Agenda item

Outline Application for up to 32 dwellings with all matters reserved (except access)

Public Participation

Colin French read a statement in objection to the application

David Webb read a statement in objection to the application on behalf of Mrs Hexter

Ken Carley read a statement in objection to the application

Elaine Hartford (Chair) of Alderbury PC read a statement in objection of the application

 

Adam Madge, Planning Team Leader, presented the outline application for up to 32 dwellings with all matters reserved (except access) at land to the east of Wagtails, Southampton Road, Alderbury, SP5 3AF.

 

The Officer noted that following a protracted period of discussion and negotiation, the applicant had chosen to exercise their right to appeal against non-determination of the application. This meant that the Council no longer had the powers to formerly determine the application, as that power now lay with the Planning Inspectorate.

 

The view of the Committee was sought to enable the Council to make its case to the Inspector.

 

The presentation highlighted matters in relation to the principle and policy, the impact on residential amenity, highways systems, ecology, drainage, flooding and S106 and viability.

 

The application site was an L shaped parcel of greenfield land which was outside of the settlement boundary but was adjacent to it on three sides.

 

Trees and vegetation on the site had been cleared and developers were at present building houses on one side of the site near the entrance, which already had planning permission.

 

It was advised that the outline application, was an indicative plan only, and was not necessarily how the site would look when completed.

 

There were residential dwellings along three sides of the site and also a public footpath to one side.

 

Other house development had recently been approved around the site, with 50 houses at the back, which had gained permission on appeal, with construction not yet started.

 

Slide 6 detailed the plan for the different types of houses and the 40% affordable housing that the applicant has said would be included.

 

There was also a children’s play area and a greenspace. 

 

Existing dwellings on Southampton Road that backed on to the site would have views of the new houses proposed and would be the most impacted on by the development.

 

It was noted that although the report did not make much mention to CP1, the first reason for refusal did mention this and Officers were recommending refusal on that point, in that larger villages would only be developed to a certain extent.

 

The river Avon had been identified by Natural England (NE) as having too high levels of phosphate and NE had advised that applications which would add to those levels should not currently be approved.

 

The site was previously heavily covered with trees which had since been felled and removed. It was felt that a substantial number of trees and shrubs should be put back into the site, however and at present due to the number of proposed dwellings and layout, it was felt that this would not be possible.

 

It was also noted that the Applicant had not yet signed a legal agreement. 

 

For the reasons mentioned and detailed in the Officer report, the application would be recommended for refusal by Officers.

 

Members of the Committee had the opportunity to ask technical questions to the officer. In response to queries, it was clarified that the ownership of the footpath was not known by the Officer. The usual length of future retention given to a planting scheme was for a period of five years from development, unless there were Tree Preservation Orders in place, then they would be protected forever. 

 

A query on areas of Wiltshire which required additional housing was clarified. In that, although the South West community area specifically, at present did not require further housing, the way the council was required to calculate the housing land supply, meant that Alderbury was included in the wider calculation which did require more housing.

 

The site was in the river Avon catchment area which drained down into Southampton water, which also had issues. The reason for refusal was connected to the river Test area which was affected by nitrates.

 

Members of the public, as detailed above, then had the opportunity to speak on the application.

 

Some of the main points included comments around the scale of the development and that the proposed dwellings would not be in-keeping with neighbouring properties.

 

The Parish Council was in objection to the proposed development.

 

Local Member Cllr Richard Britton then spoke in objection to the application, noting that his points had already been made by the statements read by the PC and public speakers.

 

He put into context the nature of the application, according to the council’s development strategy, and that Alderbury was considered as a large village. Noting that CP1 stated there would be limited development inside the settlement boundary, and that a small development was considered to be less than 10 properties, or infill developments.

 

There had already been 14% development growth in Alderbury, since 2013, with no significant alterations to the amenities.

 

The previous 50 house development had offered considerable benefits, a football club, preschool, replacement girl-guide hut and a piece of land for the preschool.

 

This site currently remained outside of the settlement boundary.

 

There were ecological implications to the development. The site was created by the felling of 150 trees, which amounted to ecological vandalism on a prolific scale. There was nothing in the proposal that got close to offer compensation for habitat loss or biodiversity impact.

 

There were issues connected to the river Test and the river Avon catchment areas.

 

Despite Highways reporting a no objection to the issue of access onto the Southampton Road, Cllr Britton noted that he was involved with the Community Speedwatch scheme, which involved monitoring traffic at the south of the site access. The speeds and traffic flows there were enormous, with traffic increasing in the summer months.

 

People regularly choose to bypass it by driving through Alderbury. He noted that it was a great shame that there was no highway objection and asked the Committee to consider the inclusion of that as a reason for refusal.

 

Cllr Britton then moved a motion that the Committee refused the application in line with the off recommendation, and that the recommendation should form the councils defence of the appeal. I would like the highways reason to be included. This was seconded by Cllr Wright.

 

Mr Madge noted he understood the concerns around the Highways matter, however as there was no objection by Highways, there would be no support from Highways at appeal.

 

Cllr Britton felt strongly that the matter of a highways problem did exist and wished it to be included. The Chairman, Cllr Westmoreland supported the view that the addition of the Highways reason be included to the list of reasons for refusal.

 

Cllr Britton moved the addition of a Highways reason as an amendment to the motion, which was seconded by Cllr Westmoreland.

 

The Committee was invited to discuss the amendment where reference to a previous hearing on a local plan, where the inspector had said that there should not be much more development on the A36.

 

A query whether the Highways issue could be added as an informative was asked of the Officer, who advised that it would not have the power that members were looking for in this case.

 

Following debate, the Committee confirmed they had heard and seen all

relevant visual materials, and voted on the motion of refusal in-line with

officer recommendation, with the additional reason on highways issues. It was:

 

Resolved:

 

That if the Committee were in a position to determine the application, that it be Refused, for the following reasons: -

 

1)     Notwithstanding that the Council is currently unable to demonstrate a five year supply of housing land within the South Wiltshire Housing Market Area (and consequently the tilted balance towards the interpretation of the settlement boundary is engaged), and taking into account the benefits the proposal would bring in the provision of affordable housing units, there remain strong material considerations in respect of the adverse impact the development would have on the integrity of European protected wildlife sites, as well as ecological concerns within the site itself.

 

Consequently it is considered in this case the effect of the tilted balance in respect of the interpretation of the settlement boundaries, together with the benefits provided by the provision of affordable housing units, are clearly and significantly outweighed by the adverse impacts of the proposal on the integrity of the European Protected sites on the River Test and The Solent, and the New Forest, and the lack of any meaningful ecological and biodiversity mitigation and enhancement that the scheme would bring.

 

In these respects, the proposed development is considered to be discordant with Core Policies CP1, CP2, CP23, and CP50 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy and the aims and objectives of the NPPF.

 

2)     The site is situated within the River Test catchment which drains into the Solent, a maritime area protected by a number of European designations. Advice from Natural England indicates that every permission that results in a net increase in foul water entering the catchment could result in increased nutrients entering the European sites causing further deterioration to them. The application does not include detailed proposals to mitigate the impact of increased nutrients and consequently, without such detailed proposals, the Council as a competent authority cannot conclude there would be no adverse effect on the integrity of the European sites as a result of the development. The proposal would therefore conflict with Wiltshire Core Strategy policy CP50 (Biodiversity and Geodiversity); and paragraphs 175 and 177 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

3) The application site (a former mixed woodland) had recently been almost entirely cleared of trees and habitats prior to the submission of the planning application. As such, the local planning authority considers that current baseline conditions at the site are not representative of the ecological baseline conditions as they were prior to clearance and as such the LPA’s ecology team has not been permitted the opportunity to consider the application alongside the requirements of the NPPF 2019 and CP50 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy (Adopted January 2015) and to assess whether the proposed development would be acceptable in terms of ecology. Ecology would have very clearly constituted a material consideration in the determination of this planning application. The submitted Ecological Constraints Survey Report (Daniel Ahern Ecology, August 2018) with application 19/03480/OUT suggested that the ecological issues at the site have been identified. However, this report and the survey conducted to inform its production were undertaken subsequent to the site being cleared. The purported ecological information submitted in respect of the current application (Ecological Statement – 1215 Heritage Homes November 2019) has not been prepared by a qualified ecologist and does not meet recognised industry standards to fully assess the impact of the development on the biodiversity of the site.

 

The clearance of the entire site prior to determination of the planning application has meant that there has been no opportunity for the Council to comment on or influence the proposed layout of the development in terms of biodiversity and the retention and protection of ecological features that were present on site. The NPPF 2019 and Section 40 of the NERC Act 2006 places a duty on LPA’s to only permit developments that will result in a net biodiversity gain and this is augmented by means of CP50 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy. Given the clearance of the entire site of woodland habitat, the limited ecological enhancements proposed in the submitted Ecological Statement and total lack of compensatory measures or soft landscaping proposed, the local planning authority considers this development has already resulted in a total net loss of biodiversity and should not be granted planning permission as it contravenes local and national planning policy, contrary to Core Policies CP50, CP52 & CP57 of the adopted Wiltshire Core Strategy and saved SDLP policy C9 by which all development should seek opportunities to enhance biodiversity (Major development in particular must include measures to deliver biodiversity gains through opportunities to restore, enhance and create valuable habitats, ecological networks and ecosystem services), which also seek to preserve woodland, ensure that valuable features and characteristics are protected and enhanced, that Wiltshire's green infrastructure network is retained and enhanced and that development should protect, conserve and where possible enhance landscape character and must not have a harmful impact upon landscape character.

 

4) The application makes insufficient provision in respect of affordable housing, public open space provision, education provision, and waste and recycling contributions and is therefore contrary to the aims of policies CP45 & CP57 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy, saved SDLP policy R2 and the requirements of Wiltshire Council's Waste storage and collection: Supplementary Planning Document.

 

5) The proposal is for 32 additional dwellings in Alderbury village. The village is bypassed by the main A36 trunk road, but the villages access is close to the junction where the A36 narrows to a single carriageway and goes on into Salisbury. At busy periods, traffic will often back up along the dual carriageway past the village. Therefore, significant amounts of traffic try to avoid the dual carriageway during those periods by driving through Alderbury instead. These 32 dwellings with the consequent additional vehicles will add to the traffic and noise passing through the village, already experienced by villagers currently and will exacerbate an already unsustainable issue to the detriment of pedestrians, residents and other road users. The proposal which will rely heavily on vehicle usage and add to congestion is therefore contrary to policy CP57 and CP64 of the Wiltshire Core strategy.

 

 

INFORMATIVE

 

Reason for refusal 4 could be overcome through the landowner entering into a

suitable S.106 legal agreement with Wiltshire Council to make appropriate provision in respect of on-site affordable housing, an appropriate financial contribution towards public open space provision, educational provision, and towards the provision of waste and recycling containers. The amount of the contributions would be index linked from the date of the resolution to grant planning permission.