Agenda item

Carry out alterations to existing access, erect single storey dwelling and provision of parking to serve new and existing properties.

Public Participation

Mr Aspinall (Applicant) spoke in support of the application

Mr Carpendale (Agent) spoke in support of the application

Cllr Gerry Murray spoke on behalf of Tisbury PC

The Planning team Leader, Richard Hughes presented the application for permission to carry out alterations to existing access, erect a single storey dwelling and provision of parking to serve new and existing properties which was recommended for approval.

Supplement 2 to the agenda was noted, this contained the parish council comments and the Officer response.

Material planning concerns cited include:

·       Impact on surrounding properties

·       Impact on the historic wall and on the conservation area

·       Visual impact, height of the roof, lack of detail on materials, rainwater goods

·       Overdevelopment, loss of garden area, footprint too big for plot

·       Impact on amenity, loss of light, loss of privacy, overlooking, noise

·       Highway safety, parking

·       Structural stability of neighbouring properties, historical wall, party wall

·       Drainage, sewage disposal

·       Loss of tree

The presentation slides showed the proposed bungalow on part of the garden area of Cleveland House. It was noted that none of the surrounding properties were listed, and that several of them were at different levels to the proposed dwelling.

The proposed turning area was shown on the plans, but it was noted that it was not formally part of the application.

A selection of photos provided by Local Member Cllr Errington were also shown.

Members were then able to ask technical questions of the Officer where the position of the neighbouring property no.17 was clarified in relation to the proposed development.

The Officer explained that with regards to the boundary treatments, nothing had been shown on the submitted plan. There was no reference of a fence at all on the northern boundary, but there was in the south. The report included a condition on boundary treatments should the application be approved. The position of the proposed car parking below phoenix collage was also clarified.

Members of the public as detailed above, then had the opportunity to speak on the application.

Some points covered included that the applicant and his wife wished to downsize due to the mobility constraints of his wife, but remain on the site, in close proximity to their daughter who would remain living in Cleveland House with her young children.

A professional report was commissioned to assess two areas of concern, which were the rainwater run-off and the retaining wall. This had been used to adapt the plans to combat those areas of concern.

Cleveland houses garden was significantly larger than any other garden in the area, and if developed as proposed, the remaining garden space would still be larger than that of any of the 9 local properties.

Modifications had been made to the plans to address the feedback received from the parish council.

The Parish council objected to the application as it was felt to contradict the Tisbury Neighbourhood Plan.

Other points raised by the PC related to loss of amenity, failure to protect an ancient wall, the overbearing nature of the development in a Conservation area.

Local Member Cllr Errington spoke on the application noting that he had met with met applicant and all neighbours and had called in the application following the concerns of some members of the community and the PC.

Cllr Errington noted that the site was in a conservation area and clarified that the proposed bungalow would occupy 80% of the development area, not a third as the report had stated.

He went on to note that the footprint of the proposed bungalow was twice that of the neighbouring Phoenix cottage. The group of gardens here formed a horseshoe shape and suggested that the proposed bungalow may have an overbearing impact and dominate the area.

Similarities to a recent application in Winterbourne Dauntsey which had been refused, were noted.

Affecting the amenity of the neighbours and the effect on the conservation area.

Cllr Errington moved the motion of Refusal, against Officer recommendation based on the effect to the amenities and conservation area CP57 and CP58, the aim of protecting the historic environment with regards to scale and size would not be achieved. This was seconded by Cllr Carbin.

The Committee was invited to discuss the application, the main points included that the PC had objected to the application. The site was in a conservation area and felt like back yard development.

The historic wall which would be partially removed. 

In terms of the Winterbourne Dauntsey application, the Committee noted that each planning application had to be taken on its own merits rather than apply a blanket approach based on similarities.

The Tisbury Neighbourhood Plan which was a made document and the weight given to such when considering development.

The Committee then voted on the motion of Refusal, against Officer recommendation, for the reasons stated above.

Resolved:

That application 19/11282/FUL was Refused for the following reasons:

By virtue of the unsympathetic design, excessive massing and building height of the proposed dwelling and the loss of part of the stone boundary wall fronting the site, the development proposal represents a cramped form of development that is out of character with the area and would result in harm to the appearance and character of the conservation area and adversely impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties adjacent to the site.

For these reasons the development proposal would conflict with Wiltshire Core Strategy policies CP57 and CP58 and Tisbury Neighbourhood Plan policy HNA.2 which require development to be complimentary to the locality and conserve and enhance the historic environment and ensuring that appropriate levels of amenity are achievable.