Agenda item

Public participation

Megan Campbell, the applicant, spoke in support to the application.

Lucy Hagg, local resident, spoke in support to the application.

Peter Grist, the agent, spoke in support to the application.

The Planning Officer, Steven Sims, introduced the report which recommended the refusal of planning permission for the proposed demolition of an existing domestic garden outbuilding and erect a single dwelling with a detached garage (re-submission of refused application 18/10459/FUL).

Key issues highlighted included: the principle of development with a detailed explanation of the adopted WCS policy on residential infill for small villages; the impact on the character of the area and AONB; the impact on the living conditions of neighbouring residents; the impact on the character of adjacent listed building; parking/highways issues; flood risk constraints and self-build issues.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions

of the officer which focused on: the usage of the existing outbuilding; whether the development of the site would satisfy the Council’s infill policy; discussing the lack of a defined settlement boundary for Longbridge Deverill (being identified as a small village only without limits of development); officers were also ask whether the existing domestic outbuilding could be converted under class Q; and questioned on the proposed height and use of the proposed detached garage. Officers were also asked about the pending appeal that related to refused application 18/10459/FUL, and what conditions may be appropriate should the committee be minded to grant permission.

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

detailed above.

Cllr Fleur de Rhé-Philipe, the Division Member, spoke in favour of the application and argued that the development forms a clear part of the garden linked to the host property and that the site is not open countryside; and that the application proposal should be supported as an infill development opportunity for the village adding that it would not cause harm to the character of surrounding area or neighbouring properties.  The local ward member also argued that the application should be tested on its own merits and that no precedent would be set by allowing the application.

At the start of the debate Cllr Pip Ridout put forward a motion to approve the application (subject to conditions), which was seconded by Cllr Stewart Palmen contrary to the officer recommendation with conditions to be imposed relating to commencement, approved plans, on site drainage; landscaping; ecology; parking; light spillage limitation measures and external lighting.

During further member debate, officers advised on: the pending appeal decision for APP/Y3940/W/19/3227029; the differences between the present application and the refused 18/10459/FUL submission; the lack of a settlement boundary for Longbridge Deverill, and the need to make an informed planning judgement on whether the site would be a policy compliant and acceptable infill site for an additional dwelling.  The level of public support for the application was duly noted along with the fact that the highways authority reported no objection in terms of access and highway safety.

Following the debate, the motion was defeated.

A proposal was then moved by Cllr Trevor Carbin, seconded by Cllr Ernie Clark, to refuse the application as per officer recommendation.

Resolved

That the application be refused for the following reasons:

1.     Having regard to all the submissions and relevant policies, including the policies of the National Planning Policy Framework taken as a whole, this application is considered to be an inappropriate, unsustainable form of development which would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefit of providing one additional dwelling in a countryside location. The proposed development, in the absence of suitable justification, is not considered to represent a sustainable development being contrary to Core Policies 1, 2, 31, 60 and 61 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy and the policies of the National Planning Policy Framework taken as a whole.

2.     The new dwelling and garage, due to its design, height, bulk and siting, would result in a development that detracts from the rural character of the area - which is a landscape which is considered 'so precious' that it is protected for the nation; and, that the development would contribute towards light pollution that would adversely impact on the dark night skies status of the AONB - being one of its much valued and key attributes. The development is therefore contrary to Core Policy 51 and Core Policy 57 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy and paragraph 172 of the Framework.

3.     The applicant has failed to demonstrate how the development would deliver net gains for biodiversity contrary to paragraph 170 of the Framework and Core Policy 50 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy.