Agenda item

The application seeks consent for residential development of up to 200 dwellings, and:

A local centre of 0.3ha (0.75 acres) (comprising commercial business and service uses (Use Class E), drinking establishment and hot food takeaway (sui generis) with a gross internal floor area limit of 1,000m2 of which no more than 725m2 shall be used for retail (Class E(a)). 

No single retail (Class E(a)) unit shall comprise of more than 325m2 gross internal floor area.

Associated works, infrastructure, ancillary facilities, open space and landscaping.

Vehicular access from Windsor Drive with the western end of Coate Road re-aligned to form the minor arm of a junction with the site access road.

Public Participation

Rod Evans spoke in objection to the application.

Cllr Richard Ormerod spoke on behalf of Devizes Town Council.

Cllr Eric Clark spoke on behalf of Bishops Cannings Parish Council.

Senior Planning Officer, Nick Clark presented a report which outlined an application seeking consent for residential development of up to 200 dwellings, and a local centre of 0.3ha (0.75 acres) (comprising commercial business and service uses (Use Class E), drinking establishment and hot food takeaway (sui generis) with a gross internal floor area limit of 1,000m2 of which no more than 725m2 would be used for retail (Class E(a)). No single retail (Class E(a)) unit shall comprise of more than 325m2 gross internal floor area. Associated works, infrastructure, ancillary facilities, open space and landscaping. Vehicular access from Windsor Drive with the western end of Coate Road re-aligned to form the minor arm of a junction with the site access road.

The site consisted of a triangular plot of farmland forming 2 fields with hedged boundaries, set between the Kennet & Avon Canal to the north and Coate Road to the south, with open farmland to the east. It was noted that there was a c. 2m high raised bund of land within the site running alongside the southern side of the canal and a local overhead power line runs along the line of the bund. On the opposite side of the canal was the residential development of the former Le Marchant Barracks and on the opposite side of Coate Road is farmland and the former slaughterhouse site.

The application site also included adjoining roads as needed for associated road improvements, and in total amounts to an area of 9.82 hectares, within which the two fields accounted for c. 8.54 hectares. The site was outside the recognised Limits of Development for Devizes, with the North Wessex Downs AONB nearby to the east and south-east

The planning officer outlined the planning history of the application, with it noted that the site previously formed part of a larger site that was subject to an ‘Outline planning application for residential development of up to 350 dwellings, local centre of up to 700sqm of class A1 retail use, open space, access roads, cycleway, footpaths, landscaping and associated engineering works’ (E/2013/0083/OUT). Following a public inquiry, the appeal against refusal was dismissed by the Secretary of State on 21st September 2016 (the 2016 decision). The Secretary of State in agreement with the inspector that amongst other reasons there was then no shortfall in 5-year housing land supply, the development would be contrary to policies of the Wiltshire Core Strategy and Devizes Neighbourhood plan.

Attention was drawn to planning balance and the previous appeal, with both the benefits and adverse impacts of the current proposal outlined in relation to the planning balance.

The planning officer drew attention to the addendum to the published report, which made amendments to the conditions that had been previously recommended within the officer’s report.

Members of the Committee had the opportunity to ask technical questions regarding the application. Details were sought on, but not limited to whether the site would include a large bund along the side of the canal, to which it was clarified that it was proposed that this would be removed with part of it used to level out the land and some taken off of the site. Clarity was sought around the environmental impact assessment, with it clarified by the planning officer that the applicants applied for a screening opinion to determine whether an environmental impact assessment was required and like the application in 2013, it was concluded that an assessment was not required.

It was queried whether all of the properties along the canal would be 2.5 or 3 storey buildings, to which the officer stated that the provided plan was just indicative at this stage however the Wiltshire Council urban development officer had supported the plan to give it better frontage. It was queried whether officers were content that there had been no reduction in size to the local centre, though it would be supporting a lower number of homes and whether this might be a precursor for another development. It was clarified by the officer that the size of the local centre could be no more than 0.3 hectares and that this wouldn’t just serve the development but would also serve the residents of Windsor Drive.

It was clarified that agricultural land classification did not go down to field level however as a broad classification it would likely be classified between 3a or 3b. In addition, reference was drawn to the report, which suggested that the neighbourhood plan had identified better options for land allocation, to which the planning officer stated that the neighbourhood plan is currently in its early stages with the first consultation scheduled for late spring 2023.

Questions were also raised about the access point, with it stated that the plan would be to take access from Coate Road and that there would be a detailed plan for access as part of the reserved matters stage.

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

Neighbouring Local Unitary Member, Councillor Philip Whitehead then spoke regarding the application. Cllr Whitehead stressed the importance of the local plan which took ten years to produce and would never get out of date due to being replaced. Cllr Whitehead expressed frustration with the current land supply number being a shortfall of 4.72 and how this had caused the local plan to be discarded with Ashton Park cited as an example of how the number can be influenced and determined by developers.

Cllr Whitehead stated that Windsor Drive was a barrier to development and once breached this would cause further applications to come forward, with a current perimeter road then becoming a spine road.

Attention was drawn to recent appeals, where Wiltshire Council was not ordered to pay costs, with it stressed that the committee did not have to make the inspector’s decision but should rather represent residents and what they wish to do. In addition, Cllr Whitehead stated that Devizes had delivered more in comparison to other places within the county, due to being easier and not having infrastructure problems like in areas such as Chippenham.

Cllr Whitehead stressed the importance of neighbourhood plans and how they had given residents the power to decide what they would like to do with their town. Additionally, it was argued that neighbourhood plans don’t become out of date as things do not move that rapidly and that towns such as Devizes replace their neighbourhood plans to ensure they do not go out of date. Therefore, the Wiltshire Council Local Plan, neighbourhood plan, town councillors and residents should be the guide in deciding.

The Local Unitary Member, Councillor Kelvin Nash then spoke regarding the application. Cllr Nash raised the following points including that since 2016 there had been an accumulation of other developments in Devizes including along London Road and Quakers Walk, which had already stretched infrastructure. Cllr Nash stated how Devizes was a beautiful place to live and how he believed it was his duty to hand this heritage over to future generations. It was noted that the proposed site was little over 100m from the North Wessex Downs (AONB), with rolling chalk hills, streams as well as the Kennet and Avon Canal to the rear.

Cllr Nash stated that in 2016 the planning inspector recognised that this development would be outside of the settlement boundary and that he agreed that Windsor Drive is the line for development that should not be breached, which could ultimately set precedent for further developments. Reference was made to the primary schools listed in the report, with it noted that though Southbroom St James Primary was listed, this would be double the distance from other primary schools which had already met their capacity. Additionally, there would not be a local need for retail in this area due to their already being a convenience store within the petrol station on London Road.

Cllr Nash concluded by stating that each unitary and town council member stood against this application and that Devizes was not against development, though it must be within the right place. In addition, Devizes had played its part in contributing to the 5-year land supply and would continue to do so with plans up to 2036.

The Chairman then opened the debate and requested that the first Member to speak proposed a motion that the Committee could debate.

At the start of the debate a motion to reject the officer’s recommendation to Defer and Delegate to the Head of Development Management to GRANT outline planning permission subject to the conditions set out below and to the prior completion of a Section 106 legal agreement to cover the obligations identified in Section 11 of this report was moved by Cllr Howard Greenman and seconded by Cllr Bridget Wayman.

The reason for refusal was that the development would be in conflict with Core Policies 1, 2, 51 and 57 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy (Jan 2015), section H1 of the Devizes Neighbourhood Plan and Section 106.

During the debate, issues were raised, but not limited to how being swayed by the potential skew of appeal costs would not make for good democracy and that there had been a similar situation in Chippenham where there was a belief that to breach the A350 would set precedent for further development. It was suggested that the application did not meet with the wishes of the community and would provide no benefit to Devizes, which had gone beyond its remit for housing delivery. It was suggested by a member that being so close to the AONB, this urban sprawl could not be accepted, with there being potential detriment to the canal and tourist route of narrowboats.

A member suggested that in relation to the Devizes Town Council Neighbourhood plan that the development could be in conflict due to causing further congestion to the town with additional cars seeking to get through Devizes.

It was stated that though the plan was only in outline form, the retail element would not be required for the number of planned houses and that the 2.5 or 3 storey elements along the side of the canal would not provide good place shaping or design, in conflict with Wiltshire Core Strategy Core Policy 58. Further emphasis was placed on Wiltshire Core Strategy Core Policy 58, with it suggested that the indicative masterplan was vague and that the commercial aspect would not thrive. In addition, the open side of the development could potentially be left exposed to further development and that the historic road would be rerouted in order to give priority to the new development. It was also suggested that in comparison to the previous site layout, the new proposal did not seem to have as much green space.

At the conclusion of the debate, it was, 

Resolved:

To refuse the application for the following reasons:

1. Core Policy 1 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy sets out the 'Settlement Strategy' for the County, and in doing so identifies four tiers of settlement - Principal Settlement, Market Town, Local Service Centre, and Large and Small Village. Within the Settlement Strategy Devizes is defined as a Market Town. The Principal Settlements, Market Towns, Local Service Centres and Large Villages have defined boundaries, or‘limits of development’. Beyond the limits of development is countryside. The application site lies beyond / outside the limits of development of Devizes, and so is in the countryside.

Core Policy 2 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy sets out the 'Delivery Strategy'. It identifies the scale of growth appropriate within each settlement tier. The policy states that within the limits of development of those settlements with defined limits there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development; but, outside the defined limits – that is, in the countryside – other than in circumstances permitted by other policies of the Plan, development will not be allowed. The policy further states that the limits of development may only be altered through identification of sites for development through subsequent Site Allocations Development Plan Documents and Neighbourhood Plans. The application site is not identified for development in a Development Plan Document or Neighbourhood Plan.

Core Policy 12 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy sets out the 'Spatial Strategy' for the Devizes Community Area in which Devizes lies. It states that development in the Devizes Community Area should be in accordance with the Settlement Strategy set out in Core Policy 1.

Policy H1 of the Devizes Area Neighbourhood Plan states that its ‘Settlement Framework Boundary’ for Devizes equates with the limits of development defined by Core Policy 2 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy, although the Settlement Framework Boundary also allows for allocations in the Neighbourhood Plan under Policy H3. It follows that the application site, lying outside the Core Strategy’s limits of development, also lies outside the Neighbourhood Plan’s Settlement Framework Boundary. The Neighbourhood Plan states that the Settlement Framework Boundary defines the limits within which sustainable development should take place.

The proposal is for outline planning permission to erect up to 200 dwellings, a local centre, etc. on land which is in the countryside. Under Core Policies 1, 2 and 12, this does not comply with the Settlement and Delivery Strategies as a matter of principle. The Strategies are designed to ensure new developments satisfy the fundamental principles of sustainability, and so it follows that where a proposal such as this fails to comply with them then it will be unsustainable in the overarching context. The application site is not identified for development in a Site Allocations Development Plan Document, and it is not allocated in a Neighbourhood Plan. Furthermore, there are no material considerations or exceptional circumstances, including those set out in other policies of the Plan, which override the core policy position. The proposal is therefore contrary to Core Policies 1, 2 and 12 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy, the Devizes Area Neighbourhood Plan and paragraphs 2, 7-15 and 47 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) since it comprises unsustainable development. In accordance with paragraph 11d(ii) of the NPPF, the benefits of the proposal have been fully considered but the adverse impacts, including those set out in reason for refusal no. 2 below, and the serious undermining of the Devizes Area Neighbourhood Plan, would significantly and demonstrably outweigh those benefits, when assessed against the policies in the NPPF taken as a whole.

2. By reason of its urbanising effect, the proposed development, located in open countryside and close to an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, would have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the countryside, causing irreversible loss of an attractive landscape. This objection is compounded by an illustrative masterplan which shows an unsatisfactory layout, and which is indicative of poor place-making. The proposal therefore fails to protect, conserve and, where possible, enhance landscape character, contrary to Core Policies 51 and 57 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy and paragraph 174 of the NPPF.

3. The application fails to provide and/or secure any mechanism to ensure that the provision of essential infrastructure, services and amenities made necessary by the development are delivered, these being affordable housing, recreation/open space, education facilities, refuse collection facilities, and highway works sustainable transport improvements. This is contrary to Policies CP3, CP43, CP45, CP51, and CP52 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy and Policy HC34 of the ‘saved’ Kennet Local Plan, and paragraphs 8, 34, 56, 64 and 92 of the NPPF.