Browse

Agenda item

18.02180.FUL - Land East of the A429, Malmesbury Bypass, Malmesbury

Minutes:

Public participation

 

Richard Morison, on behalf of the Cooperative Group, spoke in objection to the application.

 

Nicola Earl, local resident, spoke in objection to the application.

 

Susan McGill, local resident, spoke in objection to the application.

 

Glen Stidever, the applicant, spoke in support to the application.

 

Nigel Roberts, the landowner, spoke in support to the application.

 

Daniel Wheelwright, the agent, spoke in support to the application.

 

Cllr John Gundry, Malmesbury Town Council, spoke in objection to the application.

 

Cllr Roger Budgen, Chairman of St Paul Without Parish, spoke in objection to the application.

 

The Planning Officer, Lee Burman, introduced a report which recommended refusal of planning permission, for Erection of a New Lidl Store and Associated Works Including Car Parking and Landscaping on Land East of the A429, Malmesbury, Wiltshire.

 

Key issues highlighted included: principle of development; retail impact and the sequential test; impact on the character, appearance and visual amenity of the locality including trees; impact to heritage assets including the conservation area for the town and archaeology; highways impact and parking; drainage & flood risk; impact on ecology; noise and S106 matters.

 

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions

of the officer which focused on: Highways access, improvements to cycle and pedestrian access and the lack of a light control system for pedestrian crossing.

 

Members of the public then had the opportunity to address the Committee, as

detailed above. The representations of St Paul Malmesbury Without Parish and Malmesbury Town Councils, as detailed in the report, were also noted.

 

Cllr John Thomson, Division Member for Sherston, spoke regarding the application with the main points focusing on the development of greenfield sites; the location of the proposal; the desire for a discount retail store; the landscaping of the site; highways issues and the need to preserve the countryside.

 

Cllr Gavin Grant, Division Member for Malmesbury, spoke regarding the application with the main points focusing on the historical importance of the Malmesbury area; the unique character of the locality; the public concern for the proposal; the risk of taking urban development into the open countryside and the location of the proposal.

 

The Planning Officer addressed some of the issues raised by the public and local members with the main points focusing on: noise harm; heritage assets; that the application must not be considered in isolation and that planning policy has undergone significant change since similar applications were previously brought to Committee for determination in 2012 and that other material circumstances and considerations have changed significantly in the intervening period including major residential development toward the north of the town.

 

At the start of the debate the Chairman moved the officer’s recommendation, seconded by Cllr Peter Hutton, to refuse planning permission as detailed in the report.

 

During the debate the main points raised were: the character and history of the locality; the importance of maintaining the functionality of the bypass; breaching the physical boundary between town and agricultural land; the Neighbourhood Plan; highways concerns and the location of the proposal.

 

Resolved

 

That planning permission is refused in accordance with the Officer Recommendation.

 

1. The proposed development in the location identified would conflict with the development strategy of the development plan as defined by policies CP1, CP2 and CP13 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy (Jan 2015) and thereby conflict with paragraphs 2, 12 and 47 of the NPPF (Feb 2019).

 

2. The proposed development would result in harm to the character, appearance and visual amenity of the locality through the urbanisation of the landscape contrary to Wiltshire Core Strategy Policies CP51 and CP57 (i, ii, & iv);. Policy 13 as informed by aims and objectives tasks 8.1, 8.4 & 8.5 and Vol II (Design Guide) Malmesbury Neighbourhood Plan (Made Feb 2015); and NPPF para 170(b) (Feb 2019), while the proposed location of development precludes future viable agricultural use/s for adjoining farmland to the west and south, which would not represent an efficient use of land contrary to WCS, CP57 (vi).

 

3. The proposed development would result in less than substantial harm to a designated heritage asset (Setting of the Malmesbury Conservation Area) which is not outweighed by the public benefits of development. The proposals thereby conflict with Wiltshire Core Strategy CP57 (i & iv) and CP58; Malmesbury Neighbourhood Plan Policy 13 as informed by aims and objectives tasks 6.1, 8.1, 8.4 & 8.5 and Vol II (Design Guide); 192, 193, 196, 197 and 200 in the NPPF (Feb 2019), Historic England’s The Setting of Heritage Assets Good Practice Advice in Planning: Note 3 (2nd Ed Dec 2017) and the BS7913.


Supporting documents: