Agenda item

Erection of 15 dwellings with access onto A338, formation of bus stop layby on A338, parking and associated landscaping with change of use of agricultural land to residential garden land.

Public Participation

David Lemon (Applicant) provided a statement in support of the application.

Aaron Smith (Agent) provided a statement in support of the application.

Bill Clemence provided a statement in support of the application.

Grafton Parish Council provided a statement in support of the application.

Andrew Guest, Major Projects and Performance Manager, presented a report which recommended that planning permission be refused for the erection of 15 dwellings with access onto A338, formation of bus stop layby on A338, parking and associated landscaping with change of use of agricultural land to residential garden land.

Key details were stated to include the following.

In planning policy terms East Grafton was a small village in the countryside and the application lay beyond the Eastern edge of the village in the countryside. Wiltshire Council Core Policy 1 (CP1) and Wiltshire Council Core Policy 2 (CP2) limit development in small villages to infill, which was defined as the filling of a small gap within the village that was only large enough for not more than a few dwellings. Therefore, the proposal, being for 15 dwellings and not being within the village did not meet this definition. Consequently, it was classed as unsustainable development and was contrary to CP1 and CP2.

In addition, the NPPF stated that permission should be refused for major developments (which this would be classed as) in the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) other than in exceptional circumstances and where it can be demonstrated that the development was in the public interest, which was not the case for this proposal, as detailed in the report.

There were also issues with the proposal having a detrimental impact on views in the area and the proposal not meeting the exception policy for affordable housing in rural areas (CP44). Whilst it was accepted that the Local Authority could not now demonstrate a five year housing supply, there was only a modest shortfall and recent appeal decisions (contained in the agenda pack) concluded that the overall strategy of the Wiltshire Core Strategy remained desirable and effective.     

There were no technical questions for the officer. 

In accordance with the procedure for virtual meetings public statements were then read out by the Democratic Services Officers, as detailed above, with any further statements included in Agenda Supplement 1 along with the committee presentation.

The unitary division member, Cllr Stuart Wheeler, Burbage and The Bedwyns, spoke in support of the application. Cllr Wheeler’s main points concerned: the shortfall on the five year housing supply meaning that certain applications should be looked upon favourably; that the AONB had not been consulted and were in support of the application; that the definition of infill was restrictive and open to interpretation; the Wiltshire Council Residential Development Project had made an offer on the six affordable homes and the proposal was supported by the community and the boundaries of the village were up for debate.   

In response to public statements the officer directed the Committee again to the appeal decisions concerning the five year housing supply. It was explained that there was no settlement boundary for East Grafton as it was a small village and as such was considered as being in the countryside, where only infill development was permitted. The Wiltshire Council Residential Development Project team had confirmed that the offer made was not intended to support the planning process and the offer would only become relevant if the approval was granted, as had been stated in the offer.

Prior to the debate Cllr Mark Connolly proposed a motion to refuse the application as per the officer recommendation. This was seconded by Cllr Ian Blair-Pilling.

A debate followed where issues raised included that this was first class agricultural land which the Country was losing rapidly. The proposal was the wrong scheme for the site and the applicant could consider looking at other routes such as the Rural Exception Site Scheme or a Neighbourhood Plan could be developed by the Parish and community. The role of the Committee was to determine if this application fitted within planning policy. Planning inspectors had stated that the core strategy still carried weight despite the five year land supply not quite being met.  

At the conclusion of the debate it was;

Resolved:

That planning permission be refused, for the following reasons -

1.    Core Policy 1 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy sets out the 'Settlement Strategy' for the County, and identifies five tiers of settlement - Principal Settlements, Market Towns, Local Service Centres, Large Villages and Small Villages. Within the Settlement Strategy East Grafton is identified as a Small Village. The Principal Settlements, Market Towns, Local Service Centres and Large Villages have defined boundaries, or limits of development. Beyond the limits - and including the Small Villages - is countryside.

Core Policy 2 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy sets out the 'Delivery Strategy'. It identifies the scale of growth appropriate within each settlement tier. The policy states that within the limits of development of those settlements with defined limits there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, and at Small Villages in the countryside development will be limited to ‘infill’ within the existing built area (defined as “the filling of a small gap within the village that is only large enough for not more than a few dwellings, generally only one dwelling”); but outside these parameters, other in circumstances as permitted by other policies of the Plan, development will not be permitted, and that the limits of development may only be altered through identification of sites for development through subsequent Site Allocations Development Plan Documents and neighbourhood plans. The application site is not identified for development in a Development Plan Document or Neighbourhood Plan.

Core Policy 18 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy sets out the 'Spatial Strategy' for the Pewsey Community Area in which East Grafton lies. It confirms that over the plan period approximately 600 new homes will be provided in the Area consisting of a range of sites in accordance with Core Policies 1 and 2. The latest housing figures, published in the Wiltshire Housing Site Allocations Plan Topic Paper 3 Addendum (July 2018) confirms that the indicative requirement for the Wiltshire Core Strategy plan period (2006-2026) in the Pewsey Community Area has been met, i.e. the current residual requirement for the Pewsey Community Area is 0 dwellings due to completions and extant permissions. In identifying its supply of specific deliverable housing sites Wiltshire Council uses suitably defined sub-county areas as referred to in the Wiltshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment and the Wiltshire Core Strategy, titled ‘Housing Market Areas’. The Pewsey Community Area lies within the East Wiltshire Housing Market Area. The Topic Paper also shows that there is at least an 8 year housing land supply in the East Wiltshire Housing Market Area at this time.

This said – and notwithstanding the above figures – in terms of paragraphs 11 and 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework, a recent appeal decision elsewhere in the wider Wiltshire Council area has confirmed that there is, in fact, a housing shortfall, this in the context of supply being calculated county-wide now that the Wiltshire Core Strategy is more than 5 years old and in view of some sites not being deemed as imminently deliverable. The confirmed supply is in the range of 4.42 to 4.62 years. But, regardless of this – and as determined by the appeal inspector – there remains substantial benefit in maintaining a plan-led system, and accordingly the overall strategy of the Core Strategy to direct development to the most sustainable settlements remains both desirable and preferable in meeting the objectives of the Framework. The Inspector confirmed, “Even at the lower end of the range ….. there is a relatively modest shortfall in housing land in the Wiltshire Council area. The local housing need derived from the standard method is very similar to the housing requirement contained in the CS for the relevant five-year period and so there is no reason to think that the strategy will not continue to be effective, particularly in light of recent progress in adopting the Housing Site Allocations Plan”.

Accordingly, very significant weight is still given to the Wiltshire Core Strategy policies; in terms of paragraph 59, the Core Strategy is still “boosting significantly the supply of housing” in the Area in any event. It follows that further other, or ‘windfall’, sites, or sites delivered outside of any housing site allocations DPD or neighbourhood plan, continue to be not required at this time and will continue to be deemed unsustainable in the context of the Wiltshire Core Strategy.

This proposal itself is to erect 15 houses, etc. on land which is in the countryside and which does not comply with defined criteria for ‘infill’ development in Small Villages. Under Core Policies 1, 2 and 18, this does not accord with the Settlement and Delivery Strategies as a matter of principle. The Strategies are designed to ensure new development satisfies the fundamental principles of sustainability and so it follows that where a proposal such as this does not accord with them then it is unsustainable in this defining and overarching context. The site is not identified for development in a Site Allocations Development Plan Document, nor in a Neighbourhood Plan. Furthermore, there are no material considerations or exceptional circumstances, including set out in other policies of the Plan (including Core Policy 44), which override the core policy’s positions. The proposal is, therefore, contrary to Core Policies 1, 2 and 18 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy and paragraphs 10-12 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

2.    The application site lies within the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. In the context of paragraph 172 of the National Planning Policy Framework the proposal – for 15 dwellings on a c.0.9 ha site – comprises ‘major’ development. As there are no exceptional circumstances, and as the development is not required in the public interest, the presumption that planning permission should be refused for major development, as set out in the NPPF, applies. For reasons set out in reason for refusal no. 1, there is no ‘need’ for the proposed development; there is scope for residential development to be provided outside the designated area or in some other way; and the proposal would, in any event, have a detrimental effect on the environment and landscape.

Regarding landscape impact, the proposal would be detrimental to the Landscape Character Area (LCA) in which it is located, and would have harmful visual effects, albeit at a local level. In terms of the LCA, it is identified as having an essentially rural, agricultural character within which “small-scale, sensitively-designed development, associated with built form, could be successfully accommodated without adverse impacts”. The proposal – being ‘major’-scale (in terms of size and quantum of development); and being not sensitively-designed (in terms of form / layout of buildings, and resulting limited opportunities for landscaping/mitigation); and being not associated with existing built form (by encroaching on to open land and coalescing with other scattered development outside of the existing village) – would not be sympathetic to the specific LCA, and more generally would not protect, conserve or enhance the landscape character of the wider area. In terms of the visual effects, the local views towards the site are identified in isolation to be adverse. Again, by reason of the size/quantum of development and the insensitivities of the design (notably, with inadequate opportunities for meaningful mitigation), these impacts are considered to be unacceptable, the development failing to protect, conserve or enhance the visual amenities of the landscape hereabouts. This is contrary to Policies 51 and 57 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy and paragraphs 170 & 172 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

3.    The application fails to provide any mechanism to ensure that the provision of essential infrastructure, services and amenities made necessary by the development can be delivered. The essential infrastructure, services and amenities include affordable housing, open space/recreation areas, highways infrastructure, and waste/refuse collection facilities (and/or contributions towards such infrastructure, services and amenities). This is contrary to Core Policy 3 ('Infrastructure requirements') and, more specifically, Core Policy 43 ('Providing affordable homes') and Core Policy 52 (‘Green Infrastructure’) of the Wiltshire Core Strategy and 'saved' Policies HC34 and HC37 of the Kennet Local Plan; and paragraphs 56-57 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

4.    The proposed development, by reason of the number of market houses proposed and the size of the scheme, fundamentally undermines the Council’s approach to rural exception sites set out in Core Policy 44, and if approved, would set an undesirable precedent that could hinder the delivery of such affordable housing across the county.

5.    INFORMATIVE TO APPLICANT: Notwithstanding reasons for refusal 1, 2 and 4, reason for refusal no. 3 may be overcome in the event of the applicant completing an appropriate planning obligation. The reason for refusal is necessary in the event that there is an appeal and such an obligation is not completed or not satisfactorily completed.