The Northern Area Planning Committee of Wiltshire Council met on 5 November 2025, to discuss planning appeals and a planning application in Kington St Michael. The committee reviewed several completed and pending planning appeals, including sites for gypsies and travellers, and ultimately voted to refuse planning permission for extensions to a garage in Kington St Michael, against officer advice, citing concerns about its scale and impact on the conservation area.

Planning Appeals and Updates

The committee received an update on planning appeals that had been received or determined since their last meeting. Simon Smith, Development Management Team Lead, highlighted that the types of applications being determined included several household and gypsy and traveller sites.

He drew specific attention to the appeal for Wheatleys Farm, a proposal for mineral and waste extraction, which was allowed with conditions, with the inspector giving great weight to the economy. Councillor Chuck Berry highlighted residents' disappointment with this decision.

The committee also noted the decision to dismiss an appeal relating to Land West of Milbourne, Malmesbury for 92 dwellings, which was decided on titled balance¹.

The committee noted that the current percentage of major applications successful overturns at appeal was around 9.7%.

PL/2025/00485 - 86-87 Kington St Michael, Chippenham, SN14 6HX

The committee considered planning application PL/2025/00485 for extensions to an existing garage at 86-87 Kington St Michael, a domestic dwellinghouse. The proposed structure included an enclosed garage, office, log store, WC/kitchenette and an open-sided car port. Associated enabling works included ground re-levelling, partial removal of a stone wall, the construction of a new stone wall and new hard landscaping to form a driveway leading to the car port.

Simon Smith, Development Management Team Lead, introduced a report which recommended that the planning permission be granted. He explained that the proposal was considered acceptable in principle and would not result in harm to the character or appearance of the area, the setting of heritage assets, residential amenity or ecology. He added that, subject to conditions, the proposal would not give rise to highway safety concerns and overall the proposal was considered to be compliant with the relevant local and national policies. Key issues were stated to include the principle, design and impact on the character and appearance of the area and heritage assets, residential amenity, highway safety, ecology impact, biodiversity net gain and other matters.

The committee heard from public speakers, including:

• Colin Labouchere, speaking in opposition
• Patsy Davies, speaking in opposition
• Benjamin Bloor, speaking in support
• James Willmont, speaking in support
• Peter Macdonald, Chairman of Kington St Micheal Parish Council, speaking in opposition

Councillor Howard Greenman, the unitary division member, raised concerns about the current location of a utility pole and the need to discuss its relocation with the utility company, formal notification of the church representatives, the relationship and proximity of the Grade II listed building to neighbouring properties, impact on the village green, access on to Stubbs Lane, the size and scale of the proposal and over development. In response, the officer explained that due to the scale of the development the church representatives would not normally be formally notified of the application.

Committee members asked technical questions of officers, raising the following matters:

• It was unclear if the Highways Officer had visited the site before submitting comments
• Concerns about the foundations of the adjoining property and the party wall
• The proximity of the proposals to the neighbouring property
• The reasons for including a kitchenette and toilet within the proposals
• Size of the development
• The scale of plans provided

The officer explained that he was unsure if the Highways Officer had visited the site, the foundations and part wall are matters for Building Control to consider rather than the Committee to determine, many domestic buildings have kitchenettes and toilets as a common feature included within this type of structure – condition 3 referred to ancillary to the residential use of the main dwelling, the size of the development is for the Committee to determine, and conditions 4 and 9 refer to the use of the building prior to the visibility splay is provided and the utility pole being moved.

Councillor Howard Greenman, seconded by Councillor Elizabeth Threlfall, proposed that the planning application be refused for reasons of over development and contrary to the requirements of policies CP57(i) and (iii), CP58 to the Wiltshire Core Strategy, as well as paragraphs 210, 212, 215, 219 and 221 to the National Planning Policy Framework, contrary to officer recommendation.

A debate followed where issues such as the scale of development although it was felt the proposed design was preferable to the existing structure, opposition to the use of tarmac for the driveway instead of pavers/gravel, proximity to the neighbouring boundary and the consequences of being unable to relocate the utility pole were discussed.

The improvement of the external materials used for the extended outbuilding (i.e. timber cladding and natural slate), along with the additional off-street parking space was recognised within the debate as a public benefit, but it was not considered to outweigh the harm caused by the excessive scale of the proposal to the character and appearance of the Kington St Michael Conservation Area as a heritage asset.

The committee voted to refuse planning permission, stating that by reason of its excessive scale, the proposal is a poor form of development, which does not respond positively to the character and appearance of the locality and will not protect, conserve or enhance the wider Kington St Michael Conservation Area, with no identified public benefit outweighing the harm caused to it as a heritage asset. Accordingly, the proposal is contrary to the requirements of policies CP57(i) and (iii), CP58 to the Wiltshire Core Strategy, as well as paragraphs 210, 212, 215, 219 and 221 to the NPPF.