Agenda item

Public participation

Mark Funnel, the National Trust, spoke in objection to the application.

Des Seal, local resident, spoke in objection to the application.

Mark Johns, the applicant, spoke in support to the application.

Samuel Croft, the agent, spoke in support to the application.

John Bolden, Vice-Chair of Lacock Parish Council, spoke in objection to the application.

The Planning Officer, Simon Smith, introduced a report which recommended granting planning permission and listed building consent, subject to conditions, for a proposed ground floor and upper ground floor extension.

Attention was drawn to the late list of observations provided at the meeting and attached to these minutes.

Key issues highlighted included: principle of development; design and scale; impact upon a listed building and the conservation area; impact on residential amenity and highways and parking.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer which focused on: the design and scale of the application and the materials used in the construction for the external surfaces and their design.

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

detailed above.

Cllr Ben Anderson, Division Member, spoke regarding the application with the main points focusing on: the massing, size and scale of the application; the unique and distinctive character of the local area; the impact on the wider area; overdevelopment of the site; impact on neighbourhood amenity; impact on the listed building and the lack of public benefit.

The Planning Officer addressed some of the issues raised by the public and local members with the main point focusing on the Committee’s responsibility to compare the applications harm with its public benefit.

At the start of the debate a proposal was moved by Cllr Peter Hutton, seconded by Cllr Tony Trotman to grant planning permission as detailed in the report and subject to additional conditions regarding the construction of external surfaces.

During the debate the main points raised were: the public benefit of the application; the impact on neighbouring residential properties; the size and scale of the application; the impact on the Old Chapel; the construction for the external surfaces and their design; impact on neighbour amenity; impact upon a listed building and the conservation area; the unique and distinctive character of the local area and the weight of the views of those that are entrusted with the area’s conservation.

Following the debate, the motion was defeated.

A proposal was then moved by Cllr Grant, seconded by Cllr Greenman, to refuse planning permission contrary to the officer’s report.

This motion was carried.

A proposal was then moved by Cllr Grant, seconded by Cllr Greenman, to refuse listed building consent, contrary to the officer’s report.

This motion was carried.

Resolved

That planning permission and Listed Building Consent be refused for the following reason:

19/0842/FUL:

By reason of its design, massing, height above the existing roof and materials to be used, the box shaped garage extension element of the proposal would be out of character in the Conservation Area and in the context of surrounding Listed Buildings.  Accordingly, the development is considered to be harmful to the character and appearance of the locality and surrounding Listed Buildings and that harm would not be outweighed by any identified public benefits.  The proposed development fails the requirements of policy CP57 (iii) and (iv) and policy CP58 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy as well as relevant paragraphs in sections 12 and 16 to the NPPF.

19/08758/LBC:

By reason of its design, massing, height above the existing roof and materials to be used, the box shaped garage extension element of the proposal would be out of character in the context of the Listed Building to which it would relate.  Accordingly, the works are considered to be harmful to the setting of the Listed Building and that harm would not be outweighed by any identified public benefits.  The proposed works fail the requirements of policy CP57 (iii) and (iv) and policy CP58 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy as well as relevant paragraphs in sections 12 and 16 to the NPPF.