Agenda item

Erection of 2 No. dwellings and associated landscaping and access works (amended design).

This item was deferred from the 17 June 2020 meeting of the Committee.

Public Participation, Statements read out by the DSO

Statement of objection by Nick Brindley

Statement of support by Chris Beaver (Agent)

Statement of support by Mr A Holdoway (Applicant)

Statement of objection by Limpley Stoke Parish Council

The senior planning Officer, Jemma Foster, introduced the report which recommended granting planning permission, subject to conditions, for the erection of two dwellings and associated landscaping and access works.

It was noted that a committee member site visit had taken place earlier that day to comply with the June committee meeting deferment.

Key issues highlighted included, the small village status of Limpley Stoke, the ‘made’ Neighbourhood Plan (NP) and its policy on residential infill development as well as green belt and impacts upon the nearby listed church.

The committee was advised that the application was considered compliant with the adopted Wiltshire Core Strategy, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and with the ‘made’ Neighbourhood Plan.  The application would deliver two additional dwellings within what was considered to be part of the established village (noting that the made Neighbourhood Plan specifically created a settlement boundary for the village and included the site within it, and that the application was in accordance with the infill policies).

The committee were informed of the proposed highway improvements including enhanced visibility and ecological safeguards. It was also confirmed that none of the Bath asparagus which was present on the site would be removed as part of the construction works.

The committee was advised that officers and the conservation consultees raised no objection in terms of the impact the proposed development would have upon the setting of the nearby listed church.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer which focused on seeking clarity on whether the proposal would be policy compliant infill development, mindful that the site owner had benefitted in recent years of having two dwellings approved under the infill policy.

In response, the committee was informed that neither the made Neighbourhood Plan nor the adopted Wiltshire Core Strategy prescriptively prevented more than 2 dwellings being allowed as infill development, and that there was no policy prohibition for subdividing a plot further to create more infill opportunities.

The Democratic Services Officer, Kieran Elliott, then read out the public statements that had been submitted prior to the meeting, as detailed above. All statements were also available to view in the Agenda Supplement 1, published prior to the meeting.

The Division Member, Cllr Johnny Kidney, was unable to attend the meeting and provided his apologies prior to the meeting and prepared a statement which was read on his behalf by the Democratic Services officer. The main points were:

The committee was advised that this was the first occasion that Limpley Stoke Parish Council had asked Cllr Kidney to call in an application.

Members were advised that the site was very sensitive, being located within the Green Belt, the AONB and a Special Landscape Area, as well as being within the setting of the Grade II* listed St Mary’s Church.

In 2015, Limpley Stoke Parish Council was one of the first in Wiltshire to adopt a Neighbourhood Plan, which was unique in that it was created as part of a cross-boundary collaboration with Freshford Parish in Bath and North East Somerset.

Members heard that over the past few years, there had been some concern raised that the ‘made’ Neighbourhood Plan policies had been overlooked, which the PC found to be very frustrating in its efforts to engage positively for planning and development purposes.

Both Limpley Stoke and Freshford Parish Council argue that the site in question had already benefited from an infill development, with No.3 Church Lane being subdivided into two additional plots in 2016 to create what were now: No.3, No.3A and No.3B Church Lane.

The Parish Council did not object to that previous development, as it was considered to be in line with its infill policy. However, both Parish Councils argued that sub-dividing the newly created No.3A property and site into a further additional two plots leading to effectively infill of infill, which would conflict with the Neighbourhood Plan.

This proposal would be a step too far, particularly given the site’s sensitivity. As members would be aware, a significant number of local residents had also expressed opposition to these plans, as had the Church committee of St Mary’s.

Wiltshire Council’s Core Strategy provides a definition of infill within section 4.34 which asserts that: “For the purposes of Core Policy 2, infill is defined as the filling of a small gap within the village that is only large enough for not more than a few dwellings, generally only one dwelling. Exceptions to this approach will only be considered through the neighbourhood plan process or DPDs.”

As both Parish Councils regarded the current application as failing to satisfy the definition of infill, it should be refused.  In allowing the application, the Neighbourhood Plan would be undermined.

Cllr Kidney’s Statement opined that Parish Councils themselves, were best placed to interpret what they intended when setting out their infill policy.

Noting the conflict with the NP, the landscape sensitivity of the site and visual impact on the setting of the Grade II* listed St Mary’s Church, both Limpley Stoke and Freshford PCs identified policy grounds for refusal as CP2 and NPPF paragraph 145.

Cllr Kidney’s Statement also suggested there would be a conflict with paragraph 12 of NPPF relating to their being a conflict with the Neighbourhood Plan.

Cllr Kidney asked the Committee to consider the policies set out in the NP and take on board the views expressed by those who worked so hard to produce it.

Following the above, it was noted one member that the site visit had been very useful, in assessing the likely effects of the proposed development, adding that whilst he appreciated the local concerns, he was satisfied that the development would be acceptable, and there would not be substantive grounds to refuse planning permission.

At the start of the debate a proposal was moved by Cllr Seed, seconded by Cllr Carbin to approve planning permission in line with the officer recommendation as set out in the report.

The Chair requested officers to clarify the impact the development would have on the green belt and the policies relating to infill development compliance. In response, officers advised that the case officer’s report set out the detailed assessment and that there would be no harm to the green belt as the site was considered an acceptable infill opportunity, and as far as officers were concerned, the application was compliant with the made Neighbourhood Plan and adopted Wiltshire Core Strategy.

Points further discussed included the potential harm to the setting of the listed church, however the committee was advised that both Historic England and the Council’s Conservation Officer had both been consulted and raised no objections.

Following the debate, the motion of approval was voted on.

Resolved

That application 19/10471/FUL be approved in line with Officer recommendation, subject to the conditions: