Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

There were none.

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on

The minutes of the meeting held on 13 December 2018 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 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 by phone, email or in person no later than 2.50pm on the day of the meeting.

The rules on public participation in respect of planning applications are detailed 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 will have had the opportunity to make representations on the planning applications and to contact and lobby their local member and any other members of the planning committee prior to the meeting. Lobbying once the debate has started at the meeting is not permitted, including the circulation of new information, written or photographic which have not been verified by planning officers.

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 31 January 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 4 February. 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 consider and determine planning applications in the attached schedule.

New dwelling with integral garage for access

Public Participation

Elaine Hartford spoke on behalf of Alderbury Parish Council

The Senior Planning Officer, Warren Simmonds presented the application which was for a new dwelling with integral garage for access.

The Officer drew attention to late correspondence which had been circulated at the meeting. This detailed a representation of objection from S Stephens.

There were no consultee or Highways objections apart from drainage, which could be overcome with conditions. The Parish Council had objected.

The application was recommended for approval with conditions.

The Members had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the Officer, where it was clarified that the distance from Kiln Close Road to the base of the embankment was approximately 7 to 8m. The blue line denoted the land in ownership of the applicant, and the red line was the development site, and curtilage if approved.

The proposals include cutting into the embankment to approximately the half way point. The exposed section would be supported by a retaining wall. The excavation only related to what was necessary for the proposed building, the remaining embankment either side of the property would remain.

If there was a covenant in place over building on the land, that would be a private civil matter, not a material planning consideration either way.

The road was privately owned and the use of it was also be a private or civil matter.

Height of embankment, versus the building. I climbed on that yesterday, so any building above the embankment will be above the other houses – The ground level of the proposed hose is similar to the other houses around it. Similar height above ground level to other similar houses.

An ecological report was carried out in October 2018, which recorded a single site, and it was not believed there would be any impact. No signs of badgers. Dormice survey recommended.

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

Alderbury Parish Council had objected to the application on the basis that the proposals were out-keeping and did not sit comfortably in the plot. The property would overlook those opposite. The site was shown at risk on Environment Agency mapping. Kiln Close was private, maintained by residents and not suitable for heavy plant movement.

A covenant had been made in 2003 by the previous owner, that the land at the back of the 6 plots was only to be sold if all 6 agreed. The embankment was a haven for wildlife including the protected dormouse.

The Division Member Cllr Britton then spoke in objection of the application, noting that Kiln close was a small attractive development with modest sized properties. It was a pity that the covenant could not be taken into account.  This was a narrow and thin plot and the proposals included an uncomfortable erosion of the bank. Quite out-keeping with the size of the other properties of area and abuts straight on to the road.

The brick retaining wall to the rear of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

Variation of condition 2 of planning permission 18/00525/VAR to allow for amended design including insertion of window to west elevation and additional rooflight to bedroom 5 (18/10741/VAR)

Public Participation

Stephen Gledhill spoke on behalf of Coombe Bissett Parish Council

The Planning Officer, Joe Richardson presented the application which was for the variation of condition 2 of planning permission 18/00525/VAR to allow for amended design including insertion of window to west elevation and additional rooflight to bedroom 5 (18/10741/VAR).

The site had an extensive planning history which had seen the building evolve.

It was noted that a site visit had taken place earlier in the day.

The recent planning appeal decision was attached to the report at appendix 1, in which the Inspector had allowed the garage roof to be linked to the house.

It also mentions that it was appropriate that condition 2 of the planning condition should be treated as the starting point, with no need for the windows to be fixed shut, and questioned the Councils condition for obscure glazing.

There were no objections from Highways and no comments from the Conservation Officer.

The application was recommended for approval with conditions.

The Members had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the Officer, where he was asked how many retrospective applications the Council received were refused. The Officer did not have the answer to hand and would provide one to the Committee following the meeting.

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

Coombe Bissett Parish Council spoke in objection to the application. Asking the Committee to refuse the variation, due to the impact of the very large dwelling on the small patch of land and the loss of privacy.

He urged the Committee to take into context the history of the development and the previous refusals and the appeal decision.

The Parish Council felt that the unscrupulous developer had made a mockery of the planning system, noting that the development was now larger than the size of the original one refused. He asked that the development not be permitted to go ahead with film on the glass.

The Division Member Cllr Clewer then spoke on the application, noting that the previous decision could not be changed,  however this variation asks for 2 further windows which restrict the privacy of neighbours further, and had caused strong feeling in the community. He argued that it would increase the amount of overlooking, noting that retrospective planning applications were not helpful. Dealing with whether the neighbouring amenity is further damaged.

Cllr Hewitt then moved the motion of refusal against Officer recommendation, on the grounds of overlooking, with a condition for the windows to be properly obscured glass, and not film. Noting that the Committees original decision that this was far too big for the site was correct. This was seconded by Cllr Hocking.

A debate followed where they key issues raised included that the Planning Inspector had overturned previous refusals.

The site visit had been beneficial. The damage has been done with the volume of build on this site. There were a number of houses that were not much different to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

Conversion of existing bank to create 3 no. x 1 bed and 1 no. x 2 bed flats with parking.

Public Participation

Dan Wilden spoke in support of the application

John Jordan spoke on behalf of the Parish Council

The Senior Planning Officer, Warren Simmonds presented the application which was for Conversion of existing bank to create three 1 bed and one 2 bed flats with parking.

The building was not listed; however, it was next to a listed building, and it was in a conservation area.

As part of the development, a modern rear extension would be removed and replaced with a low wall to improve visibility.

A small outbuilding adjacent to parking space number 5, had an external door. It was confirmed that the allocation of space number 5 would be tied to the ownership of the outbuilding.

No third party representations had been received and there were no objections from the Conservation Officer.

In respect of the marketing and disposal of the building, Cllr Jeans had informed the Officer that it was his belief that this had not been carried out correctly.

The former use of the building as a bank was A2 use. Rural facilities that benefit rural communities should be retained for community use, how relevant that was, is a matter for debate.

The application was recommended for approval with conditions.

The Members had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the Officer, where it was clarified that the development allowed for one parking space for the double one-bedroom apartments.

Whilst Officers had been made aware that a representation had been made to Cllr Jeans, no representation had been submitted to the Planning Authority. As such it would have to be treated as unsubstantiated.

During marketing of the Bank, there had been an amount of interest, however this had not been commercial. And only for residential. The marketing process had been carried out.

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

Mere Town Council spoke on the application, noting that Mere was not a large town and there were not many employment opportunities so people did have cars. These apartments were all double bedroom, it was likely that 5 parking spaces would not be sufficient. The site was right in the centre of Mere, and the area was already completely burdened with vehicles. It would add to a big problem that was already present. If the bins were in the car park area it would cause issues on collection day. A development of just 2 apartments would have been better for this site.

The Division Member Cllr Jeans then spoke in objection of the application, noting that the applicant had stated that a marketing exercise was conducted. It states "Lloyds Bank in The Square, Mere closed for business on 24th September 2017.

A national agency, CBRE, were asked to market the site for the bank to dispose of it, and a brochure was circulated to more than 1000 agents and clients and also appeared online. This marketing process commenced on 25th September 2017. CBRE confirmed that they had  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

Extension and renovation of 1950's chalet bungalow to form a family home (Resubmission of 18/08676/FUL)

Public Participation

Ben Diffey spoke in support of the application

Den Taylor poke in support of the application

The Senior Planning Officer, Georgina Wright presented the application which was for Extension and renovation of 1950's chalet bungalow to form a family home (Resubmission of 18/08676/FUL). The application was recommended for refusal.

The proposed design was similar to the 2 storey neighbour on one side, but would be significantly larger in plan form, out of proportion and rendered, not brick.

There were no consultee objections.

The Members had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the Officer, where it was clarified that the difference in ridge height between the proposed development and the neighbouring property on the left was 0.25m.

The Officer explained that the application had been called to Committee as it had originally started in March 2017 with a pre-app, since then, it had been changed 5 times. These changes had altered the scheme significantly however, not enough to recommend approval. She noted that the applicant required a large development, and felt it would be better for the current scheme to be considered by Committee and if not approved for a new scheme to be produced.

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

The main points raised included that the proposed development was not as large as some other properties along the road, with numbers 130 and 124 of similar styles.

The Division Member Cllr Hewitt then spoke in support of the application, noting that the former owner of the bungalow was an elderly single resident, and now the property did not meet the needs of the new owners who had a modern family.

The development would allow for a family home which would be of a far superior appearance to what was currently there. There were no objections from the Parish Council or anyone else, and parking is provided.

Cllr Hewitt then moved the motion of approval against Officer recommendation. This was seconded by Cllr John Smale.

A debate followed where they key issues raised included that the plot was narrow, however there were no objections from neighbouring properties.

The current bungalow was the only property which had not been developed.  The extensions would leave very little of the existing house though so it was considered to be a replacement dwelling rather than extensions. Next door had set the precedent.

The development was large, however the plot was adequate enough for it. This house will accommodate people in later life as it is accessible throughout.

The Committee then voted on the motion of approval.

Resolved

That application 18/11534/FUL be Approved with conditions:

1.     WA1     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.     WM13 Thedevelopm  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

To receive details of completed and pending appeals and other updates as appropriate, for the period of 30/11/2018 to 25/01/2019.

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

Mike Wilmott, Head of Development Management, gave an update on the Five-Year Land Supply.

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