Agenda item

Demolition of existing residential dwelling and garage, and construction of a replacement dwelling and garage plus associated works.

Public Participation

Richard Cosker spoke in support of the application.

Ged Brockett spoke in support of the application.

Andy Richardson spoke in support of the application.

Development Management Team Leader, Lee Burman presented a report which outlined demolition of existing residential dwelling and garage, and construction of a replacement dwelling and garage plus associated works

Details were provided of the site and issues raised by the proposals, including the principle of development, impact on the character and appearance of the site & locality, impact on residential amenities, highways safety, ecology, lawfulness.

Members of the Committee had the opportunity to ask technical questions regarding the application. Details were sought on whether the fire had taken place within the house itself, with it clarified by the officer that the fire had taken place within the house and that this would not render the building incapable of retention and could be repaired. Furthermore, it was questioned where the boundary starts and ends for buildings being appropriate for repair, it was clarified by the officer that the latest submissions provided by the applicant suggested it would be more cost effective to completely replace the building. Additionally, it was clarified by the officer that the current building was not insulated up to modern standards with it acknowledged that the proposed replacement would have greater energy efficiency.

Additional technical questions were received in relation to Policy H4 with examples cited of 1950s bungalows being purchased and then knocked down to be replaced by a new house. It was clarified by the officer that Policy H4 only deals with developments in the countryside. Additionally, it was clarified by the officer that the building was currently occupied and was not abandoned. Further questions were asked as to whether it would be possible to add a condition surrounding the use of an air source heat pump, to which the officer stated that this would not be possible but the property itself would demonstrate energy improvements. It was also confirmed by the officer that the property was in the countryside and outside of any framework boundaries.

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

The Local Unitary Member, Councillor Chuck Berry then spoke regarding the application. Cllr Berry raised the following points that having listened to the applicant the reasoning behind the replacement property was clear, however he did have an understanding why the officer had applied the policies within their recommendation. Cllr Berry acknowledged that within a year’s time, this application could fall within the policies in place and that time could have been lost in terms of reducing Carbon Dioxide. Cllr Berry noted that as a wider community, Minety has been contributing to this reduction by having larger numbers of battery and solar farms. In addition, the road in which the property is located on already has a number of properties on both sides.

At the start of the debate a motion to refuse the officer’s recommendation was moved by Councillor Chuck Berry and seconded by Councillor Gavin Grant. The reasoning being that Members heard presentations from the applicant team and considered that the energy efficiency benefits of development and the financial costs benefits of a rebuild as opposed to repair were sufficient material considerations to support approval and an assessment that the proposals accorded with saved policy H4 of the North Wiltshire Local Plan.

During the debate, issues were raised such as the need to consider the policies in place at the time of consideration and not to be speculative to future policy changes. Policy H4 was discussed in relation to the application, with it acknowledged that in order for Policy H4 to be applied, all three of its criteria needed to be met. Policy H4 2.b was identified as a point of criteria that could not be met, with an argument placed that though if millions of pounds were to be spent on the property it would make it capable of retention, the property is a domestic home and therefore an expert assessment of the costs suggest there would be no real financial benefit of completing repairs. It was stated that the application would not be an attempt to build for benefit of profit but rather for family use; therefore suggesting that the current building would be incapable of retention due to the repair costs.

Further issues that were debated included the need to create properties that are more environmentally friendly and the importance of taking every opportunity to promote such developments. In addition to this, it was stated that the applicant could have potentially gone further in their proposal from an environmental perspective, with it acknowledged that it would have been positive to have seen a passive house design with the lowest Carbon footprint possible.

At the conclusion of the debate, it was, 

Resolved:

To delegate authority to the Head of Development Management to grant planning permission subject to appropriate conditions to be prepared by officers and following presentations to Committee and debate for the following reason(s):

Members having heard presentations from the applicant team considered that the energy efficiency benefits of development and the financial costs benefits of a rebuild as opposed to repair were sufficient material considerations to support approval and an assessment that the proposals accorded with saved policy H4 of the North Wiltshire Local Plan.