If you are reading this page using a screenreader, we support ARIA landmarks for quick navigation too

Agenda item

17/03035/REM Land at Former Blounts Court Nursery, Studley, SN11 9NQ


Ioan Rees, Richard Fitter, Richard Aylen spoke in objection to the application.


Emma Geater spoke in support of the application.


Keith Robbins, Calne Without Parish Council, raised a number of concerns about the development.


The Senior Planning Officer introduced the application which was a reserved maters application in respect of scale, layout, external appearance and landscaping for the erection of 53 dwellings, public open space and associated infrastructure. The application was recommended for permission subject to planning conditions, as amended by late observations. It was highlighted that outline planning permission had already been granted for up to 53 units on the site. Site location maps and photographs were shown, including photographs of neighbouring development and style of housing. The officer considered the proposal offered very good residential amenity and separation from neighbouring properties. It was acknowledged the proposed design of housing was different in appearance to dwellings in Studley, but not compared to closer developments.


The Committee was invited to ask technical questions, in response to which it was confirmed that driveways of the proposed dwellings would not exit directly onto the A4. Attention was drawn to the Late Observations which proposed an amendment to condition 2.


Members of the public then spoke as detailed above.


The local member, Cllr Christine Crisp spoke about the history of the site and the benefits of a pedestrian crossing that had been approved as part of the outline permission.


In the debate that followed, Cllr Hutton moved the officer’s recommendation, which was seconded by Cllr Stugis. It was commented that outline consent had already been granted and the proposal before the Committee was an acceptable scheme for this site, it was noted that design was a subjective matter and whilst some members did not consider the application to be appropriate, others considered it to feature good landscaping and frontage. Some members of the Committee considered the application was not suitable as a gateway to Studley and recommended further consideration should be given by the developers to the comments of local residents and the parish council to propose a more suitable design. The motion was put to the vote and failed.


Cllr Grant, seconded by Cllr Hurst, moved that determination be deferred for two cycles to allow for negotiations with the applicant to address design and layout elements of the scheme. Members of the Committee commented the application was contrary to Core Policy 53. Officers cautioned the Committee against deferring the item as the developer was under no obligation to amend the plans and the Committee needed to specify the design elements it was not satisfied with. Officers therefore recommended the application either be refused or approved and highlighted Studley was not a separate settlement to Derry in the context of the Core Strategy and that any refusal of the application on this basis could not be defended at Appeal.


Members commented there were constraints on the developer as to the changes that could be made, however the Committee felt the development was not inkeeping with the character of the area. The Legal Officer advised the Committee must be clear about the specific elements of the scheme it would like to see changed as a result of deferral and negotiations with the developers since the professional opinion of officers was that the scheme was acceptable and they would not defend a refusal of the application in the event of an Appeal process. Upon discussion, the Committee agreed negotiations with the developer should consider: surfacing materials, linear kerbing and removal of kerb-stones, and layout, particularly in respect of the A4 frontage. Further comments included that a less linear layout and variation in materials for driveways would be welcomed. On going to the vote, the resolution was agreed.




That the application be DEFERRED for two cycles to allow Officers to negotiate amendments to the submitted scheme in the following respects: (i) surfacing materials; (ii) linear kerbing and removal of kerb-stones; and (iii) layout, particularly in respect of the A4 frontage. To DELEGATE authority to officers to undertake the aforementioned negotiations.


Supporting documents:




This website