Agenda item

Richard Lay, spoke in objection to the application.

Chris Engley-Duffy, spoke in objection to the application.

Susan Leonard, spoke in support of the application.

Emma Madge, spoke in support of the application

Ian Madge, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

Cllr Jenny Minney, Nettleton Parish Council, spoke in relation the application.

The Planning Officer, Lee Burman, introduced a report which recommended that the application be refused.

Key issues highlighted included: that the application was the resubmission of an application previously refused; the changes to the application following its resubmission were limited to the offer of entering a S106 agreement to restrict further development at the site; the location of the land outside the settlement boundary within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty; the application of relevant core policies; that the officer’s view was that an exception to those policies could not be justified; the planning history on the farm associated with the application; the size and nature of the proposals; the difference between low cost and affordable housing as defined by policy.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer which focused on: the availability of agricultural residence on the farm connected to the application.

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

Councillor Toby Sturgis spoke on behalf of the local Division Member, Baroness Jane Scott, who was unable to attend, outlining her views on the proposal.

At the start of the debate a proposal was moved by Councillor Toby Sturgis and seconded by Councillor Christine Crisp that the application be refused for reasons set out in the report.

During the debate the main points raised were: that, currently, national and local policy did not support a development on this site; the supply of dwellings in small villages; and the policies that restrict the growth of small villages.

At the conclusion of the debate, the meeting unanimously;

Resolved:

1.    The proposed development, by reason of its location outside of any defined settlement boundary and not being considered to meet the criteria of infill development contained within WCS Core Policy 2, the proposal is contrary to the settlement, delivery and community area strategies and is unacceptable in principle. The proposal fails to accord with Core Policies 1, 2, 10 and 48 of the adopted WCS (Jan 2015), Saved Policy H4 of the North Wiltshire Local Plan 2011 and Paragraphs 14, 17 and 55 of the NPPF (March 2012).

2.    By reason of the location of the application site within the open countryside and AONB, the proposed development would result in the consolidation of the existing loose knit pattern of development and would alter the visual appearance and prevailing rural character of the area. It is not considered that the proposal would integrate effectively into the immediate setting and it would not conserve or enhance the AONB which is afforded great weight. Consequently the proposal is considered contrary to Core Policy 51 (ii, vi and ix) and 57 (i, iii, vi) of the WCS (Jan 2015) and NPPF (March 2012) Paragraph 115 and Section 7.

3.    The proposal, located remote from a range of services, employment opportunities and being unlikely to be well 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. New development should be located and designed to reduce the need to travel by private car and should encourage the use of sustainable transport alternatives. The proposal is contrary to Core Policy 60 of the adopted WCS (Jan 2015) and Paragraph 34 of the NPPF (March 2012).