Agenda item

Mr Stuart Bulley, Mr Alan Hopkins and Caroline Bulley spoke in objection to the application and with reference to visual aids including their own illustrative material

Officers clarified that the illustrative material was provided by objectors and not the applicant or officers and that accuracy could therefore not be confirmed.

Mr Chris Beardsmore and Ms Charlotte Watkins spoke in support of the application.

Cllr Roger Budgen, St Paul Malmesbury Without Parish Council, spoke in objection to the application.

The Planning Officer introduced the application for the proposed erection of two detached dwellings and associated landscaping and demolition; attention was drawn to the additional condition outlined in late observation; the mix of character and materials used in neighbouring buildings; the size and scale of the development; the potential impact of the proposals on neighbouring properties; and that changes to the position of windows and glazing to address concerns regarding privacy.

The Officer drew attention to late items and additional proposed conditions.

In response to Chairs question, it was regarding materials and pitch of the roof.

Cllr Sturgis – queried the floor level of the bungalow behind, identified that when he visited the site the building appeared to be level with the proposed first floor of one of the proposed dwellings. Cllr Sturgis identified that the plans submitted did not indicate the height of the dwellings to the rear and whether the bungalow at the back was at the same ridge height of the proposed closest building.

The Chair asked, clarified that the proposal was two metres higher than the ridge of the existing bungalow.

Councillor Lay asked whether the new house would be substantially higher than the houses on either side. Officer stated that it would be higher than the neighbouring property to the side but not significantly higher.

Members of the public were then invited to speak as detailed above.

The local member, Cllr John Thomson spoke in objection to the application.

During the debate that followed,

Councillor Toby Sturgis proposed, subsequently seconded by Councillor Howard Greenman, that the application be refused for the following reason:

The proposed development, by reason of its siting, scale and design, would result in a contrived and cramped form of development out of keeping with the character and appearance of its setting. The proposal therefore conflicts with Core Policy 57(iii) and (vi) of the adopted Wiltshire Core Strategy and Paragraphs 17 and 64 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

The position of the property by virtue of its close proximity to the neighbouring properties, have an overbearing impact upon and result in loss of amenity of neighbouring properties. The proposed development would therefore result in unacceptable levels of amenity for future and existing occupiers contrary to the requirements of with Core Policy 57(vii) of the adopted Wiltshire Core Strategy and Paragraphs 17 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

In the debate the following issues were highlighted: the size of the plot and proximity to neighbouring properties; the height of the proposals in relation to neighbouring properties, and the possibility for loss of privacy and be overbearing; that a number of councillors were familiar with site; and the  impact on the streetscene would be harmful and out of character.

Following a vote, the meeting;

Resolved

That the application be REFUSED for the following reason: