THE following planning applications have been decided upon by Wiltshire Council recently.

Chippenham: Martin and Hanna Duggan of 27 Sheldon Road have been granted planning permission to demolish an existing rear single-storey lean-to extension and the construction of a single-storey and two-storey rear extension.

Chippenham: Hugh Furneval of 40 Monks Way has been granted planning permission to demolish an existing conservatory at the property to replace it with a single-storey rear extension with external alternations.

Langley Burrell: Planning permission has been refused for a building conversion to create a holiday let at BT Repeater Station in Sutton Lane.

The applicant, Dariusz Pucilowski of 120 Pintail Court in Lyneham, was refused permission for the development, according to the decision notice, because of the location of the proposal in open countryside.

The planning officer wrote that 'there no evidence that the proposal would be realistically occupied in conjunction with a countryside attraction, nor does it lie close to sources of facilities or employment'.

The officers then deemed the proposal to not be an acceptable form of tourist development, as defined in the Wiltshire Core Strategy. It was also noted that the proposal would need 'substantial extension' and would, therefore, not preserve the character of the original building.

Gastard: Mr and Mrs G Jenkins of 16 Velley Hill have been given planning permission to build a two-storey extension and a single-storey rear extension at their property.

Great Somerford: Mr Wood of The Old Church School in Hollow Street applied for permission to replace frames and roof of an existing conservatory at the rear of the property. Mr Wood was granted planning permission.

Calne: A first-storey side and rear single-storey extension will soon be built at 35 Low Lane following a successful planning application by Thomas Lyus.

Calne: A double-storey rear extension will soon be built at 43 Low Lane following a successful application by Melanie Ferris.

Warminster: Tim Spinney of 1 Dorothy Walk has been given the green light to demolish the existing bungalow at the property and to place it with a new dwelling with garage.

Melksham: Sam Kirk of 75 Semington Road has had his bid to build a two-storey side and read extension approved.

Marston: Rebecca Milton of Croft Farm in Plough Lane has been refused planning permission to demolish a dilapidated former dairy building and pole barn, as well as the disassembly of the steel-framed barn. The application also requested permission to reassemble and make alterations to the barn and construct new buildings, which would be a mixture of agricultural buildings (animal shelters and storage) and buildings for ancillary residential purposes (a new garage, office, studio or workshop).

In their decision notice, Wiltshire Council’s planning officer said: “Due to the overall mass, design and appearance of the outbuildings would have a harmful impact on the rural character and appearance of the site to the detriment of the visual amenity of users of surrounding public rights of way which afford direct views of the application site and wider property." They added that the proposed development was deemed ‘unsustainable’ due to its ‘poor design’ and the harm ‘to designated heritage assets and visual amenity’. Adding that there were no exceptional circumstance or other considerations which could justify the proposals.

Seend: David Hawkins of Lock Cottage in Bollands Hill has been given planning permission for the change of use of an agricultural field to be an amenity garden. This plans include the construction an agricultural barn, the demolition of a breeze block WC and single-skin brick building and replace them with a single wooden utility shed.

Royal Wootton Bassett: Mr J Arnold of 27 Church Hill, Wroughton has been refused planning permission to demolish at dwelling at Stillwaters, Coped Hall and build three dwellings in its stead.

In their decision, director of economic development and planning, Sam Fox said that the proposals were considered a 'cramped form of development which would be an overdevelopment on the site' and cause harm to the area.

They also noted that: "Due to the cramped and enclosed nature of its garden, as well as its outlook; future occupiers of plot two would have a poor standard of amenity."