Agenda item

A report by the Case Officer is attached.

The following people spoke against the proposal:

Mr Rick Rowland, representing Devizes Community Area Partnership

Mr Simon Fisher, representing the Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group

Mr Tony Duck, representing the Trust for Devizes

Mr John Kirkman, representing the CPRE

Cllr Andy Geddes, representing Roundway Parish Council

Cllr Judy Rose, representing Devizes Town Council

The Committee received a presentation by the Area Development Manager which set out the main issues in respect of the outstanding appeal.  He reported that this application had been previously refused planning permission by Strategic planning Committee at its meeting on 25 September 2013.  The applicants had subsequently lodged an appeal and a Public Inquiry was scheduled to take place week commending 7 April 2014.

The Inspector’s tenth procedural letter (2nd December 2013) to the Wiltshire Core Strategy had changed the context within which this application should be considered and impacted upon the reasons for refusal. The Inspector had suggested that the Core Strategy housing requirement should be increased by 5,000 to 42,000 homes in Wiltshire and it is currently unclear what impact this would have on the number of homes planned for Devizes and the East Housing Market Area. This Committee was therefore being requested to consider the approach to the conduct of this appeal.

Members had also received a copy of a letter to the Editor of the Wiltshire Gazette & Herald from seven local Members of the Council and also emails from Mr D Buxton, Mrs S Buxton, Mr F Morland and Mrs M Taylor all objecting to the proposal.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions after which the Committee received statements from members of the public as detailed above, expressing their views regarding the planning application.

Members then heard the views of Cllr Laura Mayes, the local Member, who spoke in objection to the application, noting that there was no objection in principle to some new housing being developed in the Devizes area, but highlighting the significant extent of the application in an area not identified through policy for such development. She also considered that an additional 580 house development (the total of Laywood and Coate Bridge proposals)  was more than the target figure for the period to 2026.

After a full discussion

Resolved:

To request the Officers to vigorously defend the Council’s decision to refuse planning permission for this development at the forthcoming Public Inquiry in April 2014 for the original reasons the application was refused in September 2013, namely:-

1)    The site lies outside of the limits of Development defined for Devizes in the Kennet Local Plan 2011. In this location, new development is restricted to that which is of benefit to the rural economy or the social well-being of the community. The Council does not consider that a housing development of this scale would support the rural economy or benefit the social well-being of the rural economy. The proposal would therefore conflict with policy NR6 of the KLP.

2)    The Draft Wiltshire Core Strategy, through CP2, requires development outside of the Limits of Development for Devizes to be identified through community-led planning policy documents including neighbourhood plans, or a subsequent development plan document which identifies specific sites for development. This site has not been identified through this process and it would therefore conflict with policy CP2 if planning permission were to be granted.

3)    The Council is satisfied that there is no overriding need to bring forward this site outside the Limits of Development for residential development at this stage as it is satisfied that there is adequate land available to meet the Government requirement expressed in the NPPF for a 5 year land supply.

4)    The site includes within its boundaries potential heritage assets with archaeological interest, including a number of earthworks recorded on the Historic Environment Record.  The Council considers that in these circumstances, and in accordance with paragraph 128 of the NPPF, an archaeological field evaluation is required to properly inform the Council of the impact of the development on archaeological remains. No such evaluation has been undertaken on the site and the proposal is therefore considered to be premature as the Council is unable to assess properly the impact on any potential archaeological heritage asset on the site.

(At the conclusion of this item the Committee recessed for 10 minutes from 1.25pm until 1.35pm.)