Agenda item

Demolition of 1 existing dwelling and erection of 25 market and affordable dwellings, with associated access works, car parking, public open space and landscaping.

Public Participation

Julie Hennessy spoke in objection to the application.

David Arnold spoke in objection to the application.

Alison Young (agent) spoke in support of the application.

Professor Richard Pagett representing Purton Parish Council spoke in objection to the application.

Lee Burman, Development Management Team Leader (North) presented a report which recommended that authority be delegated to the Head of Development Management to grant planning permission with conditions and subject to a s106 agreement for 20/11382/FUL, Land at Pavenhill, Purton, Swindon, SN5 4DA, for the demolition of 1 existing dwelling and erection of 25 market and affordable dwellings, with associated access works, car parking, public open space and landscaping.

The officer highlighted some typing errors within the agenda report. Corrections were stated as follows:

·       Page 39, the first paragraph under Tilted Balance, includes the following sentence – “The scale of development is limited at 24 dwellings (net increase) and this is not considered reasonably well related to the scale of the settlement itself.” The word “Not” was included in error and should be deleted.

·       Page 41, last paragraph under Residential Amenity, should read ‘As such the proposals are considered to accord with the relevant policies of the plan and provision of the framework.’

·       The numbering on the conditions attached to the recommendation to approve was slightly out and would be corrected for the minutes if the application was approved.

The officer drew attention to representations sent directly to the Committee from Purton Parish Council and the CPRE (The countryside Charity, formerly known as the Campaign to Protect Rural England). The points raised in these representations were already addressed within the agenda report.

The officer explained that this application was being considered by the Strategic Planning Committee, rather than the Northern Area Planning Committee, as it had been called in by the local Member to consider the principle of development; the constrained vehicular access which was a concern to local residents; the conflict with the development plan and as the application raised housing land supply issues which affected all of Wiltshire.

The officer ran through the presentation slides, highlighting the location of the site and that the site was landlocked, requiring the demolition of 1 dwelling in order to provide access. The proposed site layout was very similar to a previous application (16/03625/FUL) which had been refused at Committee and dismissed at appeal. Within the proposed site layout, the play area had increased in size, the turning head had been reconfigured, the access road was of a slightly different alignment and there was better pedestrian access.

The substantive issues were stated to include the following, the proposal gave a net gain of 24 residential dwellings, the site was outside the limits of development and was not in accordance with Wiltshire Core Strategy (WCS) Core Policy (CP) 1, 2 and 19 and the Purton Neighbourhood Plan. As previously stated, a very similar application had been refused and dismissed at appeal by the Planning Inspectorate. However, at that time Wiltshire Council could demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply so the conflict with the policies and plans and the planning harm that arose outweighed the benefits of boosting the housing land supply. This was no longer the case. At appeal the planning inspector did not find any site specific substantive objections to the application. Therefore, one could only give limited weight to the issues raised with the application by interested parties. Since the similar application was considered, the Purton Neighbourhood Plan had been made, but this had now passed the 2 year timeframe for review, so was now considered to have reduced weight.

The officer explained that due to the shortfall in housing land supply the ‘tilted balance’ came into play on this application (paragraph 11d of the NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework)) which changed the weighting of arguments.

Material considerations for the Committee were stated to include the limited scale of the development with a net gain of 24 properties, which was proportionate to the scale of the settlement. The site was well related to the built form of the Purton settlement. The conflict with the Purton Local Plan was reduced due to the reduced weight of the Plan as described earlier. The proposal boosted the supply of land for housing and provided affordable housing. The officer felt that the reduced weight of the conflicts with plans and policies and increased weight of the benefits of the scheme were highly relevant if this proposal was to come before the planning inspectorate again. The officer stated that on balance the benefits arising from the scheme exceeded the planning harm, which was why the recommendation was for approval.

Members of the committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer. Some Members, whist acknowledging the concerns regarding the shortfall in the 5 year housing land supply, queried whether there was a housing need in the local area and highlighted that the latest Housing Delivery Test for Wiltshire which indicated that the Council had met 149% of its required housing over the last 3 years. They also stated that there were several developments, such as 15/12351/OUT: Land at Rawlings Farm, Cocklebury Lane, Chippenham that would have a significant impact on the land supply. In response the officer explained that whilst Wiltshire Council had met 149% of its required housing over the last 3 years there was still a shortfall in supply. The 2019 figure where the Council could demonstrate 4.62 years supply would now be out of date and it was thought this figure was now 4.29 years supply. There was a housing need in the North and West Wiltshire Housing Market Area and across Wiltshire as a whole. The Land at Rawlings Farm development could not be counted towards the 5 year housing land supply due to when it went to Committee. 

In response to further questions the officer explained that the housing allocation sites identified in the Purton Neighbourhood Plan (NP) had already been granted permission, however neighbourhood plans should be reviewed every 2 years, the Purton NP had not been, so now carried less weight. Despite this site not being one of the allocated sites the developer had, had aspirations to build on the site for quite some time.

The officer stated that the Highways Officer had considered the highways matters in detail and a lot of work had been undertaken due to the level of concern in the local area. The Highways Officer had raised no objections and felt the scale of use generated by the development could be dealt with. At the appeal on the previous similar application the inspector did not consider that the highways issues constrained the development. There were conditions attached to the recommendation to approve that covered highways matters.

The officer confirmed that the site had been considered when Purton were producing their Neighbourhood Plan. The officer explained that if approved, maintenance of the play area would be covered by a s106 agreement, usually through management company provisions.

Members of the public and Purton Parish Council then had the opportunity to present their views, as detailed above and late representations in writing to the Committee.

The unitary division member, Jacqui Lay, spoke in objection to the application. Cllr Lay highlighted that this site was outside the limits of development. Cllr Lay stated that Purton was a large village that should not be subject to lots of development as there was no service centre to support developments. A number of applications for houses in the area were detailed. Highways concerns regarding Pavenhill were explained, including the narrowness of the road and that local people felt the road was unsafe to walk along.  Cllr Lay also felt that neighbourhood plans should not be disregarded, if this application was granted whilst being contrary to the neighbourhood plan it would undermine all neighbourhood plans across Wiltshire. There were issues with infrastructure and flooding to consider. Cllr Lay urged the committee to refuse the application, as the negative impacts of the application demonstrably outweighed the benefits, but if they approved it, recommended extra conditions to help support nursery places, the village centre, improvements to the Rights of Way (RoW) network and mitigations to deal with the access issues and improve road safety.

Cllr Tony Trotman proposed a motion to refuse the application, seconded by Cllr Adrian Foster. Reasons for refusal included that this application would not be being recommended for approval without the 5 year housing land supply shortfall, the site was outside the settlement boundary, was landlocked and was contrary to CP1, the Settlement Strategy, CP2, the Delivery Strategy and CP19 the Spatial Strategy for the Royal Wootton Basset and Cricklade Community Area. The site was not allocated for development in the Purton Neighbourhood Plan or Wiltshire Core Strategy. The Purton Neighbourhood Plan should have more weight when considering this application. Cllr Trotman highlighted a Malmesbury application (19/05898/OUT) considered by the Committee recently which was similar, which the Committee had refused, he felt that the Committee should be consistent when considering applications of this nature. The adverse impacts of the development outweighed the benefits. 

A debate followed where Members stated they felt that it was important for them to be consistent, they could not refuse on Highways grounds as the Highways Officer has no objections, they should not be held to ransom over the shortfall in 5 year housing land supply when Wiltshire Council had demonstrably made good progress to addressing this, that Neighbourhood Plans should be supported and should be given more weight and that if this application was refused, Planning Officers should be cognisant of the Committees opinions when making recommendations for similar applications.

At the conclusion of the debate, it was;

Resolved:

That planning permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1.    The proposal is outside of the settlement boundary for Purton, so it is located in the open countryside and has not been allocated for residential development within the Wiltshire Core Strategy (January 2015), The Wiltshire Housing Sites Allocation Plan (February 2020) or the Purton Neighbourhood Plan (2018). The development fails to meet any of the special circumstances for the creation of additional residential development in such circumstances listed under Paragraph 4.25 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy. Therefore, the proposal is contrary to Core Policies 1, 2, and 19 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy, Saved Policy H4 of the North Wiltshire Local Plan and the Purton Neighbourhood Plan. The proposal is in conflict with the development plan taken as a whole. As such, the proposal fails to constitute and secure sustainable development as required by the NPPF, specifically paragraphs 2, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15 and 47 and is contrary to the development strategy of the development plan. In accordance with paragraph 11d (ii) of the NPPF the benefits of the proposal have been fully considered but the adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh those benefits, when assessed against the policies in the NPPF taken as a whole.

2.    The proposed development does not make any provisions for securing affordable housing on the site; financial contributions towards early years education facility provision, public open space and play equipment and the on-going maintenance and waste and recycling facilities. The application is therefore contrary to Core Policies 3, 43, 45 and 52 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy (2015) and paragraphs 8, 34, 55, 56, 64 and 92 of the NPPF.

The Committee adjourned the meeting from 11.50am to 12 noon.