Agenda item

Variation of condition 11 (vehicle routing movements) on 18/00523/FUL.

Public Participation

James Whilding spoke in support of the application.

Cllr Richard Tucker spoke on behalf of Bremhill Parish Council.

Development Management Team Leader, Simon Smith presented a report which outlined the proposed variation of condition 11 (vehicle routing movements) on 18/00523/FUL. Details were provided of the variation of condition 11 (vehicle routing movements) and issues raised by the proposals, including the principle of development and highways safety.

The officer detailed the previously agreed route through the planning condition included within the previous application (18/00523/FUL) before detailing the newly proposed variation to the route. The reason for the proposed change was cited as a change of vehicle fleet which would no longer be able to go under a bridge included within the previous route.

Members of the Committee had the opportunity to ask technical questions regarding the application. Details were sought on, but not limited to whether the vehicles had been making use of Lyneham Banks, which was not part of the previously agreed routing. It was clarified by the officer that this had been anecdotally claimed and was a matter that was dependent on the Council to resource and enforce the previously agreed routing as well as if the proposed route was to be accepted. It was also clarified that the proposed route would be in replacement of the previously agreed routing and not in addition to.

Further technical questions included but were not limited to the size of the new fleet of lorries that the applicant had purchased, with it noted by the officer that the original condition had been made based on a fleet small enough to fit through the bridge. In addition, it was clarified that more lorries would leave the farm than enter, due to the breeding of the poultry. Concern was raised in relation to the new routing and that the lorries would have to travel through Lyneham and Royal Wootton Bassett town centre to junction 16 or use roads that had already been heavily affected by lorries, with residents currently complaining about the speed and volume of traffic.

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

The Local Unitary Member, Councillor Howard Greenman then spoke regarding the application. Cllr Greenman stated that though he was anxious to support anything that would underpin food security, knowing the roads it would be irresponsible to make lorries travel down them. Cllr Greenman also drew reference to how the Highways Engineers had previously objected to the proposed route but had since changed their mind. Reference was drawn to the meeting of the Christian Malford Parish Council which had taken place in the week of the Committee meeting, where residents had stated that they thought that the proposed route would be irresponsible and that they had previously put up with lorries travelling through their village. Cllr Greenman expressed surprise and disappointment that the applicant had acquired a new fleet of vehicles of that size. Cllr Greenman expressed that he believed the points raised by the public speakers in objection to be valid, drawing reference to photographic evidence which had been produced by Bremhill Parish Council prior to the meeting.

As the neighbouring Unitary Member for the Calne Rural division, Councillor Ashley O’Neill was unable to attend the meeting, Cllr Tony Trotman read out a statement which had been provided by Cllr O’Neill. The statement covered the following points that though the applicant had suggested that use of the new route would result in a reduction of vehicle movements from 185 down to 111, this would be in excess of the condition placed in 2018, which related to 106 vehicle movements. Cllr O’Neill’s statement also drew attention to concerns that related to the egress point of the proposed route on to the A3102 at the crossroads at Snowhill, which was known to be an accident blackspot. Cllr O’Neill’s statement also drew reference to statements made by the Highways Team in 2018, who had then considered the proposed route to be unsuitable.

At the start of the debate a motion to reject the officer’s recommendation for planning permission to be granted subject to conditions was moved by Cllr Howard Greenman and seconded by Cllr Gavin Grant. The reason for refusal was that the application would conflict with Core Policies 51(vii), 34(ix) and 65 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy (Jan 2015). Which was delegated to Development Manager Team Leader, Simon Smith.

During the debate, issues were raised, but not limited to, how a Member had driven along the roads included in the proposed route and had witnessed on multiple occasions a farm lorry unable to make turns without climbing the road verges and that due to the nature of the lanes on-coming vehicles to the lorry often had to reverse and stop. It was also suggested that though the applicant had been looking to cut down on carbon emissions by using a larger size of fleet, this may not be the case as the proposed journey would be longer. Regarding the vehicle fleet, it was suggested that the purchase of the bigger lorries whilst being aware of the bridge size was a poor management decision. Further reference was also drawn to the Christian Malford Parish residents who had stated that they had been content with the smaller vehicles passing through their village. Additional reference was also drawn to the significant consultation of the previous application, where the proposed route had been considered inappropriate even for smaller vehicles.

Further issues that were debated included reference to the original proposal, where the “type and level” of traffic had been discussed and that though the level of traffic would be reduced, the type of traffic would be a larger form of fleet. It was suggested that if the route had been deemed inappropriate in 2018 with smaller vehicles, then it would not be appropriate in 2022 with larger vehicles. It was suggested that the application would conflict with Wiltshire Core Strategy Core Policy 51 (vii) due to a need to protect the landscape from pollution and the impact of the vehicles. It was also suggested that the area included within the proposed route was one which was enjoyed by horse riders, walkers, and cyclists, who might have difficulty in getting out of the way of on-coming lorries. It was stated that though the proposed route would afford a commercial advantage to the business, this should not come at the cost of the result to the landscape.

At the conclusion of the debate, it was, 

Resolved:

That the application be refused for the following reason:

By reason of the type and nature of the vehicle types and number of vehicles movements as well as the accompanying noise and activity in this tranquil locality, the proposed route for HGV traffic accessing the site via Foxham, which is both torturous and has limitations in terms of width and alignment, is considered to be unacceptable.  Accordingly, the proposed intensive poultry business would not be provided with adequate access and supporting infrastructure and would be contrary to the requirements of policies CP51(vii), CP34(ix) and CP65 to the Wiltshire Core Strategy.