Agenda item

Sir James Fuller spoke in support of the application.

The Planning Officer introduced the report which recommended that planning permission be refused for the reasons set out in the report and drew attention to the late observation in which Highways considered the parking area and visibility splays to be acceptable. The application was for the conversion of a redundant chapel as an extension to the existing dwelling with an associated upgrade of parking facilities. The officer explained that, as a former community use building, Core Policy 49 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy was relevant and this required applicants to demonstrate that there was no demand or need for other appropriate uses of the building as referenced in the policy before conversion to a residential use could be considered as a matter of last resort. As such the applicant was required to market the building for community uses prior to consideration of a change of use to a residential building. Evidence of this marketing had not been demonstrated in the application and was a key policy objection which formed the basis for reason 1 of the recommendation for refusal.

The Planning Officer highlighted that there were also concerns regarding the future residential amenities of the dwelling and those visiting and using the graveyard which was an active burial ground with burials as recent as two years ago. It was explained that similar proposals were often granted if the burial ground was historic or if there was some separation or boundary treatment between the burial ground and the dwelling but that this was not possible in this situation owing to the very close proximity of the burial ground to the dwelling. Attention was also drawn to the proposals to add a first floor which cut across the middle of the window openings. This was highly visible from public view and out of character with the form and use of the building and therefore in conflict with Core Policy 58 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy and the protection of heritage assets in the National Planning Policy Framework.

The Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions and it was explained that the graveyard adjoined the property on two sides and the other two sides could be an amenity garden. It was confirmed that it would be possible to condition the submission and agreement of boundary treatment details that may partially address amenity concerns but officers highlighted that the proximity of the graves to the building could make this very difficult over a significant part of the site. The Planning Officer clarified that there was a hierarchy of uses for consideration as alternatives to residential use in relation to any proposals to convert community use buildings under Wiltshire Core Policy 49. It was explained that redevelopment for non-community service/facility use was only to be permitted as a last resort and where all other options had been exhausted.

Members of the public then addressed the Committee as detailed above.

The local member, Cllr Richard Tonge, highlighted that there were a large number of community services in the immediate and surrounding area. It was explained that there was a lack of demand for additional community services in the area and, as the hall had been empty for five years and the Hall Trustees had not been approached by any parties, it was questioned whether the marketing exercise was necessary. The local member drew attention to the proposal to paint the outward facing elements of the floor matt black in order to reduce the visibility to the public.

It was emphasised that the applicant had engaged in extensive discussion with the congregation of the Gospel Hall and, following some compromises, had the full support of the Hall Trustees. The local member hoped that the Committee would take this into account and urged the Committee to approve the application.

In the debate that followed, it was highlighted that a residential dwelling may have a lesser impact on the adjoining burial ground than a community use building. The Committee also considered the value of a full six month marketing exercise given the demand and service provision in the area. It was discussed that the Neston Park Trust already had some marketing and community evidence which might satisfy the policy requirements.

Resolved:

To DEFER for two Committee cycles to allow the applicant to collate and submit for officer consideration any supporting information they have in respect of the availability of and demand for Community Facilities in the locality; also to consider the need for design alterations and prepare and submit any supporting information demonstrating the impact of the scheme proposals at similar sites already developed.