Agenda item

The case officer presented the report which recommended the application for the erection of up to 26 dwellings (an outline application with all matters reserved other than access), be granted.

The key planning issues identified in the officer’s presentation were outlined and comprised: the principle of the development, including the 5 year housing land shortfall, archaeology, flood risk and drainage, the impact upon the character and appearance of the area, heritage assets, ecology and landscape, sustainable construction, the impact upon neighbouring amenity and access and highways.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer, with the development site being located outside the settlement boundary a central point for discussion.

Members of the public then had the opportunity to present their views to the Committee, as detailed below.

Public Participation

Tina Jones spoke in objection to the application.

Audrey Austin spoke in objection to the application

Lucie Castleman spoke in objection to the application

Christopher Dance, as agent, spoke in support of the application.

Cllr Clark as the local member highlighted the following key points: the development was contrary to Wiltshire Core Strategy Core Policies 1, 2 and 29; within the North and West Housing Market Area (HMA) Wiltshire Council are about 160 dwellings short which is a nominal amount.  However when one factors in the fact that the Council had granted planning permission for over 3200 additional houses across the HMA (included within Table 3 of the Housing Land Supply Statement - HLSS) since April 2016 (the base date used for the 2016 HLSS) the Council would be able to prove to any planning inspector (should the application be refused and appealed) that it can demonstrate having in excess of 5.25 years supply of housing; Core Policies 1 and 2 was therefore up-to-date; the development site was located outside the village policy limit for Hilperton thus being contrary to Core Policy 2; the development was also contrary to Core Policy 29 which required adequate secondary school provision to be in place prior to the approval and delivery of additional housing on unallocated greenfield sites; and, the lack of an objection from the Council’s education officer cannot and should not override adopted policy requirements.

A debate followed where a motion was then moved to refuse the application. 

Following a question raised by Cllr Whitehead about the 5 year housing land supply statement and position, the monitoring and evidence spatial planning manager advised the committee that the Council was  presently unable to demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply, confirmed the base date used for the 2016 HLSS and advised that whilst the housing figures contained within Table 3 of the HLSS could be referenced by the Council in defending any subsequent appeal, in his professional opinion and experience, he advised that planning inspectors rarely take them into account. The officer furthermore confirmed that the 2017 Housing Land Supply Figures would have a base date of April 2017, but in recognition of the amount of work involved in producing an annual statement, the 2017 statement would be published after April 2017.

At the end of the debate it was:

Resolved

To refuse planning permission for the following reason:

The development proposal is contrary to Wiltshire Core Strategy CP1, CP2 and CP29. Following the publication of the Housing Land Supply Statement carrying a base date of April 2016, the Council can demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply for the North and West Housing Market Area, therefore policies CP1 and CP2 are considered up-to-date. Since the application site is outside the extant village policy limits for Hilperton there is a clear conflict with CP2.  The limits of development have not been modified by either a site allocations development plan or by a neighbourhood plan.  In addition, CP29 requires that improved secondary school provision is in place before any greenfield residential development is allowed, including the 950 dwellings referenced by CP29, which should only be supported subsequent to the delivery of the strategic housing site at Ashton Park, located to the south-east of Trowbridge. Since this application would form part of the additional 950 dwellings and the improved secondary school provision is not in place, the application conflicts with CP29.

Following the decision to refuse permission and in keeping with normal practice, the chairman invited the division member to be involved in defending any subsequent appeal.

Note:  paragraph 9.7 of the Council’s Planning Code of Good Practice makes provision for member involvement at appeals.