Agenda item

Outline Planning Application (with all matters except access reserved) for up to 26 Dwellings, Public Open Space, Landscaping and Associated Engineering Works.

Public Participation

Catherine Doody, on behalf of Paul Smith, spoke in objection to the application

Erica Whatton, on behalf of Campbell Ritchie, spoke in objection to the application.

Catherine Doody, on behalf of Jeremy Ollis from Malmesbury River Valleys Trust, spoke in objection to the application.

Glenn Godwin (agent) spoke in support of the application.

Cllr Frances Smith on behalf of Cllr Kim Power of Malmesbury Town Council spoke in objection to the application.

John Bartholomew representing Brokenborough Parish Council spoke in objection to the application.

Andrew Guest, Head of Development Management presented a report which recommended that planning permission be approved with conditions, subject to first entering into a legal agreement.

The officer highlighted that the appeal decision described under the last agenda item was also relevant to this application.

The officer gave a brief summary of the application. The site was a parcel of land classed as being in the countryside although it lay against the outside edge of Malmesbury. The application was in outline form and was for 26 dwellings. The site was not allocated in the Development Plan or the Malmesbury Neighbourhood Plan (made 2015). Planning permission had been refused on the land to the North of this site which was now subject to an appeal. As with the previous application, agenda item 7a, the officer detailed the lack of a five year housing land supply, the tilted balance invoked by paragraph 11 of the NPPF as a result and the recent appeal decisions. The officer stated that there were no adverse planning effects from the proposal. The Neighbourhood Plan was also over 2 years old so carried less weight. Therefore, the recommendation was for approval, with conditions, subject to a s106 agreement. 

Members of the committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer. Many Members sought details regarding the emergency access to be used in the event of flooding. The officer stated that there were no houses in the flood zone, but that the low end of the site and access road occasionally flooded. The emergency access was for emergency vehicles in the event that the usual access flooded. Pedestrians and cyclists could also access the site via this emergency route. That route had not been deemed appropriate as the usual access to the whole site, as the road approaching that access was convoluted and narrow. Matters regarding the how the barrier or bollards at the emergency access would be activated were for the management company to consider and costs should be covered by the s106.

In response to a question regarding the Malmesbury Neighbourhood Plan the officer stated that the review of the plan was progressing but as this was still in process the plan had limited weight.

In response to a query regarding the road being shown as part of the application it was confirmed that the road was a public road, but as changes to the road would take place as part of the proposal, it was shown as part of the application.

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

The unitary division member, Cllr Gavin Grant, spoke in objection to the application. Cllr Grant raised issues including the strength of local feeling against the application, that the proposal was not acceptable in principle in terms of the development plan and conflicted with many core policies, that there was no local need for more affordable housing in that area, there was a lack of pre-school provision in the area, there was significant flood risk as flooding was a regular occurrence on the road and that the application would cause planning harm. Cllr Grant urged the Committee to refuse the application.

Further technical questions were raised by Members. In response to queries regarding the landscape officer and spatial planning’s comments in the agenda report, the officer explained that the comments were considered as part of the planning balance, but the lack of a five year housing land supply tilted the balance and changed the weighting of arguments, hence the recommendation for approval.

Members questioned whether the officer could see any reasonable reasons for refusal that were defensible. In response the officer stated that he agreed with the recommendation to approve. It was acknowledged that there was landscape impact, but this was not considered to be defensible in the context of the lack of a five year housing land supply. The refusal on the neighbouring site had a more defensible case, however as this site was on the edge of the settlement boundary, it would be less defensible if it was refused and it went to appeal.

Many Members had questions regarding flooding. The officer stated that the houses were in flood zone 1. The officer did not have data on how often the access road flooded, but expert advisors had not objected due to the proposed mitigations. The legal officer clarified and confirmed that the Environment Agency and Council as Lead Local Flood Authority did not object to the application. The land was not in the Environment Agency flood zone. Therefore, a refusal on the grounds of flooding would be very difficult to defend at appeal. The planning officer explained that the site had to “wash its face” to deal with run off. The Sustainable Drainage System (SuDS) scheme had to be designed to ensure that the situation was not worsened and ideally was improved.

A debate followed where Members highlighted that local knowledge stated the road flooded regularly and almost all year round, apart from in the summer. Members discussed that this site was different to the application considered earlier in the meeting, the site was on the edge of Malmesbury, the houses were packed in on the site, the road was in flood zone 2, London Boroughs now had to provide detailed flood assessments even for applications in flood zone 1 due to previous errors predicting flooding, the increase in flood events due to climate change, and that at certain times the site would only be accessible on foot due to the flooding.

During debate a motion to refuse the application was moved by Cllr Sarah Gibson due to conflict with various Core Policies (CP) including 1, 2, 44, 67, 41 and 51. This was seconded by Cllr Adrian Foster.

Further debate followed whereby some Members stated they would be unable to support the motion as whilst the site had issues, these were all mitigated for, it was felt that if challenged a refusal would be very hard to defend at appeal for the reasons considered in the report, that there would not be planning harm caused and there was the lack of a five year land supply.

Other Members felt there was demonstrable planning harm and therefore refusing on the basis of conflict with Core Policies was acceptable. Members also discussed the lack of a five year land supply and how difficult decision making was when the housing land supply figures were out of date. Some Members felt that they did not want to approve applications with little merit due to the lack of a five year land supply.

At the request of the Chairman the reasons for refusal were clarified.

At the conclusion of the debate it was;

Resolved:

That planning permission be refused for the following reasons.

REASONS:

1.    The proposal is outside of the settlement boundary for Malmesbury, 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 Malmesbury Neighbourhood Plan (2015). 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 13 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy, Saved Policy H4 of the North Wiltshire Local Plan and the Malmesbury 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 proposal would result in the urbanisation of this rural site in this prominent and elevated position which would result in harm to the local character, appearance and visual amenity of the immediate locality.  The proposal would therefore fail to accord with Wiltshire Core Strategy (2015) Core Policies 51 (points i, ii, iii) and 57 (points i, iii, vi, ix), as well as paragraphs, 8, 124 130 and 174b of the NPPF.

3.    The principal access to the application site would be from Park Road.  Park Road lies within Flood Zone 3 and is prone to flooding being both low-lying and adjacent to the River Avon.  At times of flooding an emergency access to the site (for pedestrians and emergency vehicles only) would be provided from White Lion Park at the rear of the site.  These arrangement for access - and in particular the emergency access - are considered to be contrived, providing unsatisfactory accessibility for the future residents of the development, and so do not amount to ‘good design’ in the context of Core Policy 57 (point ix) of the Wiltshire Core Strategy and paragraphs 126 and 130 of the NPPF.  

4.    The proposed development does not make any provisions for securing affordable housing on the site; financial contributions towards education 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.