Agenda item

Steve Briggs spoke in support of the application.

The Planning Officer introduced the report which recommended that planning permission be refused. The application was for the conversion of a redundant chapel as extension to an existing dwelling with an associated upgrade of parking facilities. It was explained that this application had been previously deferred in order to receive additional information in relation to the marketing exercise in Wiltshire Core Strategy Core Policy 49. The Planning Officer drew attention to the report produced by Savills and communicated the opinion that this was not a typical marketing exercise that would satisfy Core Policy 49.

The Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions and it was explained that Highways had no objections to the proposal. It was also confirmed that it was possible for the Committee to delegate authority to the Area Development Manager to grant permission subject to section 106 agreements and that some boundary treatment was permitted.

The Planning Officer also clarified that the marketing exercise for alternative use was required by the Wiltshire Council Core Strategy Core Policy 49.

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

The local member, Cllr Richard Tonge, expressed concern that hall had been deteriorating since services ceased in 2011 and that many local residents were concerned for the future of hall.

The local member considered the reasons for refusal as set out in the officer’s recommendation. Regarding reason 1, it was explained that the Hall Trustees had endeavoured to find an alternative use for a long period of time. It was also highlighted that there had been little record of any marketing as the Hall Trustees and Neston Park Trust were unaware of the marketing exercise required by the Wiltshire Core Strategy Core Policy at the time. The local member also advised that there were two other unused halls in the area.

In respect of reason 2, the local member drew attention to the example photos provided which evidenced that similar applications were considered appropriate and had been accepted in the area. It was emphasised that the proposal included minimal floor height and that the floor was to be painted matt black in order to reduce the visual impact. 

For reason 3, it was explained that the proposals would involve sealing the door that directly opens onto the burial ground. It was suggested that this would have a greatly reduced impact on the amenity of the burial ground.

The local member accepted that the marketing exercise had not been formally completed but urged the Committee to remove reasons 2 and 3 of the officer recommendation.

In the debate that followed the Committee recognised that some marketing had been undertaken by the applicant and that not all of this had been documented.

It was also noted that the building had been disused for a number of years and that it was important to preserve this non-designated heritage asset. Some members expressed concern regarding the visual impact of the proposed floor.

The Committee discussed that the proposal might have a lesser impact than a community use which could provide sufficient amenity for those who attended the adjoining burial ground.

Resolved:

To DELEGATE authority to the Area Development Manager to grant planning permission subject to conditions to be confirmed by Planning Officers.