Agenda item

Construction of four dwellings and associated works.

Public Participation

Robin Goodfellow spoke in objection to the application.

Kate McFarlane spoke in objection to the application.

Charlotte Watkins spoke in support of the application.

Shendie Green spoke on behalf of Lyneham and Bradenstoke Parish Council.

Development Management Team Leader, Lee Burman presented a report which outlined the construction of four dwellings and associated works.

Details were provided of the site and issues raised by the proposals, including the principle of development in this location; the design and effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the locality; the impact on residential amenity; highways safety and parking; drainage; ecology.

Members of the Committee had the opportunity to ask technical questions regarding the application. Details were sought on whether the neighbourhood development plan made in October 2021 had designated this site for development, to which the Officer clarified that the development had not designated any site nor had it made any allocations for housing. In addition, the Lyneham Banks landslip issue was mentioned with there being rumours that a separate development may have caused the slip; the Officer clarified that there were no indications that that the proposal would exacerbate the situation or cause further issues. The Officer also clarified in relation to the access road to the proposed development that this was a private road which highways officers advised was sufficiently wide enough for two-way travel.

Additional technical questions were received in relation to whether the officer’s recommendation for this application was looking to make up a shortfall of housing not arising elsewhere in the county; to which the Officer noted that this was not the case and that shortfalls are considered in relation to defined housing market areas by Inspectors at appeal rather than as being county wide. Comparisons were also drawn to another recent proposal which was rejected, to which the Officer stated that each application is assessed on its own merits and that this was a small-scale development in comparison to the other proposal of 50+ dwellings which would be disproportionate. Furthermore that 4 dwellings in the instance of Bradenstoke would not be enough to refuse as it would be proportionate to the scale of development.

Furthermore, clarification was sough as to what “infill” meant to the site in question, with it clarified by the officer that infill is defined as a small gap that can be used to accommodate a maximum of 4 dwellings but most commonly 1 and is an area surrounded by other dwellings, which this application was not.

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

The Local Unitary Member, Councillor Allison Bucknell then spoke regarding the application. Cllr Bucknell raised the following points that despite the applicant’s opinion that they had fulfilled requirements, the application was still contrary to policies, with the only point in favour being that Wiltshire Council can’t demonstrate a 5-year land supply and has a tilted balance. Cllr Bucknell stated that the application lies on the edge of a village in open land and outside of a settlement boundary, with no buses available for sustainable use and that the footpaths to Bradenstoke and Lyneham were unsafe and in some parts unlit. Furthermore, Cllr Bucknell highlighted that the development would be contrary to Core Policies 1, 2, 19 and 45. Additionally, that the case officer had applied moderate weight to the notion of creating additional homes, however, did not mention the recent granting of 250 houses in two nearby locations in Lyneham.

At the start of the debate a motion to refuse the officer’s recommendation was moved by Councillor Steve Bucknell and seconded by Councillor Gavin Grant. The reasoning being that the proposal is outside of any defined settlement and so is located in the open countryside, has not been allocated for residential development within the development plan. The proposals would result in an increased need to travel and the elongation of the village not being infill development.

During the debate, issues were raised such as the unfairness towards neighbourhood plans if they can be overruled by tilted balance due to a lack of 5-year land supply. The importance of local plans was further stressed and how they are intrinsic to the considerations of the Committee and in ensuring that there is an element of control in what takes places in towns and villages. It was also stated that there had not been an extension of the village boundary proposed within the neighbourhood plan that was agreed less than 2 years ago and that though this development would not meet the criteria of being infill, it would however elongate the village which would be contrary to Core Policy 2.

At the conclusion of the debate, it was, 

Resolved:

To refuse on the basis that the conflict with the development plan, including the neighbourhood plan, outweighed the benefits of development, which were considered to be limited. Committee members being of the opinion that insufficient weight was afforded to the wishes of the local community as expressed by the Lyneham and Bradenstoke Neighbourhood Plan.  Members Resolved to refuse for the following reason: -

The proposal is outside of any defined settlement and so is located in the open countryside, has not been allocated for residential development within the Wiltshire Core Strategy (January 2015), The Wiltshire Housing Sites Allocation Plan (February 2020) or the Lyneham & Bradenstoke Neighbourhood Plan (2021). 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. The proposals do not constitute infill development and elongate the village of Bradenstoke. Therefore, the proposal is contrary to Core Policies 1, 2, 19, 60 (i & ii) & 61 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy, Saved Policy H4 of the North Wiltshire Local Plan, and the Lyneham & Bradenstoke 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 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.