Agenda item

In respect of application numbered S/19/0147/SASM - Erection of 1no. dwelling and associated works, Land To The Rear Of The Rocks, The Avenue, Stanton Fitzwarren the Committee considered: -

          Name                                 Address/Organisation

          Jeremy Flawn                      Agent Jeremy Flawn

          Tom Sharnock                    Stanton Fitzwarren Parish Council

          Councillor Steve Weisinger  Ward Councillor

Councillors Alan Bishop, Toby Elliott, Fionuala Foley, Jane Milner-Barry, Stan Pajak, Vera Tomlinson and Peter Watts spoke in respect of this application.

Submissions in support of the application can be broadly summarised as:

·       The application was of a modernist design, attractive and had been well designed.

·       The majority of the site was within the village policy boundary as defined in the Stanton Fitzwarren Settlement Boundary and therefore within an area where development was acceptable in accordance with Policy SD2 and a valuable self-build property in accordance with Policy HA1 and the NPPF.

·       The application contributed towards meeting the Council’s housing need and 5 year land supply.

·       The application had been supported by Stanton Fitzwarren Parish Council and 16 local residents had also written in support of it with no objections received.

·       The only objection had been from the Conservation Officer.

·       Twenty years previously there had been a Dutch Barn located on the site.

·       The proposed development would not be visible from the road although a recent barn conversation close to the site was.

·       That given the history of development in the area of the village over the previous twenty years there was no detrimental effect arising from the proposed development.

·       The site historically fell within a farm and the site had been occupied by a Dutch Barn and the site was developed and not open at the time of designation and the openness could not therefore be considered integral to the character or setting of the historical assets.

·       There were no clear views relating to the Conservation Area across the site, looking out or rights of way.

·       The development complied with the Design Policies in the NPPF that development should be sympathetic of character and history including built environment and landscape whilst not preventing innovation or change and had been drawn up with one of the country’s leading Heritage Consultants.

·       Very little counter evidence had been provided to dispute the applicants’ Heritage Consultants report.

·       The village comprised approximately 80 homes with a new property being built approximately every 5 years due to the extraordinary efforts required of developers.

·       There were two solar farms within the village boundary with a third to be developed on the east side of the village and there had been an enquiry from PPS about a possible fourth solar farm within the Parish.  The proposed development was also on the east side of the village and would looking towards these solar farms.

·       The dwelling was sited within the Village Settlement Boundary, the design was discreet and well sited, used suitable materials, had a low roof height and solar panels and the site already had a garage.

·       The architect had designed the last property built in the village which had featured in national magazines and been shortlisted for awards.

·       The application and its location had been vetted by three Parish Council meetings which had helped shape the application before the Committee.

·       The site was only visible through a 1 metre gap between 2 properties situated on the road, it was outside the Conservation Designated Area of Special Interest and was between 80 and 110 metres from the nearest Listed Buildings.  The Village Conservation Plan had none of the village key views looking into the location of the proposed dwelling.

·       The character of the village was along the road and not the discreet location of the development.

·       The character of the buildings forming the village centre along the road were of mixed design and had been erected over a considerable time period.

·       On balance, there was no “harm” arising from the development.

Submissions opposing the application can be broadly summarised as:

·       The site was located within the Stanton Fitzwarren Conservation Area and is close to assets of acknowledged value including Listed Buildings which would neither be enhanced nor protected by the application.

·       The amended NPPF guidance paragraphs 195 and 196 of the published in 2018 set out how applications affecting conservation area assets should be dealt with.  The primary consideration was the harm such an application would have on those designated assets which may include Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas.

·       NPPF Paragraph 197 also gave weight to non-designated conservation area assets which also formed part of the consideration of significance.

·       If harm was found to the significance of those assets then this needed to be weighed against the public benefit the proposal would bring and if such public benefits did not outweigh any harm under national planning policy planning permission should be refused; if it did outweigh harm then the decision should be made on tilted balance and permission granted unless any adverse impact of the granting of planning permission significantly and demonstratively outweigh the benefits of the local and national planning policies.

·       In determining harm under the 1990 Act and Paragraph 193 of the NPPF consideration should be given to the preserving or enhancing the character of the Conservation Area and great weight to the Heritage Assets Conservation regardless of whether this would lead to harm, total loss or less substantial harm to the assets.

·       Conservation advice set out within the report was based upon the Council’s Conservation Area Appraisal indicated that harm would less than substantial although this still significant and weighed against the application.

·       The application was for a single unit that did not meet any affordable need and tree planting proposed by the applicant was not a planning issue.

·       The design of the building was out of character with other dwellings in the village.

Resolved - That the Head of Planning Regulatory Services and Heritage be authorised to grant permission in respect of application numbered S/19/0147/SASM subject to any conditions required to control the development.

Reasons

1. That the development as a result of its design and siting, would result in a scheme that is of acceptable appearance, and which supports the Conservation Area and the setting of adjacent Listed Buildings.

2. That the development would enhance the area and provide an additional home that is needed within the village to help meet the deficit in the Council’s 5 year Housing Supply.

3. That the development would cause no overriding “harm” as it was not visible from the main road through the village and nor would it impact on the properties situated on the main road which formed the character of the village and supporting its Heritage Assets.

(Councillor Peter Watts made a personal declaration of interest in respect of this application. As the interest was personal but not prejudicial the Councillor Watts remained in the room during the discussion and voting on the application.)