Agenda item

Public Participation

Mr John Kirkman, neighbour, spoke in objection to the application

Mr Peter Crozier, agent, spoke in support of the application

Mr Peter Crofton-Atkins, on behalf of the applicant, spoke in support of the application

Mr Roger Hicklin, on behalf of CRPE, spoke as a consultee in objection to the application

RuaridhO’Donoghue, Senior Planning Officer, introduced the report which outlined the application for the demolition of the existing bungalow; the erection of a replacement dwelling with associated garaging, turning, landscaping, private amenity space; and the creation of a new vehicular access. The officer explained that this was a resubmission of a previous application (ref: 15/12652/FUL). Four late submissions had been received in response to the consultation process.

The officer recommended that the application be refused for the reasons set out in the report. Key issues were stated to include: the principle of a new dwelling in relation to Core Policy HC25; the scale of the development and its resulting impact on the rural character and landscape of the area; and its bulk, height and general appearance. The officer reported that there were no exceptional circumstances that would outweigh the detrimental impact the proposal would have on its surroundings.

Members of the Committee were invited to ask technical questions of the officer. In response to queries, a comparison was provided between the existing and proposed dwellings (in terms of percentage increase in floorspace) including the first floor.

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

In response to comments raised during public participation, the planning officer clarified that the height and bulk of the building should be considered alongside the percentage increase in floorspace; and that the useable space for dwellings was more applicable to commercial properties.

Cllr Connolly, seconded by Cllr Dobson, moved that the application be refused for the reasons presented in the officer’s report.

In the debate that followed, the following points were made: that in comparison to the existing building, the proposed dwelling was much larger in terms of both bulk and height; that the building was well designed but inappropriate for the proposed location; and that the replacement of the bungalow would be beneficial but that this proposal would not be a suitable replacement.

At the conclusion of debate, it was,

Resolved:

To refuse planning permission for the following reasons:

1) The scale of the replacement dwelling and garage is significantly larger than the original structure. As such, it does not comply with the terms of saved Policy HC25 of the Kennet Local Plan listed in Annex D of the Wiltshire Core Strategy 2015.

2) By reason of its height, size, scale and positioning in the open landscape the proposed dwelling would have a detrimental impact upon the landscape character and scenic quality of the area and the North Wessex Downs AONB. There are no material circumstances sufficient to justify approval against conflict with Core Policies 51 and 57 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy and with central government guidance contained with Section 11 of the NPPF.