Agenda item

The planning officer, Chris Marsh, introduced the report and outlined that the application was for the proposed erection of a building comprising of 32 retirement apartments with associated communal facilities, parking, access and landscaped grounds. The proposal also detailed a rear access path and 3 car parking spaces for bank premises on the High Street. A map, blueprints and photographs of the area were shown. Attention was drawn to the officer’s recommendation, as amended by the late observations. The late observations contained details of further comments, additional suggested conditions and details of a petition submitted in respect of the application

The Committee was then invited to ask technical questions. The planning officer confirmed that there was no provision listed for the service road that lead to the Iceland supermarket and that any potential buyers were seen to be aware of the expected level of noise and activity that a town centre location afforded and as a result, public protection officers had raised no objection in relation to potential noise complaints from the site. Mr Marsh also confirmed that the public open space officer was satisfied with the provision of open space associated with the level of the development. It was further confirmed that the proposed development had allocated 19 parking spaces; excluding the car parking spaces allocated to Lloyd’s Bank, as a part of their building’s disabled access. It was reiterated that highways officers had deemed the proposed car parking arrangement to be sufficient; as the site was in a town centre location, where other parking was available. It was noted that there would also be mobility scooter storage within the proposed building and that, due to the age bracket of potential buyers of the properties, car ownership was expected to be lower and therefore, parking provision was adequate.

It was also confirmed that the Conservation Officer had not objected to the scheme proposals, on the basis of harm to designated Heritage Assets. Officers acknowledged that there was no replacement provision within the submitted scheme for the existing retail unit on site, or proposals for new retail units as indicated as necessary in the emerging Town Centre Masterplan. Officers further confirmed that there were no adopted policies requiring the retention of existing retail facilities in this location and that as an emerging document at an early stage of preparation, significant weight could not be given to the provisions of the Town Centre Masterplan.

Members of the public were then invited to speak as detailed below:

David Williams, Janey Blackburn and Jonathan Jones spoke in support of the application.

Naomi Beal (Chairman of the Steering Group - Calne 'Our Place' Project), David Dillamore and Linda Roberts spoke in objection to the application.

Cllr Hill, Calne Town Council, spoke in objection to the application and noted that it was important that the Committee consider whether the proposed development was right for Calne’s town centre.

A fire alarm was then sounded, which caused the meeting to be adjourned from 17:03 until 17:21.

Cllr Marshall spoke against the application, in his capacity as the local division member.

In response to questions, the planning officer confirmed that the provision of parking was commonplace for the type of proposed development, especially so, given the site’s town centre location. It was also confirmed that the application could not be weighted upon the Neighbourhood and Master Plans; as these documents did not hold sufficient grounds to provide reasons for the refusal of the application.

In the debate that followed, some members raised concern over the loss of a potential retail site in the centre of the town and the effect this could have on the local economy. Councillors highlighted that the Calne Community Area wanted to develop a vibrant town centre and the application would be detrimental to this approach. It was noted that national planning policy encouraged that developments should ensure the vitality of town centres. It was suggested that a mix of both residential and retail units on the site would be more appropriate. Also, as both the Masterplan and Neighbourhood Plan would be given greater weight once they had been submitted to Wiltshire Council; it could be prudent to only consider such an application once both the Masterplan and Neighbourhood Plan had had the opportunity to develop and therefore, come to fruition.

Concern was also raised over the parking allocation as councillors considered that further provision should be made for visitor and service vehicle parking. It was also commented that the proposal was large in scale and would not enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area.

The meeting was adjourned from 18:10 to 18:25; to allow officers to consider the implications of matters raised and policies mentioned during the course of the debate and to prepare advice to the Committee on the basis that the debate concluded that the applications should be refused.

Cllr Marshall proposed, seconded by Cllr Crisp, that the application be refused for the reasons listed below: 

The motion was put to the vote and passed.

Resolved:

That the application be refused for the following reasons:

1.         The proposed development by reason of the loss of an existing retail unit would perpetuate an imbalance of residential and retail uses in Calne thereby prejudicing self containment of the settlement and promoting out commuting and prejudicing the delivery of the Town Plan/Town Centre Masterplan contrary to National Planning Policy Framework paragraphs 23 & 70: Wiltshire Core Strategy CP1, CP8 and paragraph 5.41 bullet points 1 and 7; and CP36.

2.         By virtue of the scale, bulk, mass, positioning and use of materials the proposed development would result in harm to the setting of the designated heritage asset, Grade II Listed Building Zion Chapel, and the character and appearance of the Calne Conservation Area. The proposal is therefore contrary to and in conflict with National Planning Policy Framework Paragraphs 131, 132 & 134; and Wiltshire Core Strategy CP58.

3.         The proposed fails to make adequate provision for off street parking to service the development and is therefore contrary to Wiltshire Core Strategy Policy CP57 Bullet point 14; and CP61 and CP64 point D.

4.         The application proposal fails to provide and secure the necessary and required Services and infrastructure supporting the proposed residential development including Affordable Housing & Waste; and is therefore contrary to Core Policies 3 and 43 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy Adopted January 2015 and Paragraphs 50, 73 and 204 of the National Planning Policy Framework March 2012.

INFORMATIVE TO APPLICANT:

The applicant is advised that the Refusal Reason 4 is capable of being addressed and resolved through the preparation of a Section 106 Agreement to meet the identified Service & Infrastructure requirements arising from the development proposed.