If you are reading this page using a screenreader, we support ARIA landmarks for quick navigation too

Agenda item

APPLICATION NUMBER: PL/2021/10952 - Bramble Cottage, Mount Pleasant, Porton

Full plan application for the erection of one dwelling with garage, at the land adjacent to Bramble Cottage, with garage and driveway.


Public Participation

Dan Roycroft (Agent) spoke in support of the Application

Ms Maysun Butros spoke in support of the Application


Late correspondence was summarised, which included a notice of support from Idmiston PC, a further objection from the neighbour, a revised proposal for a sewerage treatment plant by the applicant and comments from the Ecology Officer.


The Officer confirmed that the additional information had not changed the Officer recommendation.


The Senior Planning Officer, Julie Mitchell, presented the Full planning application for the erection of one dwelling with garage, at the land adjacent to Bramble Cottage, with garage and driveway.


The application was recommended for Refusal as set out in the report attached to the agenda.


Material considerations detailed in the report included:


1. Principle of development

2. Highway issues

3. Character of the area

4. Residential amenity

5. Drainage

6. River Avon SAC

7. Other issues


It was noted that there was no pedestrian access to the village from the site. Plans showing the access, location and proximity of existing dwellings, with a visibility splay diagram to set out the extent of visibility on the road.


The site was situated outside of the development boundary and development went against policy. The application was recommended for refusal.


Members then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the Officer,

where it was clarified that until further assessment had been carried out, unplanned development in the location was not lawful.


Members of the public as detailed above, then had the opportunity to speak on the application.


Those in support explained that a report had been submitted which set out the phosphate levels would be less than the 5 cubic litres per day maximum stated by the councils Ecology Officer and the Parish council had voted in support of the application.


Reference to the council’s lack of 5 year land supply was made and a suggestion that the development would add to the overall housing numbers for Wiltshire.


The site was sustainable as the occupants would be able to commute to Salisbury for employment and amenities.


The site was part of the applicants’ families land and would enable him to remain in the village in which he had resided for the last 20 years.


The rural nature of the area had been considered and environmentally friendly features had been included in the design.


Local Member, Cllr Rich Rogers, who was on the Committee, spoke to the application noting that he had not called it in, but that it was policy that any application of an elected Member would come to committee for consideration.


Cllr Rogers then moved the motion of Approval against Officer recommendation.


The reasons given were that despite the site being some way from the settlement boundary, the development was in keeping with the Bourne Valley settlement.


There had been only one objection from a neighbour, and there was full support from the parish council.


He considered the location to be sustainable, noting that rural settings generally required residents to use cars to access amenities.


Historic data showed that the location was safe in terms of Highways and improvements had been made to the access.


The single 2 bed property was modest for the plot and not overdevelopment and included excellent eco-friendly features.


The inclusion of a treatment plant would deal with the nitrates issue.


Before the Chairman called for a seconder to the motion of approval, he asked the Legal Officer present to clarify the legal position should the application be approved.


The Legal Officer noted that Conservation and Habitats regulations put certain responsibilities on councils to ensure appropriate assessment was carried out prior to approving planning permission. In this instance, the site was outside of the Local Development area, so the council must be satisfied that any effect on the land would be mitigated. There had been reference to a treatment plant with low levels, however here there was a further two other existing properties close by, so there would be an accumulative effect. No one had yet provided that assessment and therefore it would be against regulations to grant permission without the assessment and decision to grant permission could then be subject to successful challenge by way of judicial review.


The Chairman asked the Planning Officer whether it would make more sense to defer until the Ecologist report was available. The Planning Officer explained that it was more than just the ecologist assessment and that liaison with Natural England was also required.


Members discussed the merits of both deferral and refusal and came back to the original motion for approval which had not yet been seconded or discussed.


Cllr Kevin Daley seconded the motion of approval.


The Committee then discussed the application with comments for and against the application, however without the necessary assessments the majority of the committee noted that they would not be minded to support approval as it would be contrary to policy.


After discussion, Cllr Rogers withdrew his motion of approval, this was supported by Cllr Daley.


Cllr Ian McLennan then moved the motion of Refusal as per the Officer recommendation.


This was seconded by Cllr Brian Dalton.

It was;



That application PL/2021/10952 be Refused in line with Officer recommendation for the following reasons:


1.    The site is located in the open countryside outside of any defined settlement boundary and in a location where no public transport or pedestrian facilities are available or accessible. As such the proposed development would result in a new dwelling which would be wholly reliant upon the private car to access services and facilities for any residents and visitors to the dwelling, contrary to the settlement and
delivery strategy for new housing and sustainability objectives embodied in Core Policies 1, 2, 4, 60 and 61 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy, Policies 17 and 19 of the Idmiston Parish Council Neighbourhood Plan 2015-2026 and the aims of sustainability embodied in the National Planning Policy Framework 2021 (with particular regards to Section 5, paragraphs 79 and 80 and Section 9, paragraphs
104, 105, 110 and 112) which collectively aim to provide housing in a sustainable manner and reduce the need to travel particularly by private car and encourage the use of sustainable transport alternatives.


2.    The site is situated within the River Avon catchment area that is a European site. Advice from Natural England indicates that every permission that results in a net increase in foul water entering the catchment could result in increased nutrients entering this European site causing further deterioration to it. Unplanned residential development in the countryside is not covered by the Council’s current mitigation strategy and the application does not include detailed proposals to mitigate the impact of these increased nutrients and consequently, without such detailed proposals, the Council as a competent authority cannot conclude that there would be no adverse effect on the integrity of this European Site as a result of the development. The proposal would therefore conflict with Wiltshire Core Strategy policies CP50 (Biodiversity and Geodiversity) and CP69 (Protection of the River Avon SAC); and paragraphs 179-182 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2021



Supporting documents:




This website