Agenda item

Outline application (all matters reserved except external access) The erection of up-to 49 dwellings, accesses from Church Road, Green Infrastructure including landscaping and children’s play, a sustainable urban drainage system and utility buildings (amended description).

Public Participation

Judy Ward spoke in objection to the application.

Ian McDonald spoke in objection to the application.

Johanna Ailano spoke in objection to the application.

David Barnes spoke in support of the application

Cllr Nick Baker, Vice Chairman of Laverstock and Ford Parish Council spoke in objection to the application.

Lynda King, Senior Planning Officer, introduced a report which recommended that the outline application (all matters reserved except external access) for the erection of up-to 49 dwellings, accesses from Church Road, Green Infrastructure including landscaping and children’s play, a sustainable urban drainage system and utility buildings be approved, subject to conditions and an S106 agreement.

Key details were stated to include the principle of development, highway safety and drainage. 

Attention was drawn to the amended site map published in agenda supplement 1 and amended conditions published in agenda supplement 2.

The officer explained that in the current Local Plan - the Wiltshire Core Strategy (WCS) Laverstock was identified as a Small Village. As such development was limited to infill within the boundaries of the village. So, the application was contrary to current policy. However, in the emerging Local Plan the site was allocated for up to 50 houses. A previous iteration of the application was for 135 houses. During negotiation and due to the emerging Local Plan, the applicant had reduced the number of houses to a maximum of 49. 

The proposal included an area of green space through the middle of the site so that views to Cockey and Laverstock Down would be preserved. Improvements to local highways were included as part of the application. The Laverstock and Ford Neighbourhood Plan included green buffers around the area and the site did not encroach on those. There had been lots of objection to the application from local residents and the parish council. Objections included that the application was premature in relation to the Local Plan; development creep; adverse impact on landscape sensitivity; highways concerns and flooding.

Consultee responses were summarised. There had been no objections to the revised plan, subject to conditions and a S106 agreement.

In summary, the officer explained that whilst the application was contrary to current policy, there was a significant need across Wiltshire for more affordable housing. Salisbury was a constrained area and sites needed to be found for houses. Development of the site was not seen to be harmful, hence its allocation in the emerging Local Plan for development. The emerging Local Plan had been drawn up using the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The government was proposing revisions to the NPPF and the direction of travel was to increase housing levels across the country. Wiltshire Council currently had a Housing Land Supply (HLS) of 4.2 years. Under the previous government the HLS had been reduced from 5 years to 4 years. It was likely that under the current government this would be reversed. Therefore, more land would need to be allocated for housing. Officers felt that it was better to do this via sites which had been assessed as part of a planning process, such as this site. Hence the recommendation for approval, subject to conditions and a S105 agreement.

Members of the committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer. Details were sought on policies, school travel plans and whether this application was premature.

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

The unitary division member, Cllr Ian McLennan then spoke in objection to the application. Points raised included that this was contrary to policy; the increase in housing in Laverstock and Ford over recent years; the importance of the view to Cockey and Laverstock Down; that the site was previously deemed unsuitable and that in Small Villages development should meet local need, and there was none identified here. The Cllr praised the comments of Laverstock and Ford Parish Council, which were at pages 30-37 of the agenda. Further issues raised included that Cockey Down was a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI); there would be a loss of grade 3 agricultural land; the local doctors surgery had closed in 2019; there was a need for crossing on London Road rather than Church Road; archaeological concerns and that the local primary schools were full. Cllr McLennan also noted that the current requirement was for a 4 year HLS and Wiltshire Council had 4.2 years. For all the reasons stated, Cllr McLennan urged Members to refuse the application.

In response to public speakers the officer stated that they had made a balanced judgement to recommend for approval. Strategic allocations could override policy in relation to Small Villages. It was highlighted that it was better to consider a site which had been through an assessment process as this one had, and that there were no technical reasons it could not be developed.

Cllr Ernie Clark proposed that the application be refused contrary to the officer recommendation, as it was contrary to current policy, particularly CP1 and CP2, and the Neighbourhood Plan. This was seconded by Cllr Howard Greenman.   

A debate followed where many Members stated that it was not good practise to go against current policies. Whilst housing requirements in Wiltshire may be going up 81%, Members did not want that to be in Small Villages. The outcome of the emerging Local Plan was not yet known, and one should not disregard current policy due to what may or may not happen in the future.

Others felt torn as they could see both sides of the argument. It was highlighted that if towns and cities were growing, villages had to take their proportion of housing as well.

There was further debate on the reasons for refusal and officer advice was sought. The reasons for refusal which both the proposer and the seconder were happy with, were that the application was contrary to CP1 and CP2, amplified by CP23. The site lay outside the boundary of development in the current WCS and was unsustainable development in the open countryside. The application was also contrary to the Laverstock and Ford Neighbourhood Plan 2022. This was a Small Village where development was limited to infill. The final wording of the reasons for refusal would be delegated to the officer, encompassing the points above. The motion to refuse was put to the vote and it was,

Resolved

That planning permission be refused for the following reasons.

1.    The development would be contrary to Core Policies CP1 and CP2, as amplified by CP23 in that the site lies outside of the boundaries of development in the current Wiltshire Core Strategy, and therefore constitutes unsustainable development in the open countryside. The development is also contrary to the provisions of the Laverstock and Ford Neighbourhood Plan (2022) which recognises that the settlement is identifies as a Small Village where development is limited to infill.

Note: The meeting was adjourned for a short break. The meeting reconveened at 12.00pm.