Agenda item

Retrospective Erection of summerhouse in rear garden.

Public Participation

Liz Matthews spoke in objection of the application.

Development Management Team Leader, Simon Smith, presented a report which outlined a retrospective erection of a summerhouse in the rear garden.

Details were provided of the site including the principle of development, impact upon heritage assets, design and scale, impact on residential amenity and impact upon landscape.

Members of the Committee had the opportunity to ask technical questions regarding the application. Details were sought on whether the application would have been approved had it initially been presented as proposed now. Additionally, whether it would be possible to ensure that if permitted that the slate could never be removed as well as whether Council Officers would be able to determine the wood colour used.

Additional details were also sought on what the enforcement process would be if the proposed works, if granted, had not been caried out within three months. Also, whether a Section 106 agreement could be used for positive engagement. The date of original construction was also questioned.

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

The local Unitary Member, Councillor Nick Botterill, was unable to attend the meeting, therefore Democratic Services Officer, Ben Fielding read out a statement regarding the application on his behalf

A debate then followed which centred on how the Committee believed that the summerhouse that had been constructed had breached Core Policies 57 and 58. Construction without permission as well as the impact upon the nearby Grade II* listed chapel were discussed as well as the potential removal of trees within a conservation area.

Additionally, the importance of enforcement was discussed by the Committee and how enforcement must take place. It was suggested that the Chairman discuss this with the relevant Cabinet Member.

A motion to move and accept the officer’s recommendation was moved by Councillor Tony Trotman, however no seconder was found, and the motion consequently fell.

A motion to refuse the officer’s recommendation to grant planning subject to conditions was moved by Councillor Steve Bucknell and seconded by Councillor Gavin Grant. The reasonings for refusal were cited as being Core Policies 57 (i), (iii), (vii) and 58, as well as the requirement of sections 12 and 16 to the NPPF.

At the conclusion of the debate, it was,

Resolved:

That planning permission be refused for the following reason:

By reason of its design, siting and exterior finish, the building is considered to be a poor and inappropriate form of development in this sensitive location inside of a Conservation Area and surrounded by listed buildings. In particular, the development is considered to adversely impact upon, and cause harm to, the setting of the Grade II listed “Woodlands” and Grade II* listed Baptist Chapel, both of which are in immediate proximity of the building. No public benefit identified to outweigh that impact and harm. Accordingly, the development would be contrary to the requirements of policies CP57 (i), (iii) and (vii) and CP58 to the Wiltshire Strategy as well as the requirement of sections 12 and 16 to the NPPF.