Agenda item

John Welch, Andy Rowell, and Dudley Hewitt spoke in support of the application.

Tim Rothwell spoke in opposition to the application.

Cllr Maggie Bawden, Hullavington Parish Council, spoke in relation to the application.

The Planning Officer introduced the report which recommended that planning permission be refused. The application was for ancillary accommodation to a garage, shop, and Post Office. The Planning Officer noted that the site was situated on a corner plot between The High Street and Frog Lane and was not in a conservation area. It was also explained that there were concerns relating to the impact of the proposal on the neighbouring property at No. 29 High Street. It was considered that the proposal would significantly enclose the rear garden of the neighbouring property and result in significant harm to residential amenity from loss of light.

There were no technical questions.

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

The Planning Officer responded to comments from the public and explained that there was no evidence to directly demonstrate that the Post Office would shut unless this accommodation was provided. It was stressed that the current application was to be considered in terms of the impact to neighbouring properties and the streetscene.

The local member, Cllr Baroness Scott, OBE, explained that Hullavington Parish Council had supported the application in principle to protect the local shop and garage but that some concerns remained; these were addressed in the agenda pack. The local member expressed sympathy for the protection of local services but noted that there might be an alternative option for development that had a reduced impact on the neighbouring property.

In the debate that followed, the Committee discussed the impact of the proposal on the amenity space and loss of light to the neighbouring property.

Cllr Toby Sturgis proposed, subsequently seconded by Cllr Peter Hutton, that  planning permission be granted subject to standard conditions and an additional condition relating to the materials used on the wall facing the neighbouring property. Having been put to the vote, the motion was not passed. 

The Committee considered the proposal to have an unacceptable impact on the light to, and amenity space of, the neighbouring property. It was also suggested that an alternative design might be able to achieve a balance between the community need for local services and the amenity and light to the neighbouring property, No. 29 High Street.

Cllr Terry Chivers proposed, subsequently seconded by Cllr Ernie Clark, that the application be refused in accordance with the officer’s recommendation.

Following a vote, the meeting;

Resolved:

To REFUSE planning permission for the following reason:

1.    The proposed development would, by reason of its height, length of projection along the rear boundary line of the adjoining dwelling and orientation result in an unacceptable loss of light to the occupiers of the dwelling of No.29 High Street and an unacceptable loss of light, overshadowing and sense of enclosure to the amenity space of the same unit. Therefore, the proposal is contrary to Core Policy 57 vii of the Wiltshire Core Strategy.