Agenda item

Conversion of existing bank to create 3 no. x 1 bed and 1 no. x 2 bed flats with parking.

Public Participation

Dan Wilden spoke in support of the application

John Jordan spoke on behalf of the Parish Council

 

The Senior Planning Officer, Warren Simmonds presented the application which was for Conversion of existing bank to create three 1 bed and one 2 bed flats with parking.

 

The building was not listed; however, it was next to a listed building, and it was in a conservation area.

 

As part of the development, a modern rear extension would be removed and replaced with a low wall to improve visibility.

 

A small outbuilding adjacent to parking space number 5, had an external door. It was confirmed that the allocation of space number 5 would be tied to the ownership of the outbuilding.

 

No third party representations had been received and there were no objections from the Conservation Officer.

 

In respect of the marketing and disposal of the building, Cllr Jeans had informed the Officer that it was his belief that this had not been carried out correctly.

 

The former use of the building as a bank was A2 use. Rural facilities that benefit rural communities should be retained for community use, how relevant that was, is a matter for debate.

 

The application was recommended for approval with conditions.

 

The Members had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the Officer, where it was clarified that the development allowed for one parking space for the double one-bedroom apartments.

 

Whilst Officers had been made aware that a representation had been made to Cllr Jeans, no representation had been submitted to the Planning Authority. As such it would have to be treated as unsubstantiated.

 

During marketing of the Bank, there had been an amount of interest, however this had not been commercial. And only for residential. The marketing process had been carried out.

 

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

 

Mere Town Council spoke on the application, noting that Mere was not a large town and there were not many employment opportunities so people did have cars. These apartments were all double bedroom, it was likely that 5 parking spaces would not be sufficient. The site was right in the centre of Mere, and the area was already completely burdened with vehicles. It would add to a big problem that was already present. If the bins were in the car park area it would cause issues on collection day. A development of just 2 apartments would have been better for this site.

 

The Division Member Cllr Jeans then spoke in objection of the application, noting that the applicant had stated that a marketing exercise was conducted. It states "Lloyds Bank in The Square, Mere closed for business on 24th September 2017.

 

A national agency, CBRE, were asked to market the site for the bank to dispose of it, and a brochure was circulated to more than 1000 agents and clients and also appeared online. This marketing process commenced on 25th September 2017. CBRE confirmed that they had an amount of interest but all from residential developers and none from commercial operators at al.

 

I question this when I am aware of a significant applicant regarding the Mere area, this being our local dentist who claimed he offered more than the guide price and in effect was not entertained by the selling agent. I know of another similar case where commercial activity was not welcome, however because of commercial sensitivity I cannot give the information in public and may be not at all.

 

I supplied details to the Planning Officer of our local dentist experience; the dentist had given me permission to air this in public today. Apparently, we as Wiltshire Council take the word of the applicant when a marketing exercise is conducted regarding commercial interest, unless someone challenges it. As explained, in my opinion it is difficult to challenge a commercial marketing exercise in public and indeed sometimes in a lesser public environment. However, I have brought this to your attention.

 

One of the 5 offered parking spaces is next to the out buildings access door,  is this access door going to be in the control of the person who will have the adjacent parking space? If not, I cannot see how it can be a valid car parking space, because of the obstruction caused by the parked vehicle. The door to the shed is not shown on the plan, is it to be blocked and if so how will the building be accessed.

 

Smaller properties like these proposed, will have some trade vehicles brought home, and when a van is parked in the 1^st car parking space, the visibility into a busy small road would be obstructed, and require a tight manoeuvre to exit.

These vehicles will often be reversing out, where is the turning space?

 

When this building was a bank, customers or staff made little use of the buildings car park, which was now being considered for 5 parking spaces. Customers walked or used spaces in and around the Square freed up by residents going to work or going out. Mere already has around 50 properties that have no or insufficient parking and live near Mere Town Square. About 25 of these were flats some of whose residents had trade vehicles. The Old Ship Hotel was also being developed, again with local knowledge I know more overspill will result.

 

Mere has little public transport and none to some local destinations. Vehicles are part of the rural seen in Mere, they are needed for work and everyday transport, for instance hospital appointments.

 

In the evenings North Street and nearby roads are almost impassable for parked vehicles, as explained some are trades vehicles, taking up much of the road. Parking has become so severely oversubscribed; Mere Town Council have set up a committee to look into the parking problems we have.

 

A resident has attended to represent those living in or near Mere Square and The Town Council Chairman. Wiltshire has gone against Highways recommendations before armed with local knowledge, I hope you will support me to refuse this and maybe at your discretion, question the marketing exercise.

 

Cllr Jeans then moved the motion of refusal against Officer recommendation, on the grounds of overdevelopment. This was seconded by Cllr Dalton.

 

A debate followed where they key issues raised included that there was no documented evidence to support the accusation that marketing was not carried out correctly.

 

The proposals were not for a new build, the development in the built environment was the same.

 

Highways had not registered any objections on parking grounds and the development met the current requirements on parking.

 

A similar building which had previously been a bank in Amesbury had sat empty for a long time. Buildings like these large banks did not transfer very well into a shop. The solution for the bank in Amesbury was a nightclub.

 

The view of the Town Council was recognised, that there were problems with parking, however the development included parking spaces for all of the apartments.

 

The Committee then voted on the motion of refusal. The motion was not carried.

 

Cllr Westmoreland moved motion of approval. This was seconded by Cllr Hewitt.

 

Resolved

That application 18/11174/FUL be Approvedwith conditions:

 

1. Thedevelopmentherebypermitted shallbe begunbefore the expiration of three yearsfrom the dateofthispermission.

 

REASON:TocomplywiththeprovisionsofSection91 oftheTownand Country PlanningAct1990 asamendedby thePlanningand CompulsoryPurchaseAct 2004.

 

2. Thedevelopmentherebypermittedshall becarriedout inaccordancewith the followingapproved plans:

 

DRG No. 8980/200 dated November 2018, as submitted to the local planning authority on 23.11.18, and

DRG No. 8980/201 dated November 2018, as submitted to the local planning authority on 23.11.18

 

REASON:For theavoidanceofdoubt and in theinterestsofproper planning.

 

3. Notwithstandingtheapproveddrawings,no worksshall commence with respect to the relevant details, until detailsof the followinghavebeensubmittedtoand approvedinwritingby theLocal PlanningAuthority:

 

(i)Large scale (1:10) section details for the two new doors within the front south elevation

 

Theworksshall becarriedout inaccordancewiththeapproveddetails.

 

REASON:Theapplicationcontainedinsufficientinformationtoenablethis matter to be consideredprior to grantingplanningpermission

 

4. No  development  shall  commence  on  site  until  details  of  the  works  for  the disposalof sewerageincludingthepointofconnectiontotheexistingpublic sewerhavebeen submitted toand approvedinwritingby theLocal Planning Authority.Nodwellingshallbe firstoccupieduntil theapprovedsewerage details havebeen fully implementedinaccordancewiththeapprovedplans.

 

REASON: The applicationcontainedinsufficient informationtoenable thismatter to be consideredprior to grantingplanningpermission

 

5. Nodevelopmentshall commence onsiteuntil ascheme for thedischargeof surface water from the site(includingsurface water from the access/driveway), incorporatingsustainabledrainagedetails,has beensubmittedtoand approved in writingby theLocal PlanningAuthority. The developmentshallnot be firstoccupieduntilsurfacewater drainagehas beenconstructedinaccordancewith theapprovedscheme.

 

REASON:Theapplicationcontainedinsufficientinformationtoenablethis matter to be consideredprior to grantingplanningpermission

 

6. Norailings, fences, gates,walls,bollardsand othermeansofenclosure developmentshallbe erectedinconnection withthedevelopment hereby permitteduntil detailsoftheirdesign,external appearanceand decorativefinish havebeen submitted to andapprovedinwritingby theLocal PlanningAuthority. Developmentshallbe carriedout inaccordance withtheapproveddetailspriorto the development beingoccupied.

 

REASON:  Intheinterestsofvisualamenityand thecharacterand appearance of the area.

 

7. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be first occupied until the access, turning area and parking spaces have been completed in accordance with the details shown on the approved plans, and the marked out. These areas shall be maintained for those purposes at all times thereafter.

 

REASON: To ensure that adequate provision is made for parking within the site in the interests of highway safety.

 

8. No part of the development shall be first occupied until the existing outbuilding has been removed and new walling provided, and visibility splays shown on the approved plans have been provided with no obstruction to visibility at or above a height of 600mm above the nearside carriageway level. The visibility splays shall be maintained free of obstruction at all times thereafter.

 

Reason: In the interests of highway safety