THE following planning applications have been decided by Wiltshire Council:

COLERNE: Mr R Payne of Park Farm, Thickwood Lane, has had planning permission refused for the conversion of a barn to a dwelling. The proposal was seen as ‘an inappropriate development within the Green Belt which is, by definition, harmful.

‘The application fails to demonstrate that there are any material considerations or very special circumstances that exist to outweigh this harm and overcome the presumption against such development.’

BROMHAM: Adrian Rushby, of Cote Brampton, Oxford has had permission granted for the demolition and replacement of poultry buildings and associated infrastructure at Bromham Farm, Durlett.

MALMESBURY: Williams Sanders, of Hankerton Priory, Hankerton, has had permission approved, with conditions, for change of use of land to allow storage of four storage containers and two caravans.

These conditions include: ‘The four storage containers and the two caravans shall not extend to 2.4 metres above the existing ground level of the hatched black area as shown on the proposed site plan.

‘The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

‘The use of land shall be limited to the storage of four storage containers for domestic storage and two caravans within the specified area. The caravans hereby approved for storage purposes shall at no time be occupied for residential use.

‘No external lighting shall be installed on site until plans showing the type of light appliance, the height and position of fitting, illumination levels and light spillage in accordance with the appropriate Environmental Zone standards.’

CALNE: Simon Tomlinson of 14 The Street, Cherhill, has been successful in his application to reduce the crown of a walnut tree by 30%, because of over-shading and the tree’s proximity to the edge of a steep bank.

CHIPPENHAM: Mr Sholonake of Noble D Ltd, 114 St Paul Street, Chippenham, has been refused permission for the remodelling of an existing extension, with a further extension over and conversion of the property to a six-bedroom HMO dwelling.

The report gave reasons for its refusal that included: concerns over the parking in the area, as this could exacerbate existing parking problems and congestion on the street.

There were also concerns over intensive use of the premises, which would generate noise and an unacceptable disturbance for neighbours.

The proposal was also seen as out of character with the surrounding area, and had no adequate provision for additional waste and recycling facilities.