Agenda item

Provision for 91 dwellings, ecological mitigation and associated infrastructure including roads/footpaths, bridge, cycleway, garages and sub-station

Public Participation

Jody Hawkes spoke in objection to the application

Stephen Cooper spoke in objection to the application.

Tony Jones spoke in support of the application.

Alexander Bullock spoke in support of the application.

Lance Allen representing Trowbridge Town Council spoke in objection to the application.

Andrew Guest, Major Projects & Performance Manager, presented a report which recommended that planning permission be refused for the provision for 91 dwellings, ecological mitigation and associated infrastructure including roads/footpaths, bridge, cycleway, garages and sub-station.

Key details were stated to include the principle of residential development at the site, highway safety, residential amenity, ecology, drainage and infrastructure provision.

The officer referred the Committee to the agenda report and took them through the slides for the application. It was noted that for planning purposes, the application site formed part of the much wider ‘Ashton Park Urban Extension’ allocated site. The allocation was for c. 2,600 dwellings, employment land and related infrastructure.

Particular attention was given to the access for the site to construction traffic and permanently through the Southview estate, Toucan Street and Sparrow Street which were minor residential roads. The Highways Officer raised objections to the application due to the inadequacies of the residential roads within these estates to accommodate additional traffic, and in particular construction traffic, leading to potential safety and amenity issues. Many objections had also been received regarding this aspect of the proposal.

As a standalone site with an independent vehicular access via the adjacent suburbs, the proposal was not considered to be acceptable as it would change the character of these suburbs and the dynamics of their communities, to the detriment of residential amenity and, potentially, highway safety. Therefore, the application was recommended for refusal.

No technical questions were asked of the officer.

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

The unitary division member, Councillor Daniel Cave, spoke in objection to the application. Cllr Cave stated that he was not objecting to the new housing being built but to the inappropriate highways access. It was stated that large vehicles had been brought through the residential estate in the past which had caused problems. Part of the proposed traffic management plan included temporarily stopping residents parking outside their homes, which was considered unacceptable. It was stated that route would become a rat run to the over 2000 dwellings allocated for the ‘Ashton Park Urban Extension’. Many locals objected to the application and Cllr Cave urged the Committee to refuse the application on Highways grounds.

Cllr Ernie Clark proposed a motion to refuse the application for the reasons stated at pages 29-30 of the report, as per the officer recommendation. This was seconded by Cllr Pip Ridout.

A debate followed where comments from Members included that there was a lack of a master plan for this site, which was far from ideal. That it was understood that planning permission would likely be granted at some point on the site due to its allocation, but that the highways concerns raised meant this application should be refused. Members also stated that the report gave clear reasons for refusal and the Committee should follow the expert opinions given. Lack of engagement from the developers was also raised as a concern. The shortfall in the five year land supply was raised, however it was felt that one should not redress this with developments that were not master planned and with such issues as those raised in relation to this application.

At the conclusion of the debate, it was,

Resolved:

That planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

1.    The application site forms part of the wider ‘Ashton Park Urban Extension’ strategically important site, as defined by Core Policy 2 (Delivery Strategy) and Core Policy 29 (Spatial Strategy for the Trowbridge Community Area) of the Wiltshire Core Strategy.  These policies state that the strategically important sites will be brought forward through a master-planning process agreed between the community, local planning authority and the developer. 

In isolation a masterplan has been prepared for the wider part of the Ashton Park Urban Extension strategically important site.  Also in isolation, a comprehensive Design and Access Statement incorporating parameter plans has been prepared as part of this planning application for the application site.  Together the Ashton Park Urban Extension masterplan and this planning application’s Design and Access Statement ‘Movement’ parameter plan make provision for a road connection between the two sites. 

However, the plans, and in particular the Design and Access Statement for the application site, are silent on related considerations which are critical to this road connection and the comprehensive development of the Ashton Park Urban Extension – specifically, the timing of when, and the method of how, the connection between the two sites would be achieved.  Without these matters being addressed – in the form of an integrated master plan, or as an addendum to the existing Ashton Park Urban Extension masterplan – the planning application is considered to be both incomplete and premature. 

This is contrary to the intentions Core Policy 2 and Core Policy 29 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy and paragraph 8 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

2.    To enable the proposed development to function in isolation of the wider Ashton Park Urban Extension, a second vehicular connection is proposed between the application site and the now established residential suburbs of Trowbridge to its north side, at Lower Studley.  The connection would be to an existing residential cul-de-sac, Toucan Street, with access beyond this via lower key secondary roads.  Toucan Street in particular is a minor highway serving low numbers of residential properties.  Its design and layout, and the way in which it functions and is used by its residents, reflects its intended purpose.

In view of the minor status of these residential roads, the proposal to connect the application site to Toucan Street to create an access ‘though-road’ for the vehicles of the owners of the 91 proposed dwellings and for, at least in the short term (c. 3.5 yrs), the construction traffic associated with the build of the proposed development, would have a detrimental impact on the character of these roads and the neighbourhoods through which they pass.   The additional traffic would change the dynamics of these neighbourhoods, to the detriment of the amenities of the residents, and potentially to the detriment of highway safety.

This is contrary to Core Policy 57 (points (vi), (vii), (ix) and (xiv)) (‘Ensuring high quality design and place shaping’) and Core Policy 61 (‘Transport and new development’) of the Wiltshire Core Strategy, and paras. 8, 92, 110, 111, 126 and 130 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

3.    The proposal does not make provision for essential infrastructure made necessary by the planned development – specifically, affordable housing, education facilities, open space, essential highway works, waste collection facilities, ecology mitigation and public art.  This is contrary to Core Policy 3 (‘Infrastructure Requirements’), Core Policy 43 (‘Providing affordable homes’),  Core Policy 50 (‘Biodiversity and geodiversity’) and Core Policy 61 (‘Transport and new development’). 

4.    INFORMATIVE:

Reason for refusal no. 3 may be addressed by the completion of a legal agreement (a ‘S106 agreement’), in the event of an appeal.