Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

Apologies were received from:

Councillor Andrew Oliver (Chairman)

Councillor Charles McGrath

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on Thursday 12 September 2024.

The minutes of the meeting held on 12 September 2024 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 no declarations of interest.

To receive any announcements through the Chair.

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 no later than 10 minutes before the start of the meeting. If it is on the day of the meeting registration should be done in person.

The rules on public participation in respect of planning applications are linked to 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 and others will have had the opportunity to make representations on planning applications and other items on the agenda, and to contact and lobby their local elected member and any other members of the planning committee, prior to the meeting.

Those circulating such information prior to the meeting, written or photographic, are advised to also provide a copy to the case officer for the application or item, in order to officially log the material as a representation, which will be verbally summarised at the meeting by the relevant officer, not included within any officer slide presentation if one is made. Circulation of new information which has not been verified by planning officers or case officers is also not permitted during the meetings.

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 Thursday 10 October 2024, 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 14 October 2024. 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.

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

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

It was;

Resolved:

To note the report.

Demolition of existing barns and erection of new four bed residential home and detached car port/garden store.

Public Participation

Ms Lyndsay Boothman spoke in objection to the application

Ms Rebecca Rymer spoke in objection to the application

Mr Andrew Wass spoke in objection to the application

Mr Matthew Haley (agent) spoke in support

Mr Ken Bolan (Applicant) spoke in support

Cllr Amanda Brockway of Swallowcliffe Parish Council spoke in objection to the application.

The Planning Officer, Joe Richardson, introduced a report which recommended that the application for the demolition of existing barns and erection of new four bed residential home and detached car port/garden store,  be approved. Key details were stated to include the principle of development and impact upon neighbour amenity. 

Attention was drawn to additional correspondence which had been sent to members and officer by a third party.

The presentation included context to the flood zones, current access, the removal of buildings 5,8 and 10 as shown on the Wiltshire Building Record extract, previous planning permissions associated with the farmhouse, the site in relation to the neighbouring properties and the existing and proposed block plans.

Members of the committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer. Details were sought on the difference between the original footprint and the proposed, it was clarified that the proposed property was set back slightly, and the roof height would be higher in places.

The Council’s duty in relation to the Dark Skies Initiative was raised, with consideration to the need for reduced lighting on sites within the AONB.

In relation to evidence of flooding, there had been a historic photograph circulated by a third party which depicted an area of flooding at the site. The Officer clarified that no building works were proposed on flood zones 2 or 3, only in zone 1, and that there was no further evidence that suggested the site flooded.

The default use for the site was currently agricultural, part of the application was to change the use to residential.

Attention was drawn to the conditions recommended by the Highways Officer and the access which would be created by the removal of the Hosier building from the site. The Officer noted that a large increase in vehicular movement was not anticipated on the site.

Members of the public then had the opportunity to present their views to the committee as detailed above, with the Parish Council representative highlighting their objections, as set out in the report.

The Unitary Division Member, Councillor Nabil Najjar then spoke on the application, noting that he rarely called applications in to Committee for consideration, however due to the high level of objections received on the application and the objection of Swallowcliffe Parish Council, he felt that the weight of community concern justified a call in.

Cllr Najjar highlighted areas of concern which included the scale of the proposed development, noting that it was too large and not in keeping with the other nearby properties. He did not consider the development to be infill as it was set further back from the others and encroached on  ...  view the full minutes text for item 57.

Demolition of out buildings and erection of 1 self-build residential dwelling, access, parking, landscaping and associated works.

58             Public Participation

Nicholas Artiss (Applicant) spoke in support of the application

Charlotte Watkins (Agent)

The Planning Officer, Joe Richardson, introduced a report which recommended that the application for the Demolition of out buildings and erection of 1 self-build residential dwelling, access, parking, landscaping and associated works,  be refused. Key details were stated to include the principle of development and impact upon neighbour amenity. 

Members of the committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer. Details were sought on the flood zone areas, where it was noted the site was situated mainly in flood zone 2 and partially within flood zone 3.

Clarification was sought on whether there were any restrictions on roof lights due to the site being just inside the Cranbourne Chase.

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

The Chairman read a statement on behalf of the Unitary Division Member, Councillor Richard Clewer, as he was not in attendance.

The key issue and the reason for the call in, was the question of flooding.  Other potential issues appeared to have been resolved through statutory consultee responses.

At face value, flood zones would rule the application out, however, the land on which the house would be built was currently occupied by a tarmac tennis court, an impermeable surface.  The replacement of this with a house required a judgement call from a planning perspective, which he believed should be put to a committee to consider, in light of views from the applicant and officers. 

Lastly, he noted that the views of the Parish Council summed up the issue well and after consideration and discussion with the planning officer he felt there was enough nuance and balance of judgement for a committee to be best placed to make a decision.

Cllr Hocking moved the motion of Approval against officer recommendation. 

This was seconded by Councillor Nabil Najjar.

The Committee asked the case officer to read out suggested conditions which could be applied should the application be approved.

The Committee agreed to add an additional condition relating to external light pollution, with an informative around internal lighting.

A debate followed where issues relating to flood zone 3 were discussed. The Committee queried whether the development would result in pushing the flooding issue to another area. The Officer noted that the required sequential test would establish that, when carried out. 

In response to debate on roof lights, the Officer noted that if a different style of window was selected, such as dormer windows, that would raise different issues.

At the close of debate, the Committee voted on the motion of Approval, as detailed above, with the conditions and informative as stated by the Officer. 

It was,

Resolved:

That planning permission for application PL/2024/03325 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  ...  view the full minutes text for item 58.

Alterations and extension at first floor level.

Cllr Sam Charleston left the meeting

Public Participation

Ms T Barsby spoke in objection to the application

Mr Nigel Lilley (Agent) spoke in support of the application

The Planning Team Leader, Richard Hughes, introduced a report which recommended that the application for alterations and extension at first floor level be approved. Key details were stated to include the principle of development and impact upon neighbour amenity. 

Members of the committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer. Details were sought on whether there were any windows on the gable end of the neighbouring property, where it was confirmed, there were some windows which looked out on to a high hedge.

The Officer also confirmed that there was no footpath on the other side to the river.

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

The unitary division member, councillor Ricky Rogers then spoke on the application, noting that it was his view that the proposal amounted to overdevelopment of the site.

Cllr Rogers highlighted the concerns of neighbouring residents in Lower Road and Hadrian’s Close, who would be impacted by the development if approved, due to a change to the setting of the area.

It was further noted that there was enough ground around the existing dwelling to accommodate more rooms without building up another level.

Cllr Ricky Rogers then moved the motion of refusal on the grounds of CP57, impact on neighbouring properties and streetscene, overdevelopment and design.

This was seconded by Councillor Brian Dalton.

A debate followed where the Committee discussed the design of the proposed development and the impact to the character of the area, noting that a 3-storey structure would stick out above the other dwellings.

The development was considered to be over development of the site and of poor design.

At the close of debate, the Committee voted on the motion of refusal against officer recommendation, as detailed above.

It was,

Resolved:

That planning permission for PL/2024/05873 be Refused for the following reasons:

The proposal would add an additional floor to the existing split level dwelling, thus creating a three storey dwelling as seen from the side and rear, which would be visible from the adjacent housing area, which consists of more modest two storey dwellings. It is considered that the overall design and visual appearance of the resultant dwelling as enlarged would be unsympathetic to, and out of keeping with, the character of the surrounding area, contrary to the aims of policy CP57 of the adopted Wiltshire Core Strategy and associated adopted Wiltshire Design Guide.

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