The following are planning applications, appeals, decisions and more from Wiltshire, recently.

PL/2021/06460: A bid for a certificate of lawfulness for the sitting of touring caravans has been knocked back by Wiltshire Council.

Mr and Mrs Awdry of Long River Farm, Newtown in Westbury applied to the council for the siting of moveable structures pursuant to camping and siting of temporary touring caravans at their property.

In rejecting the application, planning officers wrote: “Sufficient evidence has not been submitted to the Local Planning Authority to support this Lawful Development Certificate. On the balance of evidence produced, the local planning authority considers that the land subject to this application and shown edged red on the site location plan, has not been used for a period in excess of 10 years for camping use and the siting of touring caravans.

“The tourist use, as submitted, is not lawful.”

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

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

Despite winning planning permission, the town council objected to the plans. It cited concerns that the bid represented “a disproportionate enlargement of this former stable block” and would make the building bigger 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 put in plans to raise the roof line of his existing bungalow to form bedrooms.

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

In refusing Mr Hicks’ plans, officers wrote: “Harper Road has a distinct character comprising modest bungalows 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 gable roof, side dormers and two storey rear extension does not effectively relate to the immediate setting and character of the area.

“The proposed development is considered to create an incongruous addition to the locality which will adversely harm the distinct character and appearance of the streetscene and host dwelling.

“As such it is considered that the proposed development is contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework, National Design Guide, Core Policy 57 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy and the guidance contained within Creating Places SPG.

“Furthermore, the proposed enlargement through the two-storey extension will add bulk creating an overbearing development in relation to adjacent dwellings, the rear first floor doors and associated balcony is unneighbourly and to the detriment of the residential amenities of immediately adjacent properties through overlooking from first floor areas, contrary to core policy 57.”

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

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

Their plans would have seen a first floor extension built onto Truslowe Manor, which would include ground floor alterations and a refurbishment of the swimming pool area.

There would also be alterations made to the roof of the wooden sheed and the introduction of new external walls and doors.

Planning officers said: “The cumulative impact of the proposed development in relation to the historic development of the site would have a harmful and detrimental impact on the setting of the heritage assets.

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

“The scheme would therefore constitute an inappropriate form of development, which would cause less than substantial harm to the designated heritage assets and their setting.

“There are no public benefits that would outweigh the harm identified.”