Agenda item

Excavation of former railway embankment, erection of 3 x new self-build dwellings, hard and soft landscaping and associated works.

Public Participation

Mr Martin Plimsoll spoke in objection to the application

Mr Paul Sims spoke in objection to the application

Ms Sarah Stephens spoke in objection to the application

Mr Dan Roycroft (Agent) spoke in support of the application

Cllr Elaine Hartford of Alderbury Parish Council spoke in objection to the application.

The Senior Planning Officer, Joe Richardson, introduced a report which recommended that the application for excavation of former railway embankment, erection of 3 new self-build dwellings, hard and soft landscaping and associated works be approved.

Key details were stated in the report included the principle of development including self-build; contribution site makes to public amenity; character and Design; neighbouring amenities; archaeology; drainage; parking/highway safety; ecological impact including river Avon/river Test nitrate neutrality and New Forest SPA; and other matters including land stability and the Council’s current Housing Land Supply position.

Slides detailing the layout of the current application for 3 self-build dwellings and a previous application for 4 dwellings which had been refused, were shown. It was noted that the 4-dwelling scheme had been appealed and the outcome of that appeal had not been concluded. The reasons for refusal of the 4-dwelling scheme had included over development, impact on parking, and biodiversity issues.

Members of the committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer. Details were sought on the differences between the previous application and the current and clarification on what constituted ‘self-build’.

The Officer clarified that the applicant would be required to enter into a legal agreement as set out in para 9.1 of the report, which prevented the owners of the dwellings from selling them on before a period of 3 years. If the application was approved, then the design of the dwellings as they were presented would be how they must be built.

The Committee asked for clarification around the process for the allocation of a tree felling licence. It was noted that the Forestry Commission were the body who issues the tree felling licences and that when this occurred, the Planning Officers were not part of that process and were not informed. However, the removal of the dense planting and trees on the embankment had been cleared legally in line with the issued license.

The Committee was advised that planning permission to remove the embankment separately would also require planning permission, however the application for consideration did include the removal of the embankment.

The site was noted as being within the development boundary and the local member confirmed that there was no neighbourhood plan for Whaddon.

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

The Parish Council representative provided grounds for objection to the application.

The unitary division member, councillor Richard Britton then spoke in objection to the application, noting an array of other developments for housing in Whaddon and Alderbury which had been approved over recent years, stating that Alderbury and Whaddon had received in excess of their fair share of development. In addition, he stated that there had been no provision for the constant ecological violation of the village. Increased traffic congestion was noted, with reference to excessive journey times into Salisbury.

Cllr Britton stated that he had requested a site visit for the Committee but that this had been refused by the Chairman as he considered a site visit unnecessary after consulting the Officer, on the basis that the Officers presentation slides were adequate.

It was suggested that the loss of undergrowth had negatively impacted on protected species including bats and that the proposed wildlife corridor nowhere near compensated for the lost biodiversity.

Cllr Britton stated that the proposed development failed Core Policies (CP) 52, and 57 and paragraphs 124 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

The embankment was stated as being the character of the area and that the removal of it would be detrimental.

Lastly Cllr Britton suggested that should the Inspector of the 4-house proposal comes down in favour of retaining the embankment, it would be perverse if the Committee voted to remove it as part of this application.

He urged the Committee to refuse the application based on CP52, CP57 and paras 124 and 187 of the NPPF.  

As the local member was not on the Committee the Chairman invited the Committee to move a motion. Councillor Sven Hocking moved the motion of refusal, against Officer recommendation, stating his agreement with the local member and confirming the reasons as noncompliance with CP52. CP57 and paras 124 and 187 of the NPPF.

This was seconded by Councillor Ricky Rogers.

Cllr Wayman proposed a friendly amendment to the motion, to include CP50 Biodiversity & Geodiversity. This was seconded by Councillor Richard Budden and accepted by Cllr Hocking and Cllr Rogers, the original mover and seconder of the motion.

During discussion the Committee considered the points raised by the local member and registered speakers regarding para 187 of the revised 2024 NPPF with regards to planning decision contributing to and enhancing the natural environment.

The Committee noted concern regarding the Forestry Commission granting the felling license and general disappointment that the process did not include some form of notification to local members or the planning authority.

Additionally, there was concern regarding the outcome of the planning appeal which had not yet been concluded. 

The Committee noted that the self-build element to the application and the reduced number of dwellings on the site, were changes which had enabled the application to be recommended for approval by the officer, however the Committee also noted the concerns and the impact of the proposed development on the local area and the residents in Kiln Close and Southampton Road.

The Committee also discussed the current land supply element for Wiltshire and the bearing that had on consideration of applications.

At the close of debate, the Committee voted on the motion of Refusal against Officer recommendation, stating the reasons as failure to comply with, CP50 Biodiversity & Geodiversity, CP52 green infrastructure, CP57 good design, NPPF paras 124 and 187.

It was;

Resolved

That planning permission for PL/2024/05291 be Refused for the following reasons:

It is considered that the proposed excavation and removal of the former railway embankment and development of three new detached self-build dwellings on the excavated land would lead to a significant and fundamental detrimental change to the visual appearance of the immediate area with the removal of the historic embankment considered as a significant feature in this part of Whaddon previously providing a valuable green and ecologically rich area of which, the entirety would be lost with minimal replacement following the development of the dwellings proposed.

Consequently, the development is considered to be contrary to Core Policies CP50 (Biodiversity and Geodiversity), CP52 (Green Infrastructure) and CP57 (Ensuring high quality design and place shaping) of the Wiltshire Core Strategy and paragraphs 124 and 187 of the NPPF guidance.