Plan appeals, applications and decisions in Wiltshire

Here are planning requests, appeals, decisions and more from Wiltshire, recently.

PL/2021/06460: A bid for a legality certificate for touring caravan sitting has been rejected by Wiltshire Council.

Mr. and Mrs. Awdry of Long River Farm, Newtown in Westbury have asked the council for the siting of mobile structures in accordance with the campsite and the siting of temporary caravans on their property.

In rejecting the application, planning officers wrote: “Sufficient evidence has not been submitted to the local planning authority to support this legal planning certificate. On the basis of the evidence produced, the local planning authority considers that the land which is the subject of this application and shown in red on the site layout plan, has not been used for a longer period than to 10 years for camping and setting up traveling caravans. .

“Tourist use, as presented, is not lawful.”

PL/2021/10775: Plans to expand tourist accommodation in Marlborough have been given the green light.

M Galfe and B Lawson of 52 Park Close, Ilchester Place in London have requested the construction of an extension to the existing tourist accommodation at The Old Stable, West Stowell in Marlborough.

Despite obtaining planning permission, the city council opposed the plans. He feared the bid would represent “a disproportionate enlargement of this former stable block” and would make the building larger than its original footprint.

PL/2021/10613: Plans to raise the roof of a bungalow to form more bedrooms have been canned by planning officials.

Mr Hicks of 56 Harper Road in Salisbury planned to raise the roofline of his existing bungalow to form bedrooms.

The plans also included a bid to build a two-storey extension to the rear of the property.

Denying Mr Hicks’ plans, officers wrote: ‘Harper Road has a distinct character comprising modest bungalow or chalet bungalows with a fairly uniform design with hipped slate roofs with the majority of dwellings including a chimney.

“The proposed development due to its scale and design with a gabled roof, side dormers and a two storey rear extension does not relate effectively to the immediate setting and character of the area.

“The proposed development is considered to create an incongruous addition to the locality which will detract from the distinct character and appearance of the street scene and the host dwelling.

“As such, the proposed development is considered to be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework, the National Design Guide, Base Policy 57 of the Wiltshire Baseline Strategy and the guidance contained in the Wiltshire GSP. creation of places.

“Furthermore, the proposed enlargement of the two storey extension will add volume by creating a dominant development over adjacent dwellings, the first floor rear doors and associated balcony are neighborless and to the detriment of the residential amenities of the properties. immediately adjacent overhanging first floor areas, contrary to base policy 57.”

PL/2021/05728: A Marlborough couple have been refused permission to extend their home.

Planning permission was refused to Mr and Mrs Johnson of Truslowe Manor, Bray Street, Avebury.

Their plans would have seen a first floor extension built on Truslowe Manor, which would include modifications to the ground floor and a refurbishment of the swimming pool.

There would also be modifications to the wooden shed roof and the introduction of new exterior walls and doors.

Planning officers said: ‘The cumulative impact of the proposed development over the historic development of the site would have a detrimental and detrimental impact on the setting of the heritage assets.

“Nominations are not considered to preserve elements of the setting that make a positive contribution to heritage assets and do not better reveal their purpose.

“The project would therefore constitute an inappropriate form of development, which would cause less than substantial damage to designated heritage properties and their surroundings.

“No public benefit would outweigh the harm identified.”

Comments are closed.