Agenda item

Public Participation

Guy Rickett, local resident, spoke in objection to the application.

Alan Glasspool, Local resident, objecting to the application

Rosemary Greenway, supporting the application

Louise Jamieson, supporting the application

Ed Rudler – letter read out, supporting the application.

Peter Gantlett – Chair of Parish Council

The Case Officer, Victoria Griffin, introduced a report which recommended that planning permission be refused for the erection of 5 no. dwellings, parking, meadow and orchard (resubmission of 17/03393/FUL).

Key issues highlighted included, acceptability of proposal site being located outside of the defined settlement boundary and rural exceptions site, impact on historic setting, impact on visual amenities of the area, impact on ecology, impact on the residential amenity, impact on highway safety/sustainability, impact on drainage. The Planning Officer referred to the late observations report which included additional consultation responses and officer comment.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer which focused on: affordable housing in rural communities, Clyffe Pypard neighbourhood plan, and marketing of the equestrian business.  

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

Councillor Allison Bucknell, Division Member, spoke to the application with the main points focusing on: Planning policies and the ability to develop custome built home within a village setting.

At the start of the debate a proposal was moved by Councillor Gavin Grant and seconded by Councillor Christine Crisp to refuse planning permission as detailed in the report. During the debate the main points raised were: Ability to build custom built homes, paragraph 55 of the National planning Framework.

Resolved:

That planning permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1.    The proposed development is located outside of a designated settlement boundary and does not meet any of the exception criteria listed under paragraph 4.25 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy. As such the proposal fails to promote a sustainable pattern of development within the County and the harm associated to the development is not outweighed by the benefits. Therefore, the proposed development is considered contrary to Core Policies 1 & 2 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy, Saved Policy H4 of the North Wiltshire Local Plan 2011 and paragraphs 14 and 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

2.    The proposal located remote from services, employment opportunities and being unlikely to be well served by public transport is contrary to the key aims of Core Policy 60 and national sustainable transport guidance which seeks to reduce growth in the length and number of motorised journeys.

3.    The proposed development would, by reason of the size and scale of the proposed dwellings and associated residential paraphernalia result in unacceptable increase in the built form within the site resulting in harm to the visual amenities of the open countryside. Therefore, the development is contrary to Core Policy 51 and 57 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy.

4.    The site is located in close proximity to a known medieval settlement and the setting listed buildings. The application fails to adequately demonstrate that the proposed development can be carried out without harming any significant archaeological remains. Without the submission of this information it is not possible to fully consider the development’s impact. The proposed development is therefore contrary to Core Policy 58 of the Core Strategy.

5.    The proposal fails to provide any information on the proposed impact on existing trees or hedgerows within the site. As such it is not possible to fully consider the development’s impact on natural landscape features. The proposed development is therefore contrary to Core Policy 51 of the Core Strategy.

6.    The submissions fails to provide complete Phase 2 surveys recommended in the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal. As such, this justifies an objection on ecology grounds on account that insufficient baseline information and mitigation measures have been submitted to determine the application. The proposed development is therefore contrary to Core Policy 50 of the Core Strategy.

In accordance with paragraph 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), this planning application has been processed in a proactive way. However, due to technical objections or the proposal’s failure to comply with the development plan and/or the NPPF as a matter of principle, the local planning authority has had no alternative other than to refuse planning permission.

This recommendation relates to the following plans/documents:

Planning Statement & Addendum

Keystone Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

House type D elevations and floor plans

Location Plan

Block Plan

Site Entrance Plan

House type A, B and C elevations and floor plans Sections