The Western Area Planning Committee met to discuss planning appeals and applications in the western region of Wiltshire. The committee approved an outline application for an indoor training facility at Bradford Rubin Football Club in Winsley, and deferred a decision regarding the retrospective change of use of the George Hotel in Codford to allow for further discussion with the applicant. A decision on a retrospective application for a summer house/shed in Melksham was also deferred pending a site visit.

Planning Appeals and Updates

Kenny Green, Planning Manager, provided an update on planning appeals. He noted that there was an appeal pending for an application on Melksham Road in Holt, and that the appellant had submitted a subsequent application in an attempt to address the committee's concerns.

Of the five determined appeals, three had been allowed. These included an outline application for 54 dwellings at Dilton Marsh, a nine-house scheme at Chapman Slade, and a Class Q application¹ at Wingfield. The committee had successfully defended an appeal over a four-house development at Newtown in Westbury.

The enforcement notice relating to Kingsdown Farm, Longbridge Deverill, had been quashed. The committee heard that the inspector was more concerned about the lack of a time frame within the condition relating to landscaping, despite the committee's intention to ensure landscaping was delivered. Councillor Christopher Newbury said that the applicants had never delivered any landscaping at all, despite landscaping conditions being in place from the beginning. He asked what could be done to ensure landscaping was delivered. Kenny Green responded that the only option available was that the applicant had permission until the end of the year to bring material onto the site, and if they were not complete by then, they would have to submit a fresh application.

Councillor Bill Parks thanked Gemma Foster for her work on the appeal for the nine houses at Chapman Slade, even though the appeal was allowed.

The committee noted the planning appeals update report.

Bradford Rubin Football Club, Ashley Lane, Winsley

The committee considered an outline application for the construction of an indoor training facility at Bradford Rubin Football Club, Ashley Lane, Winsley. Verity Giles-Franklin, Senior Planning/Conservation Officer, presented the report, recommending approval subject to conditions.

The application site is located within the grounds of the existing rugby club, on land designated as green belt and within a locally designated special landscape area. The site is also located within various core roof buffer zones associated with the Bath and Bradford-Navon special area of conservation. The proposed building would be sited close to the existing clubhouse and on-site car parking provision.

The proposed building would measure 50.6 metres in length, 32.6 metres in width and 9.8 metres in height. The proposal would also include a lean-to aspect that would be subservient to the main building that would be used for changing rooms and as a fitness suite that would be located on the southern elevation. On the southern roof slope is intended to include some solar panels. The proposed building would be completed in a green-coloured profile cladding that would have a graduated colour that would have a darker shade at the bottom moving to a lighter shade towards the top.

The proposal had been revised to reduce the height and the overall scale of the building. The height of the building has been reduced by 22%, with the footprint and scale of the building being also reduced. Overall, the size of the building now proposed is 40% smaller than the original proposal.

The officer said that the application was considered acceptable in principle as the proposal is seeking to increase the existing on-site facilities of an established sports club on a site that has been previously considered acceptable for sports use.

During questions, Councillor Andrew Davis asked why there was no connectivity from the changing facility into the main facility. Verity Giles-Franklin responded that there was no planning reason why that there isn't connectivity between the two. Councillor Bill Parks asked about the enhanced planting, and Verity Giles-Franklin said that the applicant had provided some drawings of the proposed landscaping proposals as part of this, just to show a commitment that they are willing to be providing that additional landscaping. Councillor Nigel White asked about the local visibility impact assessment, and whether allowance was made for the time of year that the assessment was done. The officer responded that an LVIA² is a specific document that should show the worst situation, i.e. when plants, trees are not in leaf, if there are such trees in a site. Councillor Chris Vaughan asked if a flat roof design had been considered. The officer responded that they had worked with the applicant to try and scale down the size of the building, and that the applicant's agent had attempted to bring forward a design that isn't really not, that is not in, start again, that's not out of place within the countryside location.

The committee then heard from members of the public. Lawrence Howe, a local resident, objected to the scale of the building and the potential increase in traffic. Niall McDougall, chair of Winsley Cricket Club, spoke in support of the facility, saying it would be a very important community asset. Alison Lugston, a planning consultant working with the applicant, said that the proposed training facility is considered to represent appropriate development in the greenbelt and the principle of the development is supported by officers. Clive Roberts, Director of the Rugby Club, said that the grounds become unplayable for typically four weeks of the year, due to flooding, freezing, or snow, and that the facility would be something that they could actually open up to those schools, as well as the cricket club. Councillor Ian Berry from the parish council, objected to the application, saying it is not appropriate in terms of sizing within the green belt, and that he did not understand the business case.

Councillor Nigel White said that he was somewhat ambivalent, but that he was not convinced that the need for the development was a special circumstance that would allow it to be approved in the greenbelt.

Councillor Ernie Clark said that he could see the benefits of it, but that he didn't think the benefits outweigh the size of this building and the problems it might cause the village to the north of it. Councillor Andrew Davis said that the principle of a sports taking place on this on this site is there, and that it's designed and looked like a an agricultural building.

On the motion of Councillor Bill Parks, seconded by Councillor Andrew Davis, the committee voted to approve the application.

George Hotel, High Street, Codford

The committee considered an application for a retrospective change of use of the ground floor of the George Hotel, High Street, Codford, from a public house to Class E (Commercial, Business and Service). David Cox, Planning Officer, presented the report, recommending refusal.

The public house first closed in 2013, then reopened in 2017, and closed again in 2019. In September 2020, the unauthorized change of use to Class E for the use of the hair salon and for the tea rooms came through.

David Cox said that CP 49 is a policy specifically to help retain public houses, and that the evidence has to demonstrate that the building is not viable and has been subject to a fair marketing exercise. He said that this was not the case. He also said that the council's strategic asset manager wasn't happy with the valuation, and that there was no justification for the asking price.

During questions, Councillor Andrew Davis asked if there had been any consideration of the fact that there were other places where people could buy alcohol in the village. David Cox responded that the Broadleaze Bar opened in 2015, and that the theatre only has a license but then it's opening must be quite rare in terms of how often it's actually available to the to the public to be open.

Councillor Andrew Griffin asked if the current applicant was the one who ran it as a pub previously. David Cox responded that the tenant of the tea room ran the pub between 2017 and 2019. Councillor Andrew Griffin then asked if the council was contemplating any enforcement action in respect of this if the application is refused. Kenny Green responded that if this committee resolves that this application should be refused the next step would be for me to instruct our planning enforcement team to consider taking enforcement action because the tea room is unlawful.

The committee then heard from members of the public. Kyriakos Christodoulou, said that he operated it as a pub in 2019 until 2019, and that the reason for closing it is it was not covering its costs. He then reopened it as Codford Tea Rooms back in 2020 during the pandemic. Lizzie Lee said that she lived and worked in Codford and that she loved it, and that she was echoing the voices of those unable to speak, over 136 locals who week after week come in to nurse their babies and the caregivers who bring their clients to us for cake and chat. Chris Gosling, the agent, said that he could provide the missing information from David Cox's timeline, and that Four County Inns bought the site for something in the order of 240,000 pounds. He also apologized for the lack of an official viability report, but said that his client didn't see the need to pay for this, as it would have been pretty expensive, and it's a report that he told me is already telling me what I know. Councillor Tom Thornton, chair of Codford Parish Council, said that the parish council must recommend that this retrospective planning application as it currently stands is refused.

Councillor Christopher Newbury said that he approached this with a completely open mind, and that he thought the officers have got the right recommendation here. He said that if we simply overturn the officer's recommendation and give a change of use to class e full stop, this is not necessarily going to remain as a tea room forever.

Councillor Ernie Clark said that it seems that the application is against core policy 49, and that the safest way forward with this is for the refusal the officers recommended and then see what the applicant does with the council and hopefully the parish council to come forward with something. Councillor Andrew Davis said that he was minded not to be supportive of the recommendation on the table, but that if we were to take its course and it goes to the refusal we would be refusing the whole building, not just the quarter at the the point of the corner of the building.

The committee voted against the motion to approve the application.

Councillor Christopher Newbury then suggested a motion to allow the change of use to class e but only brackets b, and to give a perhaps a note to the applicant that this permission does not rule out future use as a public use because as a public house because it's sui generis, and that we leave the option open for extra community uses so there is that with that existing hairdressers which again is unauthorized which we understand to be vacant that could potentially be used either again as a pub or in other community facility like a pharmacy.

Councillor Mike Phillips said that he liked the all all uses that they actually suggested, rather than just specifically trying to narrow it down.

The committee voted against the motion to allow the change of use to class e but only brackets b.

Councillor Christopher Newbury then suggested that the committee defer this for officers to discuss with the applicant whether we can get an application for all of the different elements together till we come back to a future meeting.

The committee voted to defer the application for a site visit.

Sarum Avenue Melksham

The committee considered an application for a partial retrospective application for a small summer house/shed with a covered area to the west side of said summer house/shed at 2 Sarum Avenue, Melksham. Kenny Green presented the report, recommending approval.

The application site is a corner plot between Sarum Avenue and Woodstock Gardens. The dwelling is set back from the highway with parking for several vehicles along the site frontage. The rear garden is enclosed by c1.9m high vertical timber fence which is set back from the highway by about a metre and has recent planting on the outside face.

The overall footprint of the operational development measures 7.7m x 3.2m with the built shed measuring 3.2m x 4.1m, with the remaining area consisting of a covered area with one stone clad wall elevation on the west side of the building. The roof of the summer house/shed has a modest 5 degree sloping roof with eaves and ridge heights of 2.3m and 2.6m respectively. The covered area is lower, with eaves and ridge at 2.1m and 2.5m respectively.

The applicant has also installed an air source heat pump as well as constructing a fish pond or a koi carp pond. Neither of those form part of this application.

Kenny Green said that the structure requires permission from the council, but as I've set out in the report it's a very modest structure it is not harmful to the street scene the character of the street scene is made up by a mix of property types without buildings of different sizes some of which project above the boundary fences and some are within the side gardens rather than at the rear.

During questions, Councillor Andrew Davis said that in Trowbridge it's one of one of my big things is is people putting up fences on the front of their houses which are over the one meter level and you say that in this application the fence is it is not what we're discussing but can technically if somebody wants to put up a two meter fence they could do it if they just set it back a meter say a foot back from the road boundary. Kenny Green responded that the test is a fence under permitted development unless there's a condition on that particular property taking away all pd rights would allow a fence up to one meter if it's adjacent to a highway in this case that fence isn't adjacent to the highway it's adjacent to a strip of land behind a fence that is adjacent to the highway so um in terms of the test it is a gray area in terms of where it where something is adjacent and whether there's an intervening parcel of land does that mean that the fence behind an existing fence is a form of enclosure that doesn't require planning permission. Councillor Christopher Newbury said that these 60s and 70s developments do very often have a covenant exactly and it pops up in the registered titles so if anybody's interested to know whether there is a covenant which protects against destroying the open plan this it will be there in the registered title that you can get for three pounds from hm land registry. Councillor Andrew Davis asked if assurances could be given that rainwater goods will go into its own separate soak away or certainly not into the main strains. Kenny Green responded that we are sitting as a planning committee building regulations aren't really that material i can certainly if if members wish to add it it cannot certainly be added as a planning informative just to remind the applicant of their obligations to make sure that they adhere to all building regulations that apply to this um structure um a planning informative is really the only option that's available to this committee for it.

The committee then heard from members of the public. Christopher Pickett objected, saying that the area that we're talking about is actually predominantly residential and it's a cul-de-sac estate so there's no through roads so all the houses that are in this area are residential houses which as you have said 1960s 1970 built um and they're all used as residential places. Councillor Jon Hubbard said that he was there before you today to respectfully challenge the offers recommend the officer's recommendation for approval and to support the well-founded objections that have been made by local residents and whilst i acknowledge the thoroughness of the officer's report i do believe that several critical issues have been inadequately addressed that warrant your careful consideration.

Councillor Andrew Griffin said that the image that you see on the screens in front of you at the moment includes ahead of the main original building a short one meter deep or so extension porch like structure which was built after the original building so that reverting back to the earlier picture that was shown which uh in with the blue line on it that indicated the extent to which this uh structure is ahead of the original property line um is minorly misleading because it should have the blue line should have been about a meter back.

Councillor Christopher Newbury moved the recommendation, saying that he couldn't see what harm it does cause to anybody almost all of it is going to be screened by the 1.9 meter fence and i see a couple of trees have been planted there as well does seem to me that this is de minimis really and that all of the other issues that cancer hubbard has raised are matters to be dealt with at a future date when new planning applications come in.

The committee voted against the motion to approve the application.

Councillor Christopher Newbury then suggested that the committee defer for officers to discuss with the applicant whether we can get an application for all of the different elements together.

The committee voted to defer the application for a site visit.