Agenda item

Application for outline planning permission for up to 55 residential units (all matters reserved other than access).

Public Participation

Cllr Gavin Grant read a statement in objection to the application on behalf of Ian Wallis.

Cllr Gavin Grant read a statement in objection to the application on behalf of Campbell Ritchie.

Matthew Symons (agent) spoke in support of the application. 

Cllr James Slade of Malmesbury Town Council spoke in objection to the application.

 

Adam Madge, Principal Planning Officer, introduced a report which recommended that the application for outline planning permission for up to 55 residential units (all matters reserved other than access), be delegated to the Director of Planning to grant planning permission subject to a legal agreement and conditions.

 

It was highlighted that the application came before the Strategic Planning Committee at its meeting on 23 January 2025, where the application was deferred, to allow for consultation with the Cotswolds National Landscape Board. That had now taken place, and the Cotswolds National Landscape Board had no objections, subject to conditions. Those conditions had been added to the recommendation in the revised report.

 

In addition, it was stated that the applicant had agreed to contributions of £25,000 towards a pump track (a purpose-built track for cycling) at White Lion Park, so this would be added to the officer recommendation if the Committee were minded to approve the application.

 

Furthermore, Malmesbury Town Council had provided a late representation on the matter, objecting to the application. The objection included that there had already been many housing approvals in the area; the Malmesbury Neighbourhood Plan sites were being built out; that they did not think the application could be seen as a ‘rounding off’ of Malmesbury and provided a series of images detailing how they felt there was not a safe walking route into the town centre along the Sherston road. They also felt that a footpath was required from the proposed development to the White Lion Park.

 

The officer stated that a letter had been received from the Gloucester Health and Care NHS Trust who presently own the field, who supported the application, due to the financial receipts they would get from the sale of the field.

 

Details were provided on the location of the site and the landscape parameters. The Cotswolds National Landscape abutted the site, and the landscape parameters plan showed that a significant buffer would be included on that side with green spaces and planting. Full details of this would be included in the reserve matters application, if this application was approved. The proposed access for the site was off the Sherston Road and the highways team considered this appropriate. There were a number of proposed off site highways works contributions included in the proposal. There were currently power lines across the site and if approved it was proposed that these would be put underground.

 

Members of the committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer. Details were sought on whether this site was in the Local Plan. The officer explained that the site was included as a reserve site in the draft Local Plan, which had been submitted for approval to the Planning Inspectorate. Reserve sites were included as sites that would come forward if the council did not have the housing numbers required. Due to Wiltshire Council’s lack of a 5 year Housing Land Supply (HLS) this site would be required. It was not allocated for housing in the current Local Plan or any other plan.

 

Members sought further details on contributions to local health provision. The officer explained that the local NHS trust owned the site and so would receive funds from the sale of the development, however whilst this money would go to the local NHS trust, this covered quite a large area and where within the area that money would be spent was not known. 

 

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

 

The adjoining division Member, Cllr Martin Smith (Sherston Division) spoke in objection to the application. His main concern was the sustainability of the site in terms of access and transport. Issues with the walking route to town were highlighted, including that it was long (nearly 2km) and hazardous, with difficulties including narrow pavements, no pavements at all in some areas, and the need to cross the road multiple times. In addition, the proposed new entrance to the site onto Sherston Road was felt to be difficult for cars, as it was a 50mph road. Therefore, Cllr Smith felt that the application should be refused as it was contrary to Wiltshire Core Strategy (WCS) Core Policy (CP) 60 - Sustainable transport and CP61 - Transport and new development.

 

The unitary division member, Cllr Gavin Grant (Malmesbury Division) then spoke in objection to the application. Cllr Grant also highlighted the issues regarding sustainability and the walking route into town. Cllr Grant stated that he had raised the issue of reserved sites when the draft Local Plan was considered and received reassurance that these would not come into play until the draft Local Plan had been approved by the Planning Inspectorate. However, the Committee were now looking at an application for the development of a reserve site in the draft Local Plan. He felt it should be noted that it was not allocated as a site in the current Local Plan or the Malmesbury Neighbourhood Plan.

 

Furthermore, Cllr Grant highlighted that Malmesbury had met its obligations in terms of housing provision, both in the current Local Plan and the draft Local Plan and cited various applications which had been approved. If this application was also approved, Malmesbury would in fact be in excess of required numbers for housing provision in the area up to 2038. Further issues raised included lack of provision for local healthcare; that this was a speculative application due to the lack of a 5 year HLS and the lack of provision of a footpath from the site to White Lion Park. For all the reasons stated Cllr Grant urged the Committee to refuse the application.

 

In response to the public and division Member statements the planning officer stated that all the issues raised were covered within the report. Due to the lack of a 5 year HLS, sustainable development, which officers felt this was, should be approved. Statements in relation to the walking route into town were correct, however, considerable off site highways works, such as crossing points, were proposed and there was only so much that an applicant could be expected to do. Officers felt that the proposals were acceptable in these circumstances.

 

The Chairman proposed that the application be refused, as he was not comfortable with the application, for all the reasons stated by objectors.

 

Cllr Newbury highlighted that to refuse the application, adverse impacts of granting permission had to identified which would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, so requested further details on the reasons for refusal.

 

Cllr Clare Cape seconded the motion to refuse, based on the unsustainability of the site, related to the walking route to the town centre and the nature of the narrow road; it looked like a ribbon development out of the town; that the site was not allocated in the Malmesbury Neighbourhood Plan and that it was only a reserve site in the draft Local Plan. The Chairman agreed with these reasons for refusal so added them to the motion to refuse.

 

Officer advice was sought. The Planning Officer highlighted that their recommendation as to approve the application. So did not feel that the reasons for refusal given would be very defensible at appeal. Further discussion was had concerning reasons for refusal. With Members suggesting that as stated in the officer report, the application failed CP 1, 2 and 13 and therefore these could be used within the reasons for refusal.

 

Simon Smith, Development Management Team Leader, highlighted that due to the ‘tilted balance’ situation, where Wiltshire Council could not demonstrate a 5 year HLS, and the presumption was in favour of development where it met certain criteria, that the settlement strategy was also considered out of date, so relying on this to refuse planning applications was not wise. Therefore, he recommended not using CP 1, 2 and 13 with the reasons for refusal as they would be very difficult to defend. However, sustainability reasons, such as it being difficult to get into the town centre, that was a judgement call, so the Committee could use those, if they felt that the adverse effects of those significantly and demonstrably outweighed the benefits. However, he highlighted that the Highways officers did not have any objections.

 

Some Members felt that as this had been assessed as a reserve site in the draft Local Plan, then it would be very difficult to refuse the application and defend that at appeal. Officers noted that the emerging Local Plan had very limited weight at present, but it was considered under that plan, and this would make refusal more difficult.

 

Other Members highlighted that the tilted balance was a very difficult situation to deal with and was mainly caused by developers’ land banking and that there were more than 18,000 approved applications which developers had not built out. It was felt that deferring the application in January had been prudent as that had resulted in additional conditions which were useful. It was queried as to whether additional conditions could be added in relation to contributions and a link path between the site and the White Lion Park, so that if a decision to refuse was overturned at appeal, that it would have more robust conditions. In addition, it was queried whether the speed limit would be changed on the Sherston Road.

 

The planning officer stated that it was planned to extend the 30mph speed limit further along the Sherston Road, however that was not dealt with under planning legislation, which is why it was not covered. It was highlighted that the adjoining land between the site and the White Lion Park was under different ownership, so you could not condition for a path, but one could add a condition to provide an access that could be used for such a path in the future. 

 

Some Members stated their frustration at being in this situation, in relation to the lack of a 5 year HLS, the tilted balance, and where developers were putting in applications for sites which did not meet the Local Plan, current or draft. They felt that development should be plan led. The quality of the objections to the application were highlighted.

 

Reasons for refusal were discussed again and CP1, 2, 13, 57, 60 and 61 were quoted. However, on the advice of planning officers CP1, 2 and 13 were removed as reasons for refusal as these related to the settlement strategy which was considered out of date and therefore very difficult to defend at appeal.

 

Sustainability reasons such as CP 57 (Ensuring high quality design and place shaping), 60 (Sustainable transport) and 61 (Transport and new development) in relation to the distance to the town centre, linkages, and the narrowness of footways would also be difficult, but were more defensible.

 

The Chairman and the seconder both concurred that therefore the motion on the table was to refuse on sustainability grounds and as the application was contrary to CP 57, 60 and 61.

 

There was some further debate where Members highlighted that a cycle path was not included and should be and that a link to the White Lion Park should be added to conditions in case a decision to refuse was overturned at appeal.  It was also stated that all Members supported the plan led system of planning, but unfortunately this had been disrupted by the government’s introduction of the 5 year HLS. In addition, it was felt that Wiltshire Council had also failed as they could not demonstrate a 5 year HLS and our WCS (or Local Plan) had been adopted in 2015, which was a very long time ago. Concerns were also raised that none of the professional opinions suggested that the Committee should go down the route to refuse the application. Others felt that the Committee should not be swayed by possible appeals and costs and to do so would essentially negate the need for a Committee and everything could be determined by officers.   

 

Following the debate the Committee voted on the motion to refuse on sustainability grounds, due to the distance to the town centre, the linkages, the narrowness of the footways and as the application was contrary to CP 57, 60 and 61 and that the final wording of the refusal would be delegated to officers. It was,

 

Resolved:

 

That planning permission be REFUSED for the following reasons.

 

REASONS:

 

1.    The proposal to build up to 55 dwellings at Sherston road Malmesbury is considered to be an unsustainable form of development at odds with the aims of the National Planning Policy Framework which contains a presumption in favour of sustainable development.

 

The development is positioned on the edge of the town of Malmesbury at an undeveloped site where the primary walking route will be along Sherston road to the town centre about 1800 Metres away.  Such a long walk to the majority of facilities required by residents is well beyond the 800M contained within ‘Guidelines for Providing for Journeys on Foot’ as published by the institute of highways and transportation as well as The government’s own published guidance in Manual for streets (para 4.4.1) which states that “walkable neighbourhoods are typically characterised by having a range of facilities within 10 minutes’ (up to about 800m) walking distance of residential areas which residents may access comfortably on foot.” Such a long distance is therefore considered to be too far to realistically walk from the development and as such makes the proposal inherently unsustainable. Additionally the main walking route proposed to the town centre, requires the crossing of the main Sherston road on multiple occasions making it less likely to be used, and much of the proposed pedestrian pathway is not 2M wide and is in places 1m wide or less and blocked by parked vehicles. As such it is considered that there is inadequate provision for pedestrian access to the site and therefore the proposed new dwellings will be heavily reliant on private motor vehicles contrary to the aims of the NPPF and policies CP57, CP60 and CP61 of the Wiltshire Core strategy.

 

2. In the absence of a completed S.106 Legal Agreement or Unilateral Undertaking, the proposal fails to mitigate against its direct impacts and does not, therefore, satisfy the provisions of Policy CP3 (Infrastructure requirements) of the Council's adopted Core Strategy (January 2015), the councils adopted planning obligations DPD and the guidance given in the NPPF regarding planning obligations and the provision of sustainable development which mitigates its impacts, in respect of the following –

 

·       The provision of 40% affordable housing as required by core policy 43 of the Wiltshire core strategy. 

 

·       The provision of on site open space and play areas and a contribution towards off site provision, along with arrangements for management of the play areas as required by core policy 52 of the Wiltshire core strategy.

 

·       A requirement to identify who will be responsible for maintaining the biodiversity habitat and commit the body(ies) to be responsible for doing so within the application site to achieve the requirements of core policy 50 of the Wiltshire core strategy.

 

·       The provision of Early years provision to serve the development as required by Core policy CP3 of the Wiltshire core strategy.

 

·       A provision for Waste management as required by core policy CP4 of the Wiltshire core strategy.

 

·       The provision of off site highway works to meet the requirements of core policy 62 of the Wiltshire Core strategy.

 

·       The provision of a travel plan to serve the estate to meet the requirements of core policy 62 of the Wiltshire core strategy.

 

·       A contribution towards access furniture on the local footpath network to meet the requirements of core policy 62 of the Wiltshire core strategy.

 

·       A contribution towards public Art as required under core policy 57 of the Wiltshire core strategy and the councils adopted guidance of May 2024, Art and design in the public realm.

 

·       A contribution towards the proposed Pump track at White Lion Park as required by Core policy CP3 of the Wiltshire core strategy.

 

·       A monitoring fee for the agreement as required by Core policy CP3 of the Wiltshire core strategy.

 

INFORMATIVE:

It should be noted that the second reason for refusal could be overcome following the submission of an acceptable proposal and the completion of a S.106 legal agreement which addresses each of the above points.