Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

Apologies were received from:

·       Cllr Leo Randall

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held online, on 10 March 2021.

The minutes of the meeting held on 10 March 2021 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.

There were none.

To receive any announcements through the Chair.

The Chairman explained the meeting procedure to the members of the public.

As this was the penultimate meeting of the Committee before the elections in May, the Chairman took the opportunity to thank Officers and Members for their time and input over the last 30 years, whilst he had served as a Councillor on the Planning Committee.

The Council welcomes contributions from members of the public. During the

ongoing Covid-19 situation the Council is operating revised procedures and the public are able to participate in meetings online after registering with the officer named on this agenda, and in accordance with the deadlines below.

Guidance on how to participate in this meeting online

Watch the online meeting here: Link

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 30 March 2021.

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 (spaces allocated in order of registration), 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 Thursday 25 March 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 Monday 29 March 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.

To receive details of completed and pending appeals and other updates as appropriate for the period of 26/02/2020 to 19/03/2021.

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

The Chairman drew attention to the result of appeal on Burford Rd – was dismissed – restrictions on garden retained.

I intend to write personally to the enforcement team to ask that ….

Resolved:

That the Appeals report be noted.

To consider and determine planning applications in the attached schedule.

Proposed alterations to the built garage and walls at 20a Lode Hill (amendment to 19/ 10972/FUL)

Public Participation

Cllr Chris Hall spoke as representative of Downton PC

The Planning Team Leader, Richard Hughes gave a combined presentation for both applications 7a 20/09706/FUL and 7b 20/10508/LBC, as they related to the same development.

The applications were recommended for approval as set out in the report.

The main issues which had been considered to be material in the determination of this application were listed as, principle of development, impact on heritage assets and Highways.

Previous consent included permission for a wall and a garage at the rear of the property.

It was noted that the wall which was now in place was at a height of between 2.5 – 3m, which was slightly taller than the given consent.

Works would include partial removal of the wall height, the apex of the pitch roof would be truncated, the rear garage roof lights would be removed, and the garage door would be changed to two garage doors with a central pillar. The full list of proposed changes was detailed on slide 9 of the presentation.

Any amended plan references would need to be included in any conditions and inclusion of hard landscaping and reference to the removal of the roof lights.

With those changes Officers were recommending approval

Members of the Committee had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer, where it was clarified that the proposed wall would be all brick with cladding. There was a public pavement alongside the wall and the agent had stated that the brickwork would not lapse onto it.

Members of the public, as detailed above, then had the opportunity to speak on the application. The Parish Council representative stated objections, noting that the building works did not adhere to the plans.

The PC felt that the garage was unacceptably dominant, with the roof well over 1m higher than what was approved.

The site was on the gateway to the village and within a conservation area and that the drawings submitted by the applicant were misleading.

Local Member Cllr Richard Clewer then spoke in objection to the application, noting that the site was one of the entrances to the village, on a steep hill and that the road was narrow at that point, making what has been put in there overbearing. He noted that what was now proposed was an improvement, however it had not gone far enough to reduce to a scale of what would be appropriate for the village.

Cllr Westmoreland then moved a motion of approval in line with Officer recommendation. This was seconded by Cllr Hewitt.

The Committee was invited to discuss the application, the main points included whether the plans were accurate in light of the comments of the PC, where it was clarified that the existing plans were not correct at the time of submission and have been tweaked several times since and were now correct.

The removal of the roof lights and the surface and drainage of the vehicle space, due to there being scope  ...  view the full minutes text for item 124.

Proposed alterations to the built garage and walls at 20a Lode Hill (amendment to 19/11390/LBC)

The Committee noted the previous presentation.

The Chairman, Cllr Westmoreland then moved the motion of Approval in line with Officer recommendation. This was seconded by Cllr Hewitt.

The Committee confirmed they had heard and seen all relevant visual materials, and voted on the motion of approval in line with Officer recommendation.

It was:

Resolved:

that application 20/10508/LBC be approved, subject to the following conditions:

The Planning Team Leader, Richard Hughes gave a combined presentation for both applications 7a 20/09706/FUL and 7b 20/10508/LBC, as they related to the same development.

The applications were recommended for approval as set out in the report.

The main issues which had been considered to be material in the determination of this application were listed as, principle of development, impact on heritage assets and Highways.

Previous consent included permission for a wall and a garage at the rear of the property.

It was noted that the wall which was now in place was at a height of between 2.5 – 3m, which was slightly taller than the given consent.

Works would include partial removal of the wall height, the apex of the pitch roof would be truncated, the rear garage roof lights would be removed, and the garage door would be changed to two garage doors with a central pillar. The full list of proposed changes was detailed on slide 9 of the presentation.

Any amended plan references would need to be included in any conditions and inclusion of hard landscaping and reference to the removal of the roof lights.

With those changes Officers were recommending approval

Members of the Committee had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer, where it was clarified that the proposed wall would be all brick with cladding. There was a public pavement alongside the wall and the agent had stated that the brickwork would not lapse onto it.

Members of the public, as detailed above, then had the opportunity to speak on the application. The Parish Council representative stated objections, noting that the building works did not adhere to the plans.

The PC felt that the garage was unacceptably dominant, with the roof well over 1m higher than what was approved.

The site was on the gateway to the village and within a conservation area and that the drawings submitted by the applicant were misleading.

Local Member Cllr Richard Clewer then spoke in objection to the application, noting that the site was one of the entrances to the village, on a steep hill and that the road was narrow at that point, making what has been put in there overbearing. He noted that what was now  proposed was an improvement, however it had not gone far enough to reduce to a scale of what would be appropriate for the village.

Cllr Westmoreland then moved a motion of approval in line with Officer recommendation. This was seconded by Cllr Hewitt.

The Committee was invited to discuss the application, the main points included whether the plans were accurate in light  ...  view the full minutes text for item 125.

Curtilage alterations involving change of use of land from agriculture to residential and from residential to agriculture, terracing, landscaping and associated works (part retrospective).

It was noted by Cllr Jeans that due to a compulsory re-boot of his computer at this point, he would not take part in this agenda item, as would be off line for parts of it.

Public Participation

David Warder’s statement in objection to the application was read by the Clerk due to technical difficulties during the meeting.

Edward Donne spoke in objection to the application

Gerry O’Rourke statement in objection to the application was read by the Clerk due to technical difficulties during the meeting.

Dan Roycroft spoke in support of the application

Cllr Simon Welch spoke as representative of Ebbesbourne Wake PC

The Planning Officer, Christos Chrysanthou presented the application for curtilage alterations involving change of use of land from agriculture to residential and from residential to agriculture, terracing, landscaping and associated works (part retrospective).

The application was recommended for approval as set out in the report.

The main issues which had been considered to be material in the determination of this application were listed as, scale, design, bulk and general appearance in its visual impact on the surrounding area.

Site photographs taken from several surrounding points and directions were show and explained.

The site was in the rural surroundings of Ebbesbourne Wake, in an AONB, approximately 500m from the village.

The approved curtilage in 2000 was shown and explained, followed by the proposed curtilage. A woodland copse was to be provided either side.

The proposals aim to reduce the lawned area adjacent to the was driveway, to omit the stables and barn area to the south and to remove the top section of the terraces (from 3 to 2).

The plan also showed two existing gates on the byway alongside the site, however as these were outside of the application site, RoW had been consulted and had recommended a condition to make sure the byway was kept clear of obstruction. RoW could enforce this condition if considered expedient.  

Slide 31 showed the proposed adjusted terracing and sloped grass bank meadows

A landscaping scheme was proposed. With copses on east and west, helping to screen the site.

The Landscaping Officer had considered the proposals and was satisfied with the proposed species, noting a low impact on the AONB.

The Ecology Officer commented on the water meadow aspect. It was confirmed that the Water Meadow was not a designated ecology site. A condition was suggested to use native trees when planting.

Members of the Committee had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer, where it was clarified that the land surrounding the application site was also in the ownership of the applicant.

On the plan of 2000, the hatching on the west, indicated an area which was proposed to be included within the curtilage but had subsequently been removed from inclusion.

The house had some history and was not a new build. Some aspects had been

re-built with enlargements over the years.

Any condition on the gates on the byway could be enforceable by RoW.

Members of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 126.

Outline planning application to establish access only for agricultural dwelling at Cools Farm.

Public Participation

Brett Spiller (Agent) spoke in support of the application

John Dalton spoke in support of the application

Henry Rumbold spoke in support of the application

Cllr Noyle spoke as representative of West Tisbury PC

The Planning Officer Lynda King presented the Outline application with all matters reserved except for an established access only, for an agricultural dwelling at Cools Farm. The application was recommended for approval as set out in the report.

The main issues which had been considered to be material in the determination of this application were listed as, Principle, Character, Highway Safety, and Ecology.

The existing dwelling was a fairly significant listed building set in the open countryside in the AONB.

Slides 34 – 36 were shown and explained. They detailed the overall site layout, the proposed site of the new dwelling and proposed access.

There had been local concern regarding the use of the assess road from the proposed dwelling.

A speed survey had been carried out on the lane, however due to low traffic and narrow width of the lane there was not found to be a speeding issue here and no highway objection to the access in the proposed location.

It was noted that the report was in three parts firstly the request for an agricultural workers dwelling, whether there was a functional need for an additional dwelling on the site, and then the location of that dwelling. 

Current farm was 195 acres, farmed by existing farmer living in the main listed farm dwelling. They were an older couple who had no family wishing to take on the running of the farm.

Farm is an exemplar of how you would run an agricultural farm in this location.

They wish to take on a share-farming agreement which means that the farmer hands the farm over to an incoming farmer, whilst retains ownership of land and buildings and incoming farmer farms the land and there is a split of profits.

The current owner would maintain a part time role and remain on site in the main farmhouse with his wife.

The application had been submitted with details of the range of alternative sites which had been considered for the siting of the agricultural dwelling. The feasibility of each was explained during slides 38 – 45.

The agricultural consultant looked at the application and felt that there was a need for an additional farm worker on the site. A requirement of one full time and one part time. The shared farmer would provide the fulltime work and the current owner remain as a part time farmer. It was found that the farm was originally on the margins of viability, however since then following additional information it was deemed viable to have an additional farm worker on the site.

In terms of the need there was found to be a functional and financial need for a second dwelling on the site.

The next aspect was to consider whether the site identified within the application was suitable  ...  view the full minutes text for item 127.

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