Agenda item

Dr Chris Bateman, spoke in objection to the application.

Pete Sladden, spoke in objection to the application.

Juliana Beardsmore, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

Councillor Roger Budgen, St Paul Without Parish Council, spoke in objection to the application.

The Planning Officer, Victoria Griffin, introduced a report which recommended that the permission be granted subject to the conditions listed in the report. The meeting’s attention was drawn to additional consultation views and the proposed revision to condition thirteen as outlined on the late observations circulated in the supplement.

Key issues highlighted included: the location of the proposals and the character of the area; the design of the proposal and the current development on the site; the elevation of the site and its access to the highway; the height of the proposals relative to houses in the area; the relationship between the extant permission and the proposed development; the layout of the proposals and the possible landscaping on the site; the mix of materials proposed and the siting of windows and openings and relationship to neighbouring properties and impact on amenities; that the slab levels can be checked, as part of the relevant proposed condition; the views of the drainage engineer; and that boundary treatment and landscaping could be conditioned.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer which focused on: the application of CP1, 2 and 57, and the provisions of the Malmesbury Neighbourhood Plan; clarification that permitted development rights were recommended for removal permitted in the proposed conditions; that an alternative ridge height would require permission; whether there was a similarly designed residential property in the area.

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

Councillor John Thomson, Division Member, spoke in objection to the application.

At the start of the debate a proposal to refuse the application was moved by Councillor Gavin Grant and seconded by Councillor Brian Mathew for the reason that the application is contrary to CP57 criteria (i) &(iii) in that the development did not contribute to a sense of place; was wholly out of character with the existing development in the locality; did not correspond to existing pattern of development and topography of the area; and would be contrary to the relevant tasks of the Malmesbury Neighbourhood Plan and the guidance contained in National Planning Policy Framework.

 During the debate the main points raised were: the impact of the proposals on the character of the area; the application of the inspector’s decision; the impact of the proposals on the streetscene;

The meeting sought advice from the Area Team Leader (North), Lee Burman, on the wording of the proposal.

At the conclusion of the debate, the meeting unanimously;

Resolved:

That the application be refused for the following reason:-

The proposed development by virtue of its scale, mass, form, layout and use of materials would constitute an incongruous feature in the street scene, out of character with the design and appearance of neighbouring residential properties. The proposals would be contrary to Wiltshire Core Strategy (Jan 2015) Core policy CP57 sub sections (i) & (iii); Malmesbury Neighbourhood Plan Vol II (Made Feb 2015) Tasks 8.14, 8.16, 8.17, 8.19, 8.20; and paras 17, 60 & 64 of the National Planning Policy Framework.