Agenda item

Outline application for residential development of up to 50 dwellings, associated parking and access (off of Firs Road) , open space and infrastructure; relocated guide hut, new pre-school building and land to extend existing primary school playing fields.

Public Participation

E Harris spoke in objection to the application

B Sloane spoke in objection to the application

N Miles spoke in objection to the application

A Whalley (Agent) spoke in support of the application

Cllr Elaine Hartford spoke on behalf of Alderbury Parish Council

It was noted that the senior planning officer left the room for transparency, due to him residing within the community area for this application.

The Senior Planning Officer, Warren Simmonds introduced the report, which recommended that the application for Outline application for residential development of up to 50 dwellings, associated parking and access (off of Firs Road) , open space and infrastructure; relocated guide hut, new pre-school building and land to extend existing primary school playing fields be approved subject to the land owner entering into a S.106 agreement with the Council addressing the heads of terms as detailed in the report.

Attention was drawn to late correspondence circulated at the meeting.

It was noted that there would be pedestrian only access off the junction road.

An already approved development of new sports pitches and a pavilion on the field beyond, had already commenced.

The site was outside of the housing boundary for Aldrebury, and did not meet any of the exceptional circumstances, however it did meet some of the community benefits.

The proposal included 9 Affordable Housing units, the relocation of the existing guide hut to a more suitable location with parking. The gifting of land to the school, and a source of new pupils for the school as it was currently undersubscribed. The roadway to the football pitches and club would double as an additional Drop off facility, at school times.

Member then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the Officer. It was clarified that there was not a turning circle at the end of the drop off track for vehicles to turn and exit. The application site was quite boggy, but it was used for football.

Members of the public then had the opportunity to present their views as detailed above.

The Unitary Division Member Cllr Richard Britton then spoke in objection to the application, noting that the Policy reasons for refusal, don’t just revolve around HPB but also CP1, which states that development will be restricted to infilling and small developments (10 houses or less).

Alderbury had several more sites for development in the pipeline and with the development at Matrons College of 28 dwellings, Alderbury would continue to develop.

He felt that there was no policy justification for this.

There were Highways considerations associated with the problems on the A36. Highways England said the road was operating at capacity and they would oppose significant development if put forward. This proposal was for 50 dwellings, which was a significant proposal.

There was already a rat run through Whaddon to bypass the traffic build up. A real and significant increase of traffic through the village was inevitable.

The recommendation for approval depended solely on the community benefits.

A new guide hut and a preschool, would both be welcomed but not a benefit to the wider community.

More parking spaces were proposed, whether they would be used was another matter.

The lease on the new football fields was already signed and going ahead so not linked to this application.

The majority of the members of the football club did not come from the village but drive in on match days. It was recognised that the club did play an important role in the village.

A real benefit would have been the provision of 40% affordable homes, which would be 20.

Cllr Britton then moved the motion of refusal, this was seconded by Cllr Westmoreland.

A debate followed where key issues raised included that the community had refused the gains offered and the proposal was not supported by the parish council.

The applicant needed to talk to the community to see what they need and want.

A 40% of affordable homes was the requirement everywhere else, the community wants that. It was not acceptable that the proposal for 18% had been signed off.

The site was wet and could get even worse. Ideal place near the school for affordable homes.

The Committee then voted on the motion of refusal.

Resolved:

That application 17/04001/OUT be refused, against Officer’s recommendation for the following reasons:

The site of the proposed development is outside of the defined limits of development of the settlement of Alderbury - a Large Village as defined within the adopted Wiltshire Core Strategy (WCS). Within the WCS, Core Policy CP1 (The Settlement Strategy) envisages a limited level of development at Large Villages, predominantly in the form of small housing and employment sites within the settlement boundaries. Small housing sites are defined as "sites involving less than 10 dwellings (i.e. not a major application)". Development outside the settlement boundary will be strictly controlled.

The proposal to erect up to 50 new dwellings outside of the settlement boundary is considered contrary to Core Policies CP1 & CP2 of the adopted WCS and the aims and objectives of the NPPF & NPPG insofar as it would constitute an unsustainable form of development outside of the settlement boundary that would place undue strain on the limited existing services and facilities within the settlement.

The harm that would be caused by the unsustainable nature of the proposed development would not be outweighed by the community facilities and benefits put forward as part of the proposed development.