Agenda item

Proposed new dwelling and associated works.

Public Participation

John Cull spoke in objection to the application.

Kevin Tibbs spoke in objection to the application.

Shaun Poulton spoke in objection to the application.

Charlotte Watkins spoke in support of the application.

Tom Newman spoke in support of the application.

Cllr Stuart Suter spoke on behalf of Lea and Cleverton Parish Council.

Development Management Team Leader, Lee Burman presented a report which outlined a proposed new dwelling and associated works.

Details were provided of the site and issues raised by the proposals, including the principle of development; impact on the character, appearance, visual amenity and openness of the locality; impact on the residential amenity and impact on archaeology interest. Additionally impact on drainage/flooding; impact on highways safety and other matters.

Members of the Committee had the opportunity to ask technical questions regarding the application. Details were sought on, but not limited to, the finished floor level and the proposed height of the finished home as well as site surveys, drainage from the nearby stream and whether there was Rights of Way access to allow parking.

Additional technical questions were received in relation to whether any local properties had been flooded and regarding previous sewage issues, whether the application could have permitted development rights removed and whether the application would cause additional flooding impact to their neighbours.

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

The Local Unitary Member, Councillor Elizabeth Threlfall then spoke regarding the application. Cllr Threlfall raised the following points whilst acknowledging that the Planning Officers had completed a large amount of work, with the applicant also having withdrawn the previous submission before addressing concerns before resubmitting. Cllr Threlfall noted that it was difficult without a parish plan or framework boundary to identify whether the proposal would constitute as elongation or infill. In addition, Cllr Threlfall stated that regarding flooding a decision would have to be made as to whether flood modelling maps were to be believed or anecdotal evidence from local residents.

At the start of the debate a motion to accept the officer’s recommendation was moved by Councillor Tony Trotman, however no seconder was found and the motion consequently fell.

A new motion was then moved by Councillor Martin Smith to reject the officer’s recommendation, which was seconded by Councillor Nic Puntis. The reason for refusal was cited as being that the application conflicted with Wiltshire Core Strategy (Jan 2015) Core Policies 1, 2, 13 and 67. Following debate, this motion was then withdrawn by Councillor Martin Smith and seconder Councillor Nic Puntis.

A further motion was then moved by Councillor Howard Greenman to defer determination in order to seek additional information in respect of drainage matters. This was seconded by Councillor Steve Bucknell.

During the debate, issues were raised, but not limited to, what the specifications of the technical attenuation would be as well as how it would work. It was also suggested that the if accepted the property would not look in place with the rest of the village and that if a property was to be built on the land the owner might be concerned with sewage and flooding. In addition Members of the Committee stated that they did not feel as though they had enough information to grant consent and also questioned the technical competencies of the FRA author(s). Regarding flooding, previous example of applications in Malmesbury that went to appeal were cited, with it stated that though sometimes there is local knowledge it is difficult to go against expertise. It was acknowledged that in this case the Wiltshire Council Drainage Engineers had not raised objection, similarly to the Environment Agency.

Further issues that were debated included whether or not the application would constitute as being infill or elongation to the village, with it noted that opposite the land is the school which lies beyond the village settlement.

At the conclusion of the debate, it was, 

Resolved:

To defer determination to enable the applicant to seek additional information in respect of drainage matters. That information to include the technical competencies of the FRA author(s); proposed finished floor levels of the dwelling to address Wessex Water issues and requirements concerning drainage and foul water; clarification of site survey levels; and to take into account evidence of the flooding events from the Parish Council and local residents in order to ensure that the proposed development is not at risk of flooding and does not increase off site flooding issues.

The meeting was adjourned at 16:23 for a break and then resumed at 16:30.