Browse

Agenda item

20/04863/FUL - Land Adjacent to Waitrose, Malmesbury By-Pass, Malmesbury, SN16 9FS

Proposal for a change of use of land and the construction of a Gabion Wall and Infilling.

Minutes:

Public Participation:

 

Mr John Davies, neighbouring resident, spoke in objection to the application.

 

Mr Barry Lingard, neighbouring resident, spoke in objection to the application.

 

Mr Campbell Ritchie, neighbouring resident, spoke in objection to the application.

 

Councillor Phil Exton, on behalf of Malmesbury Town Council, spoke in objection to the application.

 

Lee Burman, Development Management Team Leader, introduced the report which recommended that the application be approved, subject to conditions, for the change of use of land and the construction of a gabion wall and infilling.

 

Reference was made to the presentation slides (Agenda Supplement 1) and it was clarified that the description of development had been amended to include that the application was for a change of use of land from agricultural to private amenity space after correspondence with the applicant. It was noted that the application site was the subject of previous proposals that had been refused as a result of concerns over inadequate information provided to assess the archaeological value of the site and perceived harm to the Malmesbury Conservation Area. It was confirmed that these concerns had been addressed as the application had materially changed due to the submission of a comprehensive archaeological assessment, the exclusion of previous proposals for tree planting and further details to the gabion wall. As such, Senior Conservation and Archaeologist Officers had not raised any objections.

 

Key issues highlighted included: principle of development; impact on the Heritage Asset (Conservation Area); impact on the character, appearance, visual amenity and openness of the locality; loss of agricultural land; impact on residential amenity; impact on archaeological interest and potential; impact on ecology/County wildlife site; impact on drainage/flooding; impact on trees; and impact on Highways safety.

 

Members of the Committee had the opportunity to ask technical questions to the officer. The main points of focus included: the size, height, materials and the importation of those materials proposed for the gabion wall and the infill; logistics of the construction process; drainage; designated car parking areas; and the access point. Councillor Peter Hutton additionally sought further clarity as to the possibility of including certain conditions with respect to restricting external lighting and the amount of paraphernalia that could be left on the site.

 

In response, officers noted: written details as to the materials the gabion wall and infill would be constructed from were included within the application, however Conditions 3 and 4 requested further details including samples. It was also noted that there were discrepancies in the referencing for the wall sections which officers were again pursuing with the applicant for further details via use of condition. Condition 4 was again highlighted, and it was noted that it ensured that the materials for the infill were permeable to mitigate an increase in run off but officers did not have details as to what the construction of the infilling would look like. Officers confirmed that there were no plans for any hard surface parking arrangements included within the proposal but noted that it could be conditioned. The addition of the conditions raised by Councillor Hutton were agreed upon, with officers further suggesting that if members were minded to approve, then they could also include conditioning the submission and approval of a Construction Method Statement and/or Elevation for the gabion wall to further control the details of the proposal. Officers additionally highlighted the lack of objection from Highways officers with regard to the access point and the increase in construction vehicle traffic.

 

Members of the public, as detailed above, had the opportunity to address the Committee and speak on the application.

 

Councillor Gavin Grant, as the Local Unitary Member, spoke in objection to the application. The main points of focus were the significant change to the character, appearance and visual amenities of the site/locality; the perceived harm to the conservation area and the negative impacts on neighbouring residents’ amenities. Reference was also made to the lack of supporters making representations and the lack of detail and accuracy within the application, including the intended use as an amenity space. Other points raised included: concerns over the legitimacy of the applicant’s ties to the Malmesbury area and the application site itself; means of accessing the site; the use of the area as a popular local dog walking route; the minimal visual intrusion of the existing Waitrose establishment; and the rural and historic nature of Malmesbury.

 

Officers reiterated the lack of objections from landscape, ecologist, conservation and Highways Officers. It was emphasised that Planning Officers were seeking to clarify the exact details of ownership and had been assured of proof of a relationship between the applicant and those named on the property’s title deeds.

 

Councillor Gavin Grant moved to refuse the application against officer recommendations on the basis of Wiltshire Council’s Core Policy 57 (i), (iii) and (vii), and Core Policy 51 (ii) and (vii). This motion was seconded by Councillor Chuck Berry.

 

During the debate members discussed the size of the proposed gabion wall and infilling, the subsequent amount of materials needed, and the transportation of such. Other points debated were: inaccuracies and lack of detail in the application; historical origins of the site; harm to the conservation area; impacts on neighbouring residents’ amenities; advantages of local neighbourhood plans in rural communities; and the lack of a residential property attached to the site.

 

Councillor Gavin Grant sought clarification and advice from Lee Burman and Councillor Toby Sturgis as the Case Officer and Cabinet Member for Spatial Planning, Development Management and Property respectively, as to the strength of the Core Policies cited in the original motion if the Committee were minded to refuse the application. Both Lee Burman and Councillor Sturgis went through each of the Core Policies and Sub-Sections in turn and gave their opinions as to the merit of each in the event that the Committee refused the application and that decision was appealed. Lee Burman additionally noted that members could cite Policy 13 of the Malmesbury Neighbourhood Plan and Paragraph 170 (b) of the Neighbourhood Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) as relevant to the decision to refuse based on matters raised in debate by Committee members. As such, Councillor Gavin Grant amended the original motion to instead refuse the application against officer recommendations on the basis on Wiltshire Council’s Core Policy 57 (i), Core Policy 51 (vi), Policy 13 of the Malmesbury Neighbourhood Plan and Paragraph 170 (b) of the NPPF. This amendment was agreed upon and seconded by Councillor Chuck Berry.

 

At the conclusion of the debate, a vote was taken on the motion for refusal. The Democratic Services Officer called upon each member who confirmed they had been able to hear and, where possible, see all relevant materials and indicated their vote in turn.

 

Following which, it was:

 

Resolved

 

The Committee REFUSED the application, contrary to officer recommendations, for the following reasons:

 

The proposals result in an unnatural, manmade landscape feature (gabion wall and levelled land) of substantial scale in an open agricultural field and this is considered intrusive, incongruous and uncharacteristic of the locality with consequent harm to the character, appearance and visual amenity of the locality. The proposals are therefore contrary to CP51 (vi) & CP57 (i) of the Wiltshire Core Strategy Jan 2015; Policy 13 of the Malmesbury Neighbourhood Plan (Made February 2015); and para 170(b) of the National Planning Policy Framework (July 2019).

 

Supporting documents: