Agenda item

Erection of 70 no. dwellings with public open space and associated infrastructure, approval of reserved matters (scale, layout, landscaping and external appearance) pursuant to outline application ref: 19/11569/OUT.

Public Participation

Campbell Ritchie spoke on behalf of Kim Power in objection to the application.

Katherine Doodey spoke in objection to the application.

Jonathon Dodd spoke in support of the application.

Cllr Campbell Ritchie spoke on behalf of Malmesbury Town Council.

Development Management Team Leader, Lee Burman presented a report which outlined the erection of 70 dwellings with a public open space and associated infrastructure, approval of reserved matters (scale, layout, landscaping and external appearance) pursuant to outline application ref: 19/11569/OUT.

Details were provided of the site and issues raised by the proposals, including design quality, impact on the character appearance and visual amenity of the area – landscaping; residential amenity; access, highways and parking; drainage and ecology.

Members of the Committee had the opportunity to ask technical questions regarding the application. Details were sought on, but not limited to, what the Officer thought about the letter which had been received from Osborne Clarke, whether there would be any PV panels on the roofs of the proposed homes as well as how the homes would be heated. It was also clarified that a Section 106 agreement was already attached to the outline permission.

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

The Local Unitary Member, Councillor Gavin Grant then spoke regarding the application. Cllr Grant raised the following points thanking the Planning Officer for his extensive efforts whilst there had been frustration from Malmesbury Town Council and residents. Cllr Grant cited content included within the report, specifically page 69 in respect to specific elements of the site layout, which he did not believe were in accord with the outline planning permission and were also against the Malmesbury Area Plan. Cllr Grant spoke in very strong terms in expressing  frustration that developer had not designed a masterplan to include proposals both for this site and the adjoining land to the south which also benefits from outline planning permission and to also incorporate the nursery secured as part of the outline permission at appeal and was reminded by the Chair of the Committee to ensure  his comments were professional and courteous when referring to the Applicant and the Applicant’s representative.  Cllr Grant noted that there had been a loss of 15% of land available within the development however this had only reduced the number of proposed homes by one and that had a masterplan been provided, Officer’s could have addressed the proposals together to allow for greater continuity of layout and space.

The following further points were raised by Cllr Grant, who referred to Wiltshire Core Strategy (Jan 2015) Core Policy 57, which aims to ensure high quality of design and place shaping, with the suggestion that the highest quality could not be achieved through this proposal. Cllr Grant stated that had it not been for the tilted balance, then this parcel of land would have remained a greenfield site. In addition, Cllr Grant stated that many people would lose out if the application was to be granted, specifically future generations of children who would have nowhere to play due to the 15% decrease in land including green space. Cllr Grant suggested that the application was substandard as the full aims and objectives of Wiltshire Core Strategy (Jan 2015) Core Policies 2, 13 and 57 as well as sections of the National Planning Policy Framework (July 2021) and the Malmesbury Community Plan had not been met.

At the start of the debate a motion to refuse the officer’s recommendation was moved by Councillor Gavin Grant and seconded by Councillor  Jacqui Lay. The reason for refusal was that the proposals do not achieve the highest design quality failing to address place making objectives by not taking into account and comprehensively master planning the application site alongside the adjoining site to the south. The proposals are thereby in conflict with Core Policy 57 (iii & xi) of the Wiltshire Core Strategy (Jan 2015); and Paragraph 130 (a, e & f) of the National Planning Policy Framework (July 2021).

During the debate, issues were raised, but not limited to, the need for Wiltshire Council to provide good quality homes for the future generations and that the developer could be missing an opportunity in Malmesbury to produce higher quality homes rather than going for a high volume in a small, dense area. It was also suggested that the developer had not acquitted themselves well to work with Wiltshire Council as previous developers had done. It was later stressed that Wiltshire Council want to collectively work alongside the developer in order to create a community the Committee could be proud of.

It was also however suggested that in relation to page 69 of the report, that though the highest quality of design had not been achieved, it could not be said that the proposals would result in significant harm. In addition, it was stated that 40% of the homes would be affordable housing and that if the proposal was to go ahead it would contribute towards the 5-year land supply.

At the conclusion of the debate, it was, 

Resolved:

To refuse the application contrary to the officer recommendation on the basis that the proposals did not achieve the highest quality of design failing to take into consideration and integrate the development proposal with the neighbouring site which also benefits from outline planning permission. The application fails to address place making objectives contrary to the provisions of the plan and the framework.

Refused for the following reason:

The proposals do not achieve the highest design quality failing to address place making objectives by not taking into account and comprehensively master planning the application site alongside the adjoining site to the south. The proposals are thereby in conflict with Core Policy 57 (iii & xi) of the Wiltshire Core Strategy (Jan 2015); and Paragraph 130 (a, e & f) of the National Planning Policy Framework (July 2021).