Browse

Agenda item

16/05959/OUT - South View, Lyneham

Minutes:

Nova Pearce, Richard Marshall and Catherine Bennet spoke in objection to the application.

Jacqueline Mullenor, the planning agent, Richard Storm and Douglas Thomas spoke in support of the application.

Cllr John Webb spoke on behalf of Lyneham and Bradenstoke Parish Council.

 

The planning officer, Matthew Pearson, introduced the report which recommended that authority is delegated to the Head of Development Management to grant outline planning permission, subject to conditions and completion of the Unilateral Undertaking within six months, or otherwise to refuse the application. The Committee’s attention was drawn to the late observations.

 

Key issues included: that the application is a resubmitted application, in outline, with reserved matters to be discussed at a later date; the location of the site outside the settlement boundary; the transport access arrangements to the site; the views of the landscape officer; the topography of the site and the existing vegetation; the views of the heritage officer, and the potential impact on the listed buildings nearby; the views of the strategic planning team and whether 60 dwellings were sustainable, and the relevance of core strategy; whether the benefits derived from the development outweighed the negative impacts; the impact on character of the village; whether the site was deliverable; the views on the community some for and some against the development; the consultation undertaken by the developers of the site, and the changes made in response; and the views of the parish council, and the possibility of the development of a neighbourhood plan.

 

In response to technical questions: the Highway Officer clarified that the extent of the splay proposed was more than adequate for an access in a 30mph zone; the planning officer confirmed that there were not, currently, any major applications in the village, and that whilst other brownfield sites may be developed none were currently submitted; and that the previously scheme had been for over 100 dwellings on the site, including proposals for large roundabout which it was felt would have caused more harm to the designated heritage asset.

 

Members of the public then addressed the Committee as detailed above.

 

The local member, Councillor Alison Bucknell, spoke with regard to the application, explaining why, on balance, she could not support the application.

 

A motion to permit the application in line with the officer’s recommendation was moved by Councillor Trotman, but as the motion failed to gain a seconder it was not tabled.

 

A motion to refuse the application was proposed by Councillor Toby Sturgis, subsequently seconded by Councillor Christine Crisp, for the reason that it conflicted with Core Policy 2, being outside the settlement boundary; would harm the character of the landscape; be harmful to the setting of the heritage asset; was not sustainable; and would not significantly benefit the locality through improved infrastructure.

 

The Committee then debated the application.

 

Having been put to the vote, the meeting;

 

Resolved

 

That planning permission be refused, for the following reasons:

 

1.      The site lies outside of the limits of development defined for the village in the Wiltshire Core Strategy. It has not been brought forward either through a Site Allocations DPD or a neighbourhood plan and does not fall within any of the proposed exceptions identified in CP2. Consequently, the development would conflict with policy CP2 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy.

 

2.      The proposed development would provide an unsustainable level of housing in a rural area and would not be in line with the objectives of the Wiltshire Core Strategy to promote self-containment by delivering development at sustainable settlements. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies CP1 and CP19 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy (2015), saved Policy H4 of the North Wiltshire Local Plan 2011, as well as the principles set out within the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

3.      The proposal, by reason of its size and location on agricultural land would have a harmful impact on the appearance of the countryside, creating a large urbanised expansion beyond the existing built-up area of the village. This would conflict with CP51 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy, which seeks to protect the landscape from harmful impacts, and CP57 (i, iv & vi) of the Wiltshire Core Strategy, which seeks to create developments that are complementary to the locality.

 

4.      The proposal would have a harmful impact upon the setting of a designated heritage asset. The proposal is therefore contrary to the provisions of policy CP58 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy (2015), paragraphs 131, 132 and 134 of the NPPF, as well as, sections 16(2) and 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Area) Act 1990.

 

5.      The proposed development fails to provide and/or secure adequate provision for necessary on-site and, where appropriate, off-site infrastructure. Such infrastructure shall include affordable housing, education, public open space and play equipment, footpath connections, junction improvements and measures for future maintenance. The application is therefore contrary to CP3 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy (2015).

Supporting documents: