Agenda item

Mr Dury spoke on behalf of Mr and Mrs Richardson in objection to the application.

Hugh Bellars and Arlene Warren spoken in objection to the application.

Nathen McGloghlin spoke in support of the application.

Norman Davis, Sutton Benger Parish Council, spoke in objection to the application.

The planning officer introduced the report which recommended that planning permission be refused and drew attention to an additional reason for refusal in the late observations. The application had originally been for 60 dwellings and had been reduced to 28. The indicative layout of the site was shown in addition to photographs of the street scene and a description of the surrounding area.

The Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical question and it was confirmed the development was outside the settlement boundary and there was a five year land supply.

Members of the public then addressed the Committee as detailed above.

The local member, Cllr Howard Greenman, spoke in objection to the application.

Following comments raised the planning officer confirmed the outline application demonstrated the development would be far enough from existing neighbouring properties to avoid an adverse impact on them. It was noted issues such as the retention of hedges could be resolved at a reserved matters stage and comments from the Conservation officer were considered a material consideration.

In the debate that followed Members considered there had been much development in this area and this application may constitute overdevelopment. The planning officer advised he could not confirm whether the boundary treatment approved under the previously consented scheme was close-boarded fencing. Councillors advised the community to develop a Neighbourhood Plan to help ensure housing was provided in appropriate locations. Some Members expressed concerns the site could be of archaeological importance. The Committee noted relatively few houses needed to be found in the wider Chippenham area, this application was outside the framework boundary and considered overdevelopment of the site in the village with inadequate services and facilities to support additional residential development.

Resolved:

To refuse planning permission for the following reasons:

1.    The site is located in the countryside outside of the limits of development of Sutton Benger as defined on the Policies Map and by virtue of its scale and location would conflicts with the sustainable development strategy of the plan as expressed in Core Policies 1, 2 and (community area strategy policy) of the Wiltshire Core Strategy. The proposed residential development does not fall to be determined under any of the 'exception policies' defined at paragraph 4.25 of the plan within Core Policies 10 & 44 of the Core Strategy, or relate to a site allocated in the development plan for residential use. It would therefore constitute unsustainable development in the countryside.

2.    In light of the above, the Council has been unable to secure a Section 106 Agreement in respect of financial contributions associated with the proposed development, contrary to Policies CP43 & CP3 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy and policies H4, CF3 & CF2 of the adopted North Wiltshire Local Plan 2011.

3.    Whilst it is acknowledged that some new housing needs to be built in Wiltshire, the location, quantity of new structures and means of access would be harmful to the setting and integrity of the heritage assets. The proposals are thereby contrary to the NPPF para 17 (10) as they would not conserve the heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance, paragraph 131 as they would not sustain or enhance the significance of the heritage assets or put them to a viable uses consistent with their conservation, would not make a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness, para 132 as the proposed development would not conserve the heritage assets due to the harm caused within their setting, and para 134 as the development would lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of the designated heritage assets and although there is some public benefit by building new housing, this does not outweigh the harm caused to the heritage assets and will not secure their optimum viable use, the proposal would therefore be contrary to Core Policy 58 in the Wiltshire Core Strategy Adopted 2015.