Agenda item

Erection of a dwelling with access and parking (following withdrawal of 18/01573/FUL).

Public Participation

Mr Bob Edwards, on behalf of the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

Mr Aaron Smith, agent, spoke in support of the application.

Cllr Owen White, Chair of Planning for Ludgershall Town Council spoke in support of the application.

Cllr Christopher Williams, unitary division member for Ludgershall and Perham Down, spoke in support of the application.

Georgina Wright, Senior Conservation/Planning Officer presented a report which recommended that permission be refused for the erection of a dwelling with access and parking (following the withdrawal of 18/01573/FUL).

Key issues were stated to include the following:

This was a full application proposing the subdivision of the plot and the development of most of the existing garden with an additional two storey dwelling. The current property on the site, Perry’s Cottage, was grade II listed for its historic significance. The Conservation Officer objected to the application on the grounds that less than significant harm would be caused by the subdivision of the plot reducing the visual and physical separation of the cottage from its neighbours.

An update was provided to the Committee containing clarification relating to the heritage assessment of the application. The application had been accompanied by a Heritage Statement produced by Forum Heritage Services. This concluded that ‘the setting of the listed building has been obliterated to such an extent that no further harm may be done’. After due consideration, the Conservation Officer’s assessment was contrary to the applicant’s heritage adviser. It was considered that the proposed severance and development of the plot would adversely affect the setting of the Grade II listed cottage, reducing its visual and physical separation from its neighbours. It was also likely to reduce its desirability/use and maintenance in the long term and therefore would result in less than substantial harm to the significance of the heritage asset. Therefore the recommendation was to refuse the application.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer. Details were sought on some of the photographs of the site regarding the positioning of the new dwelling. It was clarified that the new dwelling would face the shops adjacent to the site and would be situated 2m from the boundary fence.

Members of the public then had the opportunity to present their view to the committee as detailed above. During public statements Ludgershall Town Council and Councillor Christopher Williams, unitary division member for Ludgershall and Perham Down, highlighted that Perry’s Cottage was owned by Ludgershall Town Council. It was stated that monies raised by the sale of the land would be used to renovate and maintain Perry’s Cottage. Perry’s Cottage would be rented out, therefore the application provided community benefit.

In response to public statements the officer stated that these details were not provided with the application, which was made by an independent person rather than Ludgershall Town Council, and therefore had not been taken into consideration.

A debate followed, whereby many members stated they felt that the damage to the site had already occurred due to the encroachment of many tall, modern buildings around the site. Therefore the addition of the new dwelling may enhance the appearance of the site, as the roofline, being slightly higher than that of the cottage, formed a ‘visual bridge’ between the cottage and surrounding buildings.

Other issues raised included the community benefit to be derived from the monies raised by sale of the land to a developer being used for the maintenance and upkeep of Perry’s Cottage. It was also stated that the heritage asset would be enhanced as a result of the application as monies raised would go to the maintenance and upkeep of Perry’s Cottage.

Councillor Christopher Williams proposed a motion to grant planning permission, against officer recommendation, with conditions being delegated to planning officers. This was seconded by Councillor Paul Oatway. At the conclusion of the debate it was;

Resolved:

To GRANT planning permission, with conditions to be delegated to planning officers.

Reason:

Paragraph 134 of the NPPF states that harm may be acceptable where there are clearly defined and achievable public benefits, and where those benefits could not be achieved by less harmful means, either at this site or elsewhere. The Committee stated that any harm caused to the heritage asset was outweighed by the community (public) benefit the application would bring. The Committee also stated that Core Policy 58 of the Wiltshire Local Development Framework applied as the heritage asset, Perry’s Cottage, would be enhanced by maintenance undertaken with monies raised.