Agenda item

Proposal: extension and outbuildings. Change of use of land for residential purposes.

PL/2022/08432: Corner House, The Common, Heddington, Calne, Wiltshire, SN11 0NZ (Pages 73 - 84)

Development Manager Team Leader Simon Smith presented a report on the next item, explaining the proposal for an extension and outbuildings to Corner House on The Common, as well as a change of use of land for residential purposes. He detailed that the land that’s use was to be changed was situated to the rear of the property, which was itself in open countryside close to Heddington. The Team Leader also pointed out two inaccuracies in the report, stating that the height increase referenced on page 77 was actually 0.6 metres rather than 0.9 metres, and that contrary to page 79, only one Juliet balcony was proposed rather than two. He concluded by stating that the officer recommendation was to grant planning permission subject to conditions.

The Committee sought clarity about the dimensions of the proposed extension and land, and Councillor Threlfall pointed out that contrary to page 78 in the report, the site was not in a conservation area, which the Team Leader confirmed was an error. In response to the Chairman’s enquiry about how the agricultural land being converted had been used recently, the Team Leader also stated that there was no definitive answer about the use of the land, but that it was nothing other than agricultural in planning terms, also emphasising that the applicant owned all the land in question.

The Chairman then invited members of the public to speak to the application.

·       Councillor Adrian Foster spoke in objection to the application as a member of the public.

·       Jonathan Llewellyn spoke in support of the application.

·       Steven Leard spoke in support of the application.

·       Councillor Geoff Dickerson spoke on behalf of Heddington Parish Council.

The Local Unitary Member, Councillor Sam Pearce-Kearney, spoke to the application, emphasising the view that residents on both sides of the debate had the right to be heard. He pointed out that local residents had highlighted a range of planning reasons for refusing planning permission, also noting that the report had identified a potential departure from Core Policy 57. He stated that a three-story building would likely be an unduly imposing presence on The Common, referencing the report’s verdict that the property would stand out if subject to such a substantial extension. Councillor Pearce-Kearney also noted that other proposals of a similar nature had been refused planning permission. He cited Core Policies 48 and 51 as other reasons for refusal, pointing out Heddington’s cultural identity and asserting that the loss of agricultural land would negatively impact the community and its heritage as well as local amenity.

Councillor Bucknell moved to grant planning permission subject to conditions and was seconded by the Chairman. In proposing the motion, Councillor Bucknell stated that as an antiques collector, he appreciated that old things can be ugly too, stating that Corner House was one such instance. He expressed his approval for the steps that the architect, Mr Llewellyn, had taken to improve and update the property, comparing the design favourably to the other permissible options that were submitted. He noted that the proposed building’s potential imposition was not necessarily to its detriment, explaining that it had the potential to be a striking statement in the corner of The Common making efficient use of the plot. He explained that he saw no planning reasons to refuse planning permission on balance, explaining that the merit of the design was too subjective a basis upon which to refuse permission and would potentially be overturned at an appeal.

The Chairman stated that as a Calne resident, he was familiar with Corner House, deeming it an isolated, austere property. He noted that there had been objections to many similar conversions around Heddington, but considered this application to be a good opportunity to tidy up the property and make better use of the land. He concluded by asserting that the application seemed like an effective means of ensuring a modern family could live properly in an attractive area of Wiltshire.

Councillor Mathew noted that the proposed building was similar to a property at the end of the lane, although that building had two dormers rather than three, suggesting that such a reduction could prove an effective compromise. Councillor Threlfall pointed out that the austere nature of the current dwelling was emphasised by the lack of any nearby features like trees or shrubbery. Councillor Puntis echoed Councillor Bucknell’s thoughts that he had heard no concrete planning reasons to refuse permission, and Councillor Grant noted that while Core Policy 57 could provide grounds for objection, it was too open-ended in its interpretations to be deemed solid. Instead, Councillor Grant said that he considered the plot to be enhanced by the proposed building and on that basis was minded to support the proposal to grant planning permission.

Resolved:

To grant planning permission subject to conditions.