Browse

Agenda item

16/09314/OUT-Old Glove Factory, Adj. 25 Brockleaze, Neston, Corsham, SN13 9TJ

Minutes:

Member of the public, Jeremy Reece, spoke against the application. The applicant’s agent, Alvin Howard, spoke in favour of the application.

 

The Senior Planning Officer Chris Marsh introduced the application which sought approval for Demolition of redundant factory storage units, and replacement with 10 new dwellings, associated works & landscaping. Photographs were shown of the existing site and diagrams were shown of the proposed development. The condition of the buildings and the scope for re-use/conversion as per previously permitted proposals was discussed as were concerns as to existing infrastructure. The reasons for refusal where summarised as there being too many unknowns to the plans and insufficient evidence being provided in respect of the scope or otherwise for re-use, the need for redevelopment and Ecological constraints and requirements. Attention was also drawn to the late submissions of the ecology report and late items were referenced.

 

After technical questions, the Planning Officer confirmed that a preferred option would have been for the conversion and retention of some part of the existing structure, but that the applicants were seeking complete demolition and rebuild. The Officer also explained that concerns regarding highways would have to be measured against the potential commercial use of the property, and that he highways impact would have to be severe to give grounds for refusal.

 

Members of the public then had the opportunity to address the Committee, as detailed above.

 

Local Division Member Dick Tonge spoke in favour of the application, stating that applications on this site had been going on for years, and that he was keen for it to be developed. He also expressed concerns as to the sites disrepair.  He noted that the site already had permissions for the conversion to residential use and suggested that permission be given for demolition, before the buildings fell down.

 

In the debate that followed, Councillors noted that the site could be suitable for residential development but not in the form set out in the existing application and raised concerns as to the lack of detail and necessary supporting information to facilitate the full and necessary consideration of the impact of the scheme proposals. Cllr Peter Hutton moved the Officer’s recommendation for refusal, which was seconded by Cllr Jacqui Lay and approved by the Committee.

 

RESOLVED:

That the Application be refused for the following reasons:

  1. In the absence of appropriate exceptional justification, the proposed development, by reason of its amount and location outside of the built area of Neston, represents inappropriate residential development in the open countryside in conflict with Core Policies 2 and 48 of the adopted Wiltshire Core Strategy, saved Policy H4 of the North Wiltshire Local Plan and Paragraph 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
  2. The proposed development, located remote from a range of services, employment opportunities and being poorly served by public transport, is contrary to the key aims of local and national sustainable transport policy guidance which seeks to reduce growth in the length and number of motorised journeys. The proposal is contrary to Core Policy 60 of the adopted Wiltshire Core Strategy and Paragraph 34 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
  3. The proposed development will result in the permanent and unjustified loss of an undesignated heritage asset of local value. No meaningful investigation of alternative options comprising the retention/conversion of the asset and accompanying enabling residential development has been undertaken, such that the proposals conflict unduly with the asset's conservation. The proposal conflicts with Core Policies 57(i) and (xiii) and 58 of the adopted Wiltshire Core Strategy and Paragraphs 129, 131 and 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
  4. Insufficient information has been submitted with the application to enable the Council to carry out an appropriate assessment of the proposals or determine whether an appropriate assessment is required, in accordance with the requirements of Regulation 61 of the Habitats Regulations. The proposals are also likely to negatively affect protected / priority species in a manner contrary to Core Policy 50 of the adopted Wiltshire Core Strategy, Paragraph 118 of the National Planning Policy Framework and Circular 06/2005.

 

 

 

Supporting documents: