Issue - meetings

Outline application for residential development of 55 houses including creation of new access from Frome Road and removal/demolition of all existing buildings (all matters aside from access reserved).

This application was previously considered on 22 February 2023. The recommendation before the Committee is from Pages 246-253 of the agenda.

Public Participation

There was no public participation for this item.

Richard Hughes, Development Management Team Leader presented the report and provided an update on changes occurring following publication of the revised NPPF in December 2023 that may have a material impact on this planning application. The Committee were asked to consider the recommendation that the application still be granted planning permission subject to completion of the legal agreement. The Committee were also informed of an additional letter of representation which raised issues about two listed buildings adjacent to the development site. The Development Management Team Leader explained that this issue had been dealt with previously with other representations.

The Chairman read a statement provided by Cllr David Vigar, Unitary Division Member for Trowbridge Grove, who was unable to attend the meeting.

Members of the Committee did not ask any technical questions of officers, there were no members of the public in attendance to address the Committee, Cllr Stewart Palmen moved a motion to continue to support the Committee’s previous decision as detailed in the report. This was seconded by Cllr Carole King, and it was then,

Resolved:

That the Head of Development Management continues to be authorised to grant planning permission, subject to first completion of the planning obligation / Section 106 agreement currently in preparation covering the matters set out below, and subject also to planning conditions listed below.

S106 matters –

·       Affordable housing – at 30%

·       Education – Requirement to be confirmed at reserved matters. Based upon up to 55 homes as follows:

£122,654 for early years,

£300,128 for primary and

£252,340 for secondary.

o   The formulae for re-calculations at Reserved Matters are as per the Education S106 Methodology.

o   All payment is required in full, upon or prior to commencement of development. Phasing of payments is not applicable here, and in view of that, no bond is required. All contributions are to be subject to indexation to the BCIS All In Tender Price Index from date of completion of agreement until payment.

o   The Council require 10 years from the date of receipt of the contributions by the Council, in which to spend/commit in accordance with the S106, before they qualify to be returned.

o   Since the abolition of the CIL pooling limit for S106s the Council does not quote the names of individual schools.

o   A 30% discount is applied to the affordable housing element of an application. This is applied as a reduction to the number of AH units proposed/approved, as part of the process of calculating the number of places generated by the development from the qualifying properties. It is therefore reflected in the standard formulae.

·       Open space – to be confirmed at Reserved Matters stage based upon:

o   1 dwelling = 34.93m² public open space and 1.77m² equipped play. Once calculated the amount must be secured in perpetuity. Wiltshire Council will not adopt the POS.

o   If, once calculated, the requirement does not meet the minimum for a LEAP (400m²) that Trim Trails  ...  view the full minutes text for item 30

Outline application for residential development of 55 houses including creation of new access from Frome Road and removal/demolition of all existing buildings (all matters aside from access reserved).

Public Participation

Graham Hill spoke in objection to the application.

Steve Wylie spoke in objection to the application.

Peter Mills spoke in objection to the application.

Darren Parker (agent) spoke in support of the application.

Lance Allen of Trowbridge Town Council spoke in support of the application.

Andrew Guest (Head of Development Management) outlined the late representations received which had been circulated to the Committee. Councillor Sarah Gibson had sent a representation pertaining to items 7a, 7b and 7c, and this was read to the meeting.  Councillor Gibson questioned the urgency for housing provision in the area, and raised the matter of a potential archaeological issue, stating that a pre-consent investigation may be needed. She also posited that the application was a breach of Section 194 of the NPPF and various core policies, disagreed that the three sites did not warrant an overarching masterplan and questioned the secondary school provision. In response, the officer explained that these sites, as WHSAP allocated sites, were factored into the housing delivery figures and there would be a detrimental impact if they were not considered as predicted trajectories of housing delivery could be affected.

The Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE), had sent a representation relating to item 7c regarding archaeology on site and a possible Roman Villa that may be present.

Mr Francis Moreland had sent a representation relating to item 7d. This would be dealt with under that item.

The officer then presented the report on item 7a, which recommended that the Head of Development Management be authorised to grant planning permission, subject to the completion of a planning obligation / Section 106 agreement as detailed in the agenda pack for application 18/10035/OUT, Land South of Church Lane, Upper Studley, Trowbridge (H2.4) for the outline application for residential development of 55 houses including creation of new access from Frome Road and removal/demolition of all existing buildings (all matters aside from access reserved). 

The officer explained that this was the first of three applications for sites in the vicinity which were all adopted in the Wiltshire Housing Sites Allocations Plan (WHSAP). All three of the applications had a specific policy under the WHSAP. A number of representations had expressed concern that they should be master planned or considered as one. This was not the opinion of officers, who felt that they should all be addressed separately and did not require a single masterplan. The Committee report and planning inspector for the WHSAP had explained this. However, schemes coming forward should have regard to other proposals in the development pipeline to ensure that they were not mutually exclusive or prejudicial to each other. Each application had its own masterplan and was supported by its own suite of surveys and reports. Cumulative impact assessments were undertaken where necessary, such as for Highways or Ecology.

The officer ran through the presentation slides for the cumulative aspects and for item 7a as published in agenda supplement 2.

The officer explained that bat mitigation plans were in place  ...  view the full minutes text for item 18