Agenda item

Erection of 4 dwellings and associated works.

Public Participation

Martin Verspeak spoke in objection of the application.

Marc Willis spoke in support of the application.

Senior Planning Officer, Charmian Eyre-Walker presented a report which outlined the erection of 4 dwellings and associated works.

Details were provided of the site and issues raised by the proposals, including the principle of development, conflict with the emerging neighbourhood plan, impact on residential amenities of adjoining neighbours, impact on character and appearance of the area, impact on the setting of the listed buildings and Sutton Benger Conservation Area, previous appeal decision.

Members of the Committee had the opportunity to ask technical questions regarding the application. Details were clarified that the existing and proposed developments were outside of the existing framework boundaries and that the land had been used for agricultural use. It was additionally clarified that the neighbourhood plan had not been fully developed yet. Reference was also drawn to the agenda supplement which stated that originally the archaeologist had objected, however it was clarified by the officer that they had since seen the proposed conditions and would be happy with pre-commencement.

Further details were clarified that the Council would not have control over the landscape planting and the consequent impact that if turned into a woodland the land would not be dissociated from being farmland. The recent inspector’s decision in regard to the Filands proposal was referenced, with the inspector noting that the Council had a modest shortfall of the 5-year housing land supply in January of 4.1 and that the 4 proposed homes would be insignificant in contributing towards this. The potential inclusion of EV charging and air source heat pumps was questioned, with it being clarified by the officer that these had not been considered but both suggestions could be added through conditions. Additional clarification was provided that the proposal included no affordable housing but rather 4- or 5-bedroom large houses.

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

The Local Unitary Member, Councillor Howard Greenman did not speak regarding the application.

At the start of the debate a motion to move and accept the officer’s recommendation  to refuse the application was moved by Councillor Tony Trotman and seconded by Councillor Gavin Grant.

During the debate the praise was given to the officer’s report which recognised the challenges faced as a local authority. Core Policy 10 was cited  by means of exception sites that relate to a local need for affordable housing, with it argued that this proposal did not have affordable housing nor did it speak to the local need as heard from the neighbourhood planning steering group. In addition, Core Policies 57 and 58 were cited with it stated that the proposal does not meet these policies and that the village of Sutton Benger had already provided large amounts of development. This was further supported as due to their being no 1- or 2-bedroom homes in the proposal, it could be argued that this proposal was an exercise of profiteering at the expense of a local community; with no economic benefit provided along with sustainability issues potentially created for schools and surgeries. It was also stressed that voice and weight should be given to the emerging neighbourhood plan, which represented the voice of the community.

Further issues that were debated were that the proposed development did not have much resemblance to the previously proposed larger development and that a planning inspector might take a difference stance and that aesthetically, it could be argued that the whole development would need this proposal in order to provide a completed appearance to the wider site.

It was also postulated what impact, if approved, the proposal would have on the aesthetics of footpaths running through Sutton Benger, particularly in winter when the properties would not be covered by trees. It was also noted that though the Government had given Wiltshire Council parameters of housing that needed to be fulfilled, it would be essential to place these in the right places.

At the conclusion of the debate, it was,

Resolved:

That the application be REFUSED for the following reasons :-

1. The site is located in the countryside outside of the limits of development of Sutton Benger as defined on the Policies Map and by virtue of its scale and location would conflict with the sustainable development strategy of the plan as expressed in Core Policies 1, 2 and (community area strategy policy) of the Wiltshire Core Strategy. The proposed residential development does not fall to be determined under any of the 'exception policies' defined at paragraph 4.25 of the plan within Core Policies 10 & 44 of the Core Strategy, or relate to a site allocated in the development plan for residential use. It would therefore constitute unsustainable development in the countryside.

2. The proposal would result in the loss of open farmland which is considered to historically and positively contribute to the setting and significance of the Grade II listed Buildings forming the Arms Farm complex, contrary to Policies CP57 and CP58 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy and to section 66(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, section 16 of the NPPF (paras 197, 199, 200, 202 and 206) and BS7913. The harm caused is not considered to be outweighed by the public benefit of providing 4 detached dwellings.

3. The proposal would result in the loss of views from the conservation area out to the countryside beyond, particularly through the Arms Farm complex to the open farmland to which it is historically connected. This is contrary to policies CP57 and CP58 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy and to section 72(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and section 16 of the NPPF (paras 197, 199, 200, 202 and 206 in particular). The harm caused is not considered to be outweighed by the public benefit of providing 4 detached dwellings.

4. The proposal would cause an unacceptable loss of amenity and privacy to the residents of Arms Close, adjacent to the site, by reason of loss of privacy given the close proximity of the access road and front gardens that are proposed to serve the new. It is considered that the proposal is contrary to Policy CP57 in this respect.