Agenda item

The erection of one detached dwelling and detached garage.

Public Participation:

Mr Mike Long, the occupant of Beekeepers Cottage, spoke in objection to the application.

Ms Rebecca Lord, Agent, spoke in support of the application.

Mr Mike Lockhart of Shalbourne Parish Council spoke in objection to the application.

The Planning Officer, Ruaridh O'Donoghue, introduced a report that recommended that planning permission be granted, subject to conditions, for the erection of one detached dwelling and detached garage. Key issues were stated which included the principle of development and the impact upon the Shalbourne Conservation Area and local heritage assets. It was stated that there was extant planning permission on the site, for a dwelling, and that it would be possible to construct both schemes. As such, it was stated that a legal agreement could be put in place to prevent both applications being built.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer. Details were sought on the legal agreement. It was clarified that the legal agreement usually takes the form of ‘This permission shall not be exercised in conjunction with the extant permission’, so if the new permission was granted, the applicant would not be able to implement the extant planning permission as well.

Members of the public then had the opportunity to present their views to the committee as detailed above.

The unitary division member, Cllr Stuart Wheeler then spoke in objection to the application.

There was also a question as to whether a section 106 agreement may be required. The officer clarified that the proposed informative numbered 2 on the condition list refers to the section 106 agreement and that a legal agreement is stronger than a condition - this would be used to ensure that if permission was granted for this application, only one of the permissions on the site could be implemented.

After further questions the officer clarified that the property, The Elms, would be retained. If granted permission, the new house in the application would be built. The legal agreement would prevent the extant planning permission being exercised if they chose to implement the new consent. However, there was nothing to prevent them applying for further planning permissions in the future.

Cllr Mark Connolly proposed a motion to grant the permission, with conditions, as per the officer recommendation. This was seconded by Cllr Jerry Knuckler.

A debate followed whereby in opposition to the proposed motion to approve the application, some members stated that they did not consider the application met the requirements of Core Policy 57 in relation to high quality design, or Core Policy 58 in relation to ensuring conservation of the historic environment. The scale of the property in relation to the site was debated, and whether it constituted overdevelopment of the site. Issues of amenity were also raised, in relation to the storage of bins adjacent to Beekeepers Cottage and the subsequent impact this would have on occupants’ living conditions by reason of smell.

Following the debate, the Committee voted on the motion to grant planning permission with conditions. The motion was lost.

A motion to refuse planning permission was then proposed by Cllr Gamble and seconded by Cllr Oatway. Grounds for refusal included overdevelopment, not being sympathetic to historic buildings and landscapes, not enhancing the special character of the conservation area and not being compatible with neighbouring issues. Specifically, the proposal was considered to be contrary to Core Policy 57, points i, iii, iv, vi, vii and Core Policy 58. It was felt that the previous reasons for refusal on this site, stated in paragraphs 2 and 3 on page 56 of the agenda (save for reason for refusal 4) covered the reasons for refusal for this application subject to some revision. Councillors were happy to delegate the final wording of the reason for refusal to officers. 

Following a vote on the motion to refuse planning permission it was:

Resolved:

That planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

1.    The proposed development would be excessively large and would represent an overdevelopment of the site. As such, it would not be complimentary to the locality and would conflict with Wiltshire Core Strategy Core Policy 57  point i which requires development to enhance local distinctiveness, to point ii) which requires development to relate positively to the existing pattern of development, to point iii which requires development to respond positively to the existing townscape in terms of building layout, form, height, mass, scale, plot size and materials, to point iv, which requires development to be sympathetic to the historic environment and to point vi, which requires development to be appropriate to the immediate setting of the site and the wider character of the area.  For this reason, the proposed development would also cause less than substantial harm to the character and appearance of Shalbourne Conservation Area and less than substantial harm to the setting of both the grade II listed Bee Keepers and The Old Chapel, which is a non-designated heritage asset. There are no public benefits arising from the proposal which would outweigh the identified level of harm and it would conflict with paragraph 134 of the National Planning Policy Framework. The proposal would also be contrary to Core Policy 58 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy, which requires development to protect, conserve and where possible enhance the historic environment.

2.    The proposed development would result in material harm to the level of amenity currently enjoyed by the occupiers of Beekeepers Cottage.  It would therefore be contrary to Core Policy 57 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy and to the core planning principle set out in paragraph 17 of the National Planning Policy Framework that planning should always seek to secure a good standard of amenity for existing occupants of land and buildings.