WESTBURY: (pictured) A bid to remove a mobile home in Lower Road, Bratton and build a house in its place has been refused after planners ruled that the location was not based in an established housing area. The mobile home was given planning permission in the past because a planning inspectorate ruled that traveller and gypsy sites were needed in the area. However, a new planning bid to remove the caravan has been rejected. The application was for a three bedroom house and removal of existing mobile home and hardstanding. Walls of the dwelling would be rendered while the roof would be concrete tiles. Parking for cars was included. But officers said: “The site has not been identified at this stage for development through either the Wiltshire Housing Sites Allocation Plan or a Neighbourhood Plan, and the proposal fails to meet any of the exceptional circumstances listed.”

COLLINGBOURNE DUCIS: A bungalow in Church Street will not be replaced with a house. Bidding to rebuild the home, applicant Mr Gordon said: “Existing building is of very limited heritage value, poor condition with incongruous modern materials for the conservation area setting. Structure would be difficult to adapt or improve.” Neighbour Stuart Roberts raised some concerns and said: “This is a significant increase in windows and rooflights than currently exists at present and will, in my opinion, have a detrimental impact on the amenity space that I currently enjoy. The two storey gable end wall that is proposed which faces my property will result in overlooking.” The Wiltshire Council conservation team also raised an objection and in refusing the plans, officers said: “The large scale and massing of the proposed dwelling would reduce visibility of the historic buildings within the conservation area, and introduce a building of a scale and form that is out of character with the site’s historic origins.”

MALMESBURY: Plans for a first floor extension to a house on Gastons Road has been refused. Owners Luke and Mandie Hollingworth also wanted to replace an attic dormer window. Although Malmesbury Town Council did not object, planners ruled: “The proposed oak boarding suggested for the external cladding alongside the scale, form, density, bulk and mass of the extension when viewed in site context would be considered as an unsympathetic design, constituting an incongruous feature that does not reflect the style of the host or surrounding properties and prevailing character in this part of the conservation area.” The proposal to extend the terraced house was rejected.

TROWBRIDGE: Permission for a home to be built on an alpaca farm at Breach Lane Orchard in Southwick has been refused. The applicant wanted retrospective permission to keep using the current mobile home and argued it was necessary to live on site to be able to assist and deal with the number of breeding female alpacas. However the council’s farming expert said that the number of alpacas being bred there was near to exceeding the maximum amount of animals allowed in to live in a site of that size.The expert said: “There remains an underlying problem in the way in which the land will be managed. The essential need pertains largely to the higher value breeding females.” Extra land has been located for the alpacas, but planners argued this meant a permanent home was not needed. Planning officers ruled: “The application proposes to accommodate alpacas off site and the locations would require the applicant to travel to reach the herd.The application lacks evidence why it is essential to live on site.”

CHIPPENHAM: A former office space will be turned into a home in The Causeway. The building had been used as a shop and office space for several years, most recently as offices for Willis and Co until March 2019. The building has deteriorated ‘significantly’ in recent years, according to the applicant, Mr and Mrs Willis. Permission was granted in 2014 for the building to become a home but years passed and the plan was not acted upon, so the permission has now lapsed. The Conservation Officer objected and the Town Council raised concerns about the proposed window materials and the height of the ridge. In response to these concerns revised plans were submitted and the proposed first floor window was reduced in size’ to better reflect the traditional window hierarchy.’