hart Hotel providing 22 No. new hotel bedrooms, relocation of back of house facilities, infill of ground floor and façade changes to St Johns Street.

Attention was drawn to the following late observations; Wiltshire Council ecology had confirmed the phosphate matters as resolved, and the applicant had sent in a summary of issues that had been resolved as part of the planning process.

Key details were stated to include the principle of development, scale and design, impact on the historic environment/heritage assets, residential amenity, highway/transport considerations, drainage/flood risk and the impact on the River Avon Special Area of Conservation/Phosphates.

The officer presented in detail the slides as published in agenda supplement 1, which included photos of the site, the evolution of the hotel and surrounded listed buildings, plans of the previously refused scheme, plans of the extant permission (19/04857/FUL), plans of the originally submitted scheme, plans of the revised scheme, the extent of the proposed demolition, details of elevations, the relationship to adjacent properties and an overshadowing survey.

It was noted that there were 2 related applications for this item, a Full application and a Listed Building Consent application. There were many comments in the report relating to the original scheme which had now been radically changed. The wall along St. Ann’s Street had extant permission for 9 serviced apartments. The under croft would be affected by some minor works. The site was very close to neighbouring dwellings and the relationship to those was important. The glass link had been removed from the application due to Natural England objections. The proposal would mean that parking spaces in the car park would reduce from 68 spaces to 59 spaces. The overshadowing survey showed that there would  be some shadowing caused by the proposal, although the current hotel already caused overshadowing, so the proposal would have little effect.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer. Clarification was sought on the material to be used for the roof of the extension. The officer confirmed that the proposal was for a standing seam metal roof.

The unitary division member, Cllr Sven Hocking, spoke in objection to the application. Cllr Hocking highlighted that economic development, business and tourism were all important but that these had to be balanced against neighbouring properties amenity as he felt that there would be a negative affect on the neighbours. Cllr Hocking stated that the materials to be used, such as the metal roof and cladding were both issues as these did not fit with the surroundings.

Cllr Hocking therefore proposed that the applications be refused on the grounds of neighbour amenity and visual amenity. This was seconded by  ...  view the full minutes text for item 71.

FUL & LBC applications for:

The demolition of an existing two storey residential annexe and modern conservatory at Pond Close Cottage (Grade II Listed), and the creation of a new two storey guest annexe, connected to the existing cottage by a discrete, single storey link.

Public Participation

Mr Jonathan Manser (agent) spoke in support of the application.

Miss Patricia Maxwell-Arnot of Donhead St Andrew Parish Council spoke in objection to the application.

Richard Hughes (Development Management Team Leader, South) presented a report which recommended that subject to any further comments from WC Ecology, then planning permission should be approved subject to conditions for the demolition of an existing two storey residential annexe and modern conservatory at Pond Close Cottage (Grade II Listed), and the creation of a new two storey guest annexe, connected to the existing cottage by a discrete, single storey link.

The officer took the Committee through the slideshow detailing the location of the site, pictures of the site, views of the site from a public footpath and the proposed plans. It was explained that the site consisted of a grade II listed cottage, with a conservatory and an old farm building to the north of the main dwelling which had been converted to ancillary accommodation and used as an annexe for many years. The proposal included the removal of the conservatory from the main dwelling and the demolition of the 2 storey annexe, which would be replaced by a new 2 storey flat roofed annexe connected to the main dwelling by a glass link corridor. The new annexe was to be a contemporary building made with traditional materials It was highlighted that there were 2 applications for this item, the FUL application and the Listed Building Consent.    

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer. In response to questions the officer stated that the link from the annexe to the main dwelling was required, so that it was not a separate dwelling and that whilst this was an unusual application as the annexe was so large, it was not unique. The officer confirmed that Members could condition that the annexe was demolished prior to building work being commenced on the new annex in order to ensure a new dwelling was not created, however he highlighted that it would be very hard to build the new annexe without demolishing the current annexe as some of the footprint of the buildings was the same.

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

Cllr Brian Dalton read a statement on behalf of the unitary division member, Cllr Nick Errington, and spoke in objection to the application. It was highlighted that the statement was written prior to the publication of supplement 1. Cllr Errington had stated that he was aware of the concerns of Donhead St. Andrew Parish Council regarding the impact on the 17^th century building and the wider landscape and that he shared these concerns. The site was located within the Grade II Registered Park and Garden of Wardour Castle. The proposed annexe was modern, out of place and not the right design for the location. The site was also in a Dark Sky Park and there could be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 72.

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