Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

Apologies were received from:

·       Cllr Nick Fogg, MBE

·       Cllr Paul Oatway, QPM, who was substituted by Cllr Jerry Kunkler.

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 3 December 2020.

The minutes of the meeting held on 3 December 2020 were presented for consideration and it was;

Resolved:

To approve the minutes as a true and correct record.

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 Chairman explained the procedure should a recess be required.

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

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 5 January 2021 (one full clear working day before the meeting).

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.

Statements will be read out by those who have registered and provided a statement, in order of submission.

For further details on Public Participation, please see the Remote Planning Committee Procedure.

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 30 December 2020 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 4 January 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.

The Chairman detailed the procedure for the meeting and the procedures for public participation which were set out at item 5 of the agenda.

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

Resolved:

To note the report on completed and pending appeals.

To consider and determine the following planning applications.

The following planning applications were considered.

Conversion and change of use from former storage building to single dwelling.

Public Participation

Robert Hunt-Grubbe spoke in objection to the application.

Amy Towill (Applicant) spoke in support of the application.

Cllr Richard Clark of Potterne Parish Council spoke in objection to the application.

Morgan Jones, Senior Planning Officer presented a report which recommended that planning permission be refused for the conversion and change of use from former storage building to single dwelling.

The officer stated that the application related to a former agricultural building whose former use was a mixture of employment uses; B1 light industrial and former B8 storage uses. The application site lay in the countryside on the Northern side of Potterne. The site was accessed by a track, which was also a right of way, which ran from the A360.

It was explained that in regards to the planning policy context surrounding the application, the provision of a new build in this area would conflict with the settlement strategy in the development plan. The application sought to benefit from an exception policy of the Wiltshire Core Strategy (WCS), Core Policy 48 ‘Supporting Rural Life’. That policy provided support in principal for the conversion and re-use of rural buildings. This was subject to meeting the following set criteria:

i)               the building(s) is/are structurally sound and capable of conversion without major rebuilding, and with only necessary extension or modification which preserves the character of the original building; and

ii)              the use would not detract from the character or appearance of the landscape or settlement and would not be detrimental to the amenities of residential areas; and

iii)            the building can be served by adequate access and infrastructure; and

iv)            the site has reasonable access to local services; or

v)             the conversion or reuse of a heritage asset would lead to its viable long term safeguarding.

It was explained that the agenda report gave an assessment against the policy and criteria stated above. The officer felt the proposal conflicted with CP48, in particular point (i) above as the works were too substantial to be considered a conversion.

Slides showing photographs of the current building were shown to the meeting. The building was a timber framed building, with block work walls, timber cladding and a metal roof. The proposed plans, including floorplans and elevations were also shown to the meeting.

The proposed works included with the Structural Assessment provided by the applicant and as detailed in the agenda report were explained by the officer.

After further correspondence with the applicant after the report was published it was explained that the applicant had felt there were some misstatements within the report. It was highlighted that the applicant stated the block walls would be retained and the wood cladding present on the barn would simply be extended to ground level. No existing walls would be removed and only solid walls built to support and hold aluminium windows and doors. No extra support blockwork was required.

However, the officer stated that these clarifications did not affect the overall conclusion reached on the principal of development.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 61.

Conversion of existing agricultural building into a C3 residential dwelling, together with associated residential curtilage, parking and landscaping, including the demolition and removal of two existing open sided barns within the site (resubmission of 20/02786/FUL).

Public Participation

Mr Charlie Woodhead spoke in support of the application.

Morgan Jones, Senior Planning Officer presented a report which recommended that planning permission be refused for the conversion of an existing agricultural building into a C3 residential dwelling, together with associated residential curtilage, parking and landscaping, including the demolition and removal of two existing open sided barns within the site (resubmission of 20/02786/FUL).

Attention was drawn to some late items. Since publication of the agenda there had been a further 10 letters of support for the application. Two people who had previously objected to the application had updated their positions, one now supporting the application in principal with the caveat that there was no further development on the site and one supporting in principal, but not this particular proposal.

The officer explained that the site was among former agricultural buildings on the edge of a village, surrounded on three sides by open fields and was within the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).

Plans and evaluations were shown to the meeting. The current building was of steel frame construction with a mixture of corrugated metal and blockwork elevations.

It was stated that in regards to the planning policy context surrounding the application, the provision of a new build in this area would conflict with the settlement strategy in the development plan. The application sought to benefit from an exception policy of the Wiltshire Core Strategy (WCS), Core Policy 48 ‘Supporting Rural Life’. That policy provided support in principal for the conversion and re-use of rural buildings. This was subject to meeting the following set criteria:

i)               the building(s) is/are structurally sound and capable of conversion without major rebuilding, and with only necessary extension or modification which preserves the character of the original building; and

ii)              the use would not detract from the character or appearance of the landscape or settlement and would not be detrimental to the amenities of residential areas; and

iii)            the building can be served by adequate access and infrastructure; and

iv)            the site has reasonable access to local services; or

v)             the conversion or reuse of a heritage asset would lead to its viable long term safeguarding.

It was explained that the agenda report gave an assessment against the policy and criteria stated above.

Further slides were shown with proposed elevations and graphics of the proposal. The proposed conversion would see the removal of 1 bay, which was approximately 25% of the structure. Existing metal and blockwork elevations would be largely rebuilt, along with the roof. New windows and doors would be added. Comparisons of the building in its current form and a 3D image of the proposed dwelling were shown, highlighting the differences between the two.

It was explained that the submitted structural report had been based on a visual inspection which did not contain much detail. However, the costings submitted showed that the only part of the structure to remain was its steel frame, everything else would be new and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 62.

Any other items of business which, in the opinion of the Chairman, should be taken as a matter of urgency