Transcript

Well, good morning, gentlefolk. I'd like to give you all a very warm welcome. It was a pleasant day when you came in this morning, so a warm welcome on a warm day. I think you'll be chucking it down with rain by the time you leave, but let's hope not. My name is Howard Greenman. I chair the Strategic Planning Committee and will be presiding over this meeting today. Can I ask you, please, to make sure all your devices are either turned off or too silent throughout the duration of the meeting? Can I also just check that you can all hear me okay? Because there have been some issues in the past with our tech and so on. You can all hear me, please. Sorry. A bit louder. I'll try and direct it more clearly into the mic. Thank you. If there is a fire alarm, we're not expecting that, please exit the building via the nearest exit. There'll be the two access points at which you came in and congregate on the grass in front of the building. Please note that this meeting is being recorded today and broadcast live to the Wiltshire Council YouTube site, or documents pertaining to the meeting can be accessed on the Wiltshire Council website, as you're probably aware. I will now formally open the meeting. We do have some apologies today. We've got apologies from Councillor Pip Ridout, who's been substituted once again by Councillor Richard Britton. Oh, it's good to have you with us, Richard. Thank you for coming along today. We also have apologies from Councillor Jonathan Seed, and I don't think we have a substitute for him as yet. We do... Okay. I'm just going to ask the members, have you seen the minutes of the previous meeting? Are there any issues with the minutes of the previous meeting? I know that, Beth, Councillor Thrillful, you did raise an issue earlier. Yes, I wanted to propose an amendment to page 12, the fifth paragraph down. I thought it should read, in addition, it was pointed out that Wiltshire Council was unable to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply and that our last local plan was adopted in 2015 and is now out of date. I thought that would be clearer than the current thing. Sorry, I'm going to... I can give it to you. Yeah, thank you. So, you do have that time. Okay, brilliant. Yes, I've got that. Thank you. Okay, so we can approve them with that amendment. Yes. So, you're happy with that? Yep. Yeah. Are members happy with that amendment? Yes. Okay. No dissenters. Right. Thank you very much. Well, with the addition of that amendment, I will then sign the minutes off at the end of the meeting. Thank you for that. Declarations of interest. I know the two we have before us today are quite contentious, but do we have any declarations of interest pertaining to these? No, none at all. Not here either. Thank you. There are no chairman's announcements, except that, safe to say, before you all go home, or just in case there are those of you who leave before the end of the meeting, probably specifically to the officers and to the members of my committee. I just want to thank them for bearing with us, with me, for over the last four years. This will be the last strategic planning committee before the elections, of course, the last one of this electoral cycle. It doesn't seem any time at all ago, but we were doing battle over the works at the Westview Waste Incinerator, and here we are four years later, with these two before us today. As a committee, you've been a delight to work with, right across the spectrum. I'd like to thank you all for bearing with me, too, over the last four years, and our officers. And I'd like that to pass back to any others that have been with me, been with us, that aren't today. Thank you much indeed. And I do wish you all well over the next few weeks as well. It'd be good to see you all back. Thank you. Yes, Adrian. Cancer Foster. Yes, I had a question I wanted to ask before we got on to the subject matters, if that's possible. But I'd also like to say a big thank you to you for running this committee in such an efficient and very human way. It's much appreciated by us on this side, you know, that we dealt with sensitivity. Thank you so much, Adrian. Appreciate that. Thank you. The question I want to ask is regarding MPNF and our present situation with land supply, which has just been mentioned. In the last memo that we got from Nick Thomas, it mentioned that we had 2.03 or 2.04, quite a small amount. But also, do we still sit in the position whereby if the present local plan, which is going before the inspector at the present moment, if it goes through, will we have the two-year grace period? Because there seems to be two messages on this. Some are saying that we will fall into the system whereby that will work for us. And some are saying the new MPNF says, no, we must have a system that's in place at the moment. And I believe they're going to change the rules as well in that the way new core plans are produced can happen within 18 to 30 months, which is going to be an interesting, as it's taken us 11 years to get to this point with the one we've got at the moment. So I'd like some clarity on the position that the government has put us in as to where we are at the present moment. And are we working at the present moment on a new plan? Because, obviously, even at two years, this one won't. And when the two years is up, we're going to be in the same position. So I'd just like some clarity on where we are and what we're doing to improve the situation. Thank you, Adrian. Councillor Foster, appreciate that. We did touch on some of this at my chair's briefing yesterday. But I hesitate to put you on the spot, Kenny, but I have a lot of detail that Adrian's asked for there, and I understand why. Yeah, absolutely. Thank you, Adrian. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. So there's multiple questions there. I can't respond to any future changes the government might make to the MPPF. For the last several years, we've obviously seen revised MPPFs on a yearly basis. The recent MPPF, as revised in December last year, that reintroduced the five-year test. So this council, we're benefiting from the transitional arrangements that the previous government introduced, which allowed for a four-year test for councils that had an advanced local plan at Regulation 19 stage, which we are in. Now, that transitional period disappeared when the government changed the MPPF in December. So we're back to the five-year test. We're back in the scenario of having to have a 5% buffer. Next June, that buffer will have to be 20% when you test it against the housing delivery test changes that the government has also changed. So the combination of the reintroduction of a five-year test and a change to the housing delivery test, which is a complex scenario, but in simple terms, what it means is the council has to calculate on a three-year basis what the net delivery of housing is. So it's not just a case of approving housing. We need to demonstrate that they've been built and obviously they're deliverable because they've been built. And then you divide that by the requirement that the government sets for this council in terms of housing delivery. That's the housing delivery test in a nutshell, but it is a complex set of calculations that have to be made. And in that, there's also a test for affordability, which comes into the equation to come to a requirement. So in the papers today, both reports refer to the current situation that we're in. And as you say, councillor, we are in a deficit situation because of the government's changes. We were previously in a deficit, but with the introduction of the four-year test, we were over the four-year period. We're now against the five-year test and we've got a significant shortfall. That word significant is used time and time again by inspectors. It's not just officers saying to councillors, we think it's a significant shortfall. Inspectors are telling us it's a significant shortfall. And that is a material consideration for all decision makers, whether it's committees or officers, when we've got decisions to make. So the 2.03 is the current position, tested against the current MPPF and the housing delivery test, which is covered in the report as well. So it is a material factor. So the emerging local plan at this stage can only be given some weight because we haven't gone through the examination on all the sites that are being put forward by this council. But there is an item on this agenda where officers are pointing members' attention to, that there is a site that the council itself is promoting for housing delivery. That's a material consideration and it's for you members to decide what level of weight to give to that material factor. So, in a nutshell, we're in a five-year test scenario. We've got 2.03 years. Inspectors are telling us that's a significant shortfall. And I would also, you referred to a briefing note, councillor. There's also the action plan that this council put forward several years ago, when I think we first went into deficit. That's also a material factor. And the council were promoting sites that weren't in conformity to our adopted plan, but where there are no major constraints. We would look favourably upon those if they were considered to be sustainable and deliverable and help us out in terms of the housing supply situation. Because, like it or not, we need to have a solution. Otherwise, we'll be continually fighting developers on sites that are not plan-led. I hope that answers the question, councillor. I can't agree with you more about your last comment. We need to have a solution. My concern is, if the inspector does approve this local plan, does that put us in any advantage over where we are at the present moment? Because the suggestions that even if it's approved, the five-year rule will still apply. And we don't have this transitional period that we thought we were going to get for two years. At that point, obviously, that hasn't been examined yet. So, we don't know what the inspectors, and there's two inspectors for our emerging local plan. And we don't know what they have concluded. They've made a start in terms of looking at what we've put forward. But we don't have that advanced knowledge in terms of what they might think about certain sites that this council has put forward for development. Sitting here, we certainly are hopeful and confident that all the sites that are in our emerging plan are sound, deliverable, and they should remain. But until an inspector looks at them and confirms that they are to be retained, we're not at that stage yet. But if we get over the line and that plan becomes adopted, then that's a new sort of line in the sand. And we will be, in that scenario, having an adopted plan, hopefully with sufficient housing to meet the government's requirements. But as I said, to begin with, if the government changes things, and if they're doing it on an annual basis in terms of changing the MPPF, who knows where we're going to be at the end of this year? They may well introduce something else that we have to take into account. But we can only assess applications on the basis of what we know the current MPPF says, and also the PPG, which goes alongside the MPPF. That's equally relevant because it adds more sort of technical information for decision makers in terms of making a balanced decision. And the one part you haven't answered, are we actively working on a new plan so that we can overcome this problem? I wouldn't like to say no. I think the strategic planning team are concentrating their minds on the emerging plan because there's an awful lot of work to do to get it through the examination process. It's an enormous amount of work. I think they might have some provisional thoughts in terms of where we'll go after that plan when we get it through examination and through adoption. And they do recognise that that is going to have to be part of the discussion with inspectors to convince them that we're not just going to get this emerging plan over the line, but have a other plan in mind in terms of addressing the shortfall, because there is not going to be enough sites in that emerging plan to meet our needs when we test it against the government requirements. So I would stress again, it's not because of Wiltshire not failing to meet the needs of housing, because you just need to look back through many years of housing deliveries. We were 125%, 116%, many, many years, but the key test is deliverable sites. And the storage road appeal decision in Westbury last year, that inspector criticised our assessment on deliverable housing sites. So it's not simply a case of the council approving housing, we have to then convince inspector appeal that those sites are deliverable. And that's no easy task when you've got a landowner saying it's not going to be deliverable, the site's not going to be enabled for development for two, three years in the future. So there is a mountain to climb, councillors, and all officers would say to you to make assessments, bearing in mind the scenario we're in with the housing land supply, and our emerging local plan will take us a certain direction, but there is an awful lot of work to be done in terms of delivering sites across Wiltshire. And there is a slide that I think Gemma will touch upon in her first item, which we've reused previously at this committee that just shows the current situation in terms of housing delivery. So previously it was about 1,900 on an annual basis. Because of the government's changes, it's now 3,500 as a housing requirement across Wiltshire. That's the local housing need. So local housing need is not settlement-based, because of our core strategy being more than five years, it's county-based. Unfortunately, because we know some settlements have taken a much larger hit than others, and I don't need to tell you, councillors, because you've sat here often enough and seen those sites come forward. I thought that answered your question, councillor. Thank you, Kenny. You know that you've been very kind in indulging me and giving a very precise and accurate result. OK, that's a thrill for all. Yes, I just wanted to ask, Kenny. I mean, because of the way the figures, the targets, the housing delivery test are calculated, the problem is it relies on the developers actually developing, doesn't it? Actually building out. And so to some extent, we are limited in what we can do as councillors. We can, we've already got 18,000, 19,000 outstanding planning applications, which are not being built. But all we can do is sort of approve more to try and reach this target and encourage developers to develop. Is that a fair assessment? Yes, councillor, I mean, the light at the end of the tunnel is getting this emerging local plan through adoption, because that will then set a new benchmark. Hopefully the inspectors agree with all the sites that we are putting forward as a council for future housing delivery. But it's not going to be enough, because the housing, as you said, the key part of the housing delivery test is how many houses get built, and then you divide it by how many we need. And that is set by the government. It's not locally set, unfortunately. Yes, thank you. You both touched on an issue that I raised yesterday, because I think passionately that the government are going after local authorities for delivering more planning applications, for delivering more sites. And they should need to be going after the developers for not building them out. When you consider today that we've got around about 19,000 planning applications approved, which developers are sitting on, just land banking, I just don't think that's good enough. And I think the government's focus is absolutely in the wrong place. But that's where we're situated today, if I was in a position to do so. I wrote to Michael Gove over the five-year housing land supply, as you know. I'd like to write to our government about this issue as well, because I think that we're being held heavily to hostage over this one. I don't like it. Can we move a motion to ask you to do that? Yes, sure. Yeah, I feel passionate about that. Thank you for raising that. Appreciate that. So I'm going to now run through, excuse me, how I foresee the public participation today, before we go to our first case. So in a few minutes, the planning officer will present their report, the planning officers will present their report and explain their recommendation. They may invite comments from other officers, if appropriate. And we're well supported by officers today. I thank them for being here. I'll then be asking members of the committee to indicate if they have any technical questions they need to ask of the officers. At that point, we will proceed to public participation. Now, typically, up to three speakers, objectors and supporters are able to speak for up to three minutes each. I'm not too fierce about the three minutes, but if I'm doing this, you'll know that I'm winding you down rather than winding you up. And so I won't let you run on ad infinitum. But I'm anxious that you should get your point across. Following the public slots for objectors and supporters, there are slots for statutory consultees, and we do have those here today too. We will then hear from the formal representative from relevant parish councils for up to four minutes, and we have those here today also. And I thank you for coming along. After the parish councils are there, we will then invite the local unitary member for the application to speak. And we also have at least one of those, and probably two in the fullness of time. Thank you too. I will then open the item to debate. I will ask the first committee member to speak to move a motion, which must be seconded. Officer advice may need to be taken in relation to any motion. And at the conclusion of the debate, I will then proceed to a vote. The process will be repeated for each of the two applications we have before us today. Is everything clear? And you could all hear what I was saying, so that's good. Thank you. To members of the committee, we do have just one under planning appeals and updates. We've just got the one there. There's very little really to be said to that one, if anything at all. But I would just ask you to note that one. So that's in train, that's in process at the moment. On that note then, I'd like to thank Gemma for coming along. This is the third consecutive meeting she's coming. She's almost an old hand at this. Thank you, Gemma. I'd like to move to you, Gemma, if I may, for our first item. Land north of Melcham Road in hold. Thank you. Good morning. So this is an outline planning permission for up to 55 residential units. All matters are reserved apart from the access. So here you'll see the site outlined in red. It's outside the limits of development. This site, again, shows you the application site in red. And in blue, so south of Melcham Road, is a site that was recently approved at appeal for up to 90 dwellings. I think it's important to note at this point that there is a Holt neighbourhood plan, but it's more than five years old and therefore is not considered as being up to date. So there is a conservation area and several listed buildings in Holt. As you can see, the site lies some distance away and therefore it's considered there wouldn't be any harm to these heritage assets. While I've got this plan up, the council's landscape officer initially objected to the scheme, but has supported the revised plan. He concludes that there would be some harm as a result of this development, but sufficient mitigation is now proposed to reduce this harm. So the only harm that would remain from a landscape perspective is mainly the change from a field to residential development. This is the constraints plan submitted by the applicant. We've got some water mains on site. We've got, which is these blue lines. We've got a Wessex water facility here to the right. We've got an existing field access here, which is to be utilised for the main access into the site. This red area here shows a 15 metre buffer, which has to be applied to the water facility. And just here on this side, we've got two residential dwellings, which are the closest dwellings to the site. So one up here and then there's one down here. And again, this site to the south is the approved appeal site. So this is the illustrative master plan. It's not being approved today, but does show in principle compliance with the Wiltshire Council policies with regards to parking spaces, biodiversity net gain, on-site play, suds and the access. We also have a landscape strategy. Internally here, we have a three metre wide cycle stroke footpath that links up to the village of Holt. And also around here is a new bus stop and utilises the existing crossing. The top here, we've got possible orchard. We have swales. The site uses the existing landscape features, such as hedges and trees, and enhances them with new features. Holt Parish Council requested that their existing village gateway, which is located here, is to be relocated. And that is shown on this plan. So it will be relocated up here. You can also see that this site is set back from Melksham Road. So the existing hedge along the front will be translocated slightly behind, with the footpath behind, and then the houses. So we have a priority control T junction. This is in place of the existing field access. And here you can see the internal footpath that links up to Holt. The speed limit is to be reduced to 30 miles an hour, and we'll start up here, where the village gateway is to be relocated. I think it's important to highlight that the appeal site here, the inspector considered Holt, has some good facilities and good public transport for such a rural area. This is a close-up of the pedestrian crossing plan. As you can see, this is the internal footpath. Links through, through the hedge, to utilise the existing crossing. As detailed in my report, the Parish Council have raised a number of highway concerns. We have been in close contact with the Parish Council. We've also had a meeting. I know the Parish Council would like to see a roundabout that would access both this site and the southern site of the appeal. However, that appeal site saw access approved, and therefore this isn't able to be changed. Highways have also confirmed that roundabouts only work when all arms see equal vehicle movements, which would not happen in this case. The Parish Council have also raised concerns about the removal of a Toucan crossing, which was also here. It was initially proposed, but the revised plans have seen the removal of this Toucan crossing. And this is due to further discussions with highways, where it's been demonstrated that Toucan crossings require a minimum of 50 pedestrian crossings an hour, which this application would not provide. There's also been concerns with the state of the existing pavements within HALT. As this has not been caused by this development, it would fail the legal test for requirements of the Section 106. The Parish Council have also requested bead cushions, chicanes, bead monitors, all of which have not been considered necessary as a result of this application on a Class 2 road. We've got some photos of the site. So this is the Malchsham road. We've got Green Parks here to the right, which is where the appeal site is to be accessed. This is from Malchsham towards HALT. This is the existing Wessex Water Facility. So we've got the site just tucked in here behind. This is 227 Malchsham Road. So this is the closest dwelling to the site, the site being here to its right hand side. And again, this is 227 Malchsham Road here in the distance with the site in the foreground. The applicants have submitted an illustrative street scene. So again, here you can see 227 Malchsham Road with the dwelling set behind the translocated hedge. Although not being assessed during this application, the agent has identified that the site would see predominantly two storey dwellings. So here are some illustrative drawings showing that. So this is the table that Kenny was discussing earlier. So under the previous local housing need allocation, this number. And this is under the revised housing need calculation. So as already confirmed, Wiltshire Council is in a position whereby due to the recent changes in the MPPF in mid-December 2024, and the changes in the way the housing land supply is now calculated, we are unable to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply. And therefore, paragraph 11D of the MPPF is engaged, where the decision is now based on a tilted balance. The site is contrary to core policy 1, 3 and 7, but is not contrary to any other policies within the Wiltshire Call strategy and has been supported by statutory consultees. There are significant benefits, which are detailed in the report, which include affordable housing at 40%, market housing at a time when Wiltshire Council are not able to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply, short-term economic benefits, provision of public open space, enhancements of public rights of way, ecology and play areas, and all of these benefits would outweigh the principal harm raised and the tilted balance weighs in favour of supporting the application. There is a slight change, I should have said at the beginning, I didn't realise the slide wasn't there, to condition 4. So, condition 4 talks about the approved plans and documents. There is to be a note added to that condition whereby the landscape strategy and the constraints plan is purely for ecology reasons and not for landscape reasons. And that is due to the original plan, as submitted, demonstrated a meet-up sort of green area in the central of the site, which was removed from the revised plan. And the landscape officer and the urban design officer have requested that that area is to be brought back in in the Reserve Matters application. So, subject to the change in that informative, the application is recommended for approval, subject to the section 106 contributions on page 72 of your agenda and the conditions that start on page 77. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Chair. I appreciate that. Questions from the committee members, please. Adrian, Councillor Foster. Thank you. You mentioned very kindly that the... Sorry, I'm looking at the landscape strategy one, but it's not on there. You put a footpath in the side, on the other side of the hedge to the road, which is obviously much safer. And that you've mentioned it joins the existing access. Now, it might be my age, but when I recall the application on the other side of the road, one of the main reasons we were against that was the fact that there wasn't suitable footpaths from that area into the centre of the town. I can see from the pictures that 227 has a footpath in front of it, but is that a continuous footpath into the village? Is there access that way? Because, obviously, if you can't get all the way in, you're not going to do part of it. I believe there is a footpath. There are concerns with the state of the footpaths, and there are concerns with cars being parked on the footpaths. In the meeting that I've had with the Parish Council that was also attended by Highways, Highways have suggested to the Parish Council that they speak to them with regards to ticketing the cars that are parking on the pavements, because they are causing an obstruction. And, as already stated in my presentation, the state of the existing footpaths haven't been caused by this development, and, therefore, we're not able to ask for Section 106 contributions to improve those public rights of way that exist at the moment. But the Parish Council have been recommended to also speak to the Highways team about other ways of improving those public footpaths in Holt. And, presumably, SIL payments could be used for that. Yeah. And will there be a SIL contribution, significant enough, from this? Yes, there will be a SIL contribution, yeah. But, because their local plan is not up to date, presumably, they only get 15% of the SIL and not the 25%? I'm not sure on that one. Chair, it would be 25%. I mean, the neighbourhood plan is not considered up to date in terms of housing delivery, but it's an adopted and made plan, so they would still benefit from 25% of SIL. Can I just add another thing, Chair? On the point of the site, the appeal site, in terms of what the inspector concluded, not only did he make mention to the fact that the public transport options were considered to be fairly good for Holt, he also cycled, I'm just reading the actual appeal decision, he actually cycled from Melksham to Holt before making his judgment on that appeal. So he obviously went an extra step in terms of doing the non-motorised means of travelling about, and he also mentioned in that appeal decision that he considered walking from the appeal site into the villages, amenities, church, the primary school, was considered to be fine. There was no concerns raised, and that would equally apply to this site being on the opposite side of the highway. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Kenny. Thank you, Agent. Councillor Breton, Richard. Thank you, Chairman. Sticking, please, with the issue of footpaths, I'm now a bit confused following what you said. Looking at paragraph... Oh, I'm sorry. Page 71, the paragraph immediately below the bullet points, the text there seems to suggest that you're arguing since the state of the footpaths, existing footpaths, is a pre-existing condition, longstanding, and I think you were saying that it wouldn't be reasonable to expect the 106 to cover those existing footpaths. If that's correct, there is a double negative at the end of that paragraph that has quite the contrary effect. It actually implies that the developer will be required to make a contribution to those existing footpaths. So, we have two issues. We have the footpaths and we have public rights-of-way. So, the footpaths are existing problems that we can't solve. The MPPF does allow the Local Planning Authority to seek 106 contributions to improve public rights-of-way network. Your paragraph actually suggests that the developer will be required to make a contribution to those existing footpaths because of the double negative. It would not be unreasonable. The final sentence in that paragraph says burdening the developer to remedy long-standing maintenance issues relating to the pavement would not be unreasonable. Yeah, the word not should be removed, Chair. Sorry? The word not should be removed. Right. That's what Councillor Britton is referring to. Hence his confusion. My page 71 is different to my page 71 on this one. No, that's the one there. Would not be unreasonable. So, that not needs to be deleted then. Okay. Buff, cancer thruffle. Has that been accepted? Yes. It's had to be deleted. Negative vibes from that. No, Kenny's point that it had to be deleted has now been deleted. We do need to delete that. Hence your confusion. Yeah. You are correct to raise that. Typo. Yeah. A couple of tiny questions and one slightly more significant one. Holt is a large village I presume and you were saying that the pictures the drawings of what it would look like were sort of not part of the permission. say the fact that the houses look extremely high for two storey houses is not a concern at this stage. It's not setting a precedent. That's correct. Yeah. That be a reserve matters application. And the final question was really how soon since this is only an outline for the mission how soon would it be able to be developed? Well there is a three year time limit but I believe the applicant sent everybody a statement before the committee and in there it says Redcliffe hope to be on site by early next year and finish the site within two years so the committee would be able to reduce that three year condition for two years if they so wished so condition one be begun either before the expiration of three years from the date the mission or the reserve matters yeah so condition two you ask for reserve matters to be submitted within two years rather than three years you could do that as a committee chair may I just add another point that I mean this is a relevant matter and it is something that we do engage with developers on a regular basis especially when they are arguing that their site will benefit us in terms of housing delivery so we expect a developer to then reciprocate and then say okay if that's the case then we will we will commit to bringing the site forward and not land bank as Councillor Greenman mentioned earlier but we do need that enshrined in the decision we can't just take it on on their basis that that's what they'll do so whilst you've got this supporting letter as Gemma says I think it would be desirable and necessary if committee were minded to take this forward into a resolution to approve that that condition could be tweaked to say within two years rather than three years that they submit the reserve matters whether they can get on site and build it out within two years they are saying that but I think we need it in the condition yeah absolutely go along with that one Councillor Foster Adrian thank you Howard if we can turn to page 73 under the affordable housing I have a small concern here that it constantly mentions affordable housing throughout 60% which is 22 units in total 13 units of being affordable rent and then it's got the mix of affordable rents my understanding was that the government and our own housing department are moving towards social rents and not affordable and the government would prefer to see social in here not affordable can you explain why we're still using the old terminology because there is a significant difference in the rent that they have to pay and there's a significant difference in who can manage those properties and I don't think I definitely couldn't approve this application as long as that remains affordable and not social I've been in dialogue with the housing officer and I've checked the requirements from the affordable housing officer and those are up to date as far as I am aware unless Kenny is aware of any other update my understanding is that conflicts with the present government's initiatives it may be that this wording complies with our policy and the policy needs to be updated but that hasn't happened yet the only other thing I would say I mean I don't disagree with what Gemma said I mean obviously this application in the report is supported by what our own housing officer team has advised if members are minded to support the principle of the application obviously there's a section 106 process to be followed on from today and that is clearly something that then we could open up a discussion with our affordable housing team new housing team to see whether there is necessary tweaks I mean I'm not sure when this comment came in from the housing team but I'm assuming it was fairly recently but it is something that could then open up a follow-on discussion with the affordable team prior to any decision being made because obviously despite this report being brought to this committee today no decision would be made after today it would have to go through the section 106 process and that discussion I understand what you're saying Kenny but I think we need to pin this down because I've had discussions and I've had discussions because of the things I brought up at this meeting before that the housing officers what they're asking the developers to put in isn't reflecting what the council's need for housing is and I've challenged them on several times with that and had discussions with them and in the last discussion I had which was back in January they made it quite clear to me that social housing was going to be the priority from now on as guidance from the government and this is not fitting in with that guidance and it's not meeting the needs that this council has and we need social housing not affordable housing and therefore this doesn't meet this council's requirements and I will always continue to challenge that the only thing I would say I mean Gemma did touch upon this we do have an adopted plan it does require 40% the developers are committing to that 40% the breakdown which would be set on the section 106 is always open for follow-on discussion whether there's a material change that would have to then bring this report back to committee that's always on the cards because the constitution does allow for that that if this committee makes a decision and then a section 106 revision triggers material change the report would have to come back to this committee for a resolution again if it's just tweaking the terminology then that's not a material change Kenny social housing and affordable housing difference is not a tweak it's a social difference and this doesn't meet our requirements as a council and it doesn't meet the people's of Wiltshire's requirements so unless it's changed to social I am not voting for this policy the problem is Kenny and I think I see where Adrian's coming from affordable and it may be terminology but affordable is a very wide broad brush approach to any kind of affordable housing it's shared equity rented social all sorts what Adrian's trying to do is pin it down to a specific type of affordable housing so he wants to focus the only thing I'd like to add and I know I have had a discussion recently with the affordable housing team about first homes and I know applications that are now being submitted now the affordable housing team are not asking for first homes anymore due to the changes in the MPPF so the only other scenario is that this application was submitted last year and that therefore the affordable housing team have gone from the date of submission which is what they're doing for first homes right we may have that's not the element I'm concerned about the affordable housing and the purchase is one thing it's the affordable rent it should be a social rent not affordable rent that's not acceptable I just want to draw a line into that I think Councillor Britton you had something to come back to on this you're not going to sorry Sarah thank you hi Jess thank you it is open to the committee to amend the recommendations so that it works along the lines of the prior to so that we include negotiation of the obligations in accordance with the report so that would widen what we can look at in terms of the affordable housing and it could include that we include the forms of affordable housing in line with the council's needs I think that that's a potential way forward so that the committee is more content that it is going to meet the council's needs thank you Sarah Kenny that's a good point that as I was mentioning section 106s can take quite a considerable time frame and things can change and for major schemes I mean I'm mentioning Warminster urban extension that took three years to get the legal agreement from start to finish and during that time frame changes were made at MPPF and our own requirements local needs changed so the point that Sarah is making is very valid that we would not only open up discussion we'd obviously see what the needs are at the time of the section 106 being drafted I don't know when these comments came in from the housing team but when it comes to a section 106 that section 106 is predicated on current need so the point you're making councillor about any scheme now meeting needs is absolutely valid and section 106s are looked at at that time in terms of what is the current need not what it was when the consultation was written which might have been last year so that that would be a material matter for the committee to consider today that it's not in stone that that is what will be in a section 106 because we do need to reflect upon whatever the current needs are for meeting the social requirements sorry I just don't understand why we can't amend this to sociable rent for the 13 houses now why can't we do that now because if we don't do it now I know what happens negotiations happen they argue different things and we end up with exactly what we don't want but if we put it in writing that the social rent and affordable house is fine but we need to have social rent my answer to that chair is as the committee you're the decision maker if you consider that is material to this decision then you can instruct that that is a change as part of your endorsed position that you would see the heads of terms in section 106 being edited to that format and obviously as I mentioned any negotiation with a developer at the section 106 stage must include an up-to-date position or need otherwise it wouldn't meet the legal tests no that's fine because a lot could happen in two years yes I'm happy with that I would I'm also offering if you want me to to go back to the affordable housing team for future committees to get an understanding of where that change has happened and how they're processing it from there and that would help yeah I think that'd be helpful thank you for that I suspect you may be revisiting that in due course any more questions from our members please oh I've just got the one and it's probably quite a superficial one really I'm just thinking of a aesthetic value just looking at the illustrative and I recognize of course this is an illustrative master plan for the site here it shows the properties at the front there I'm talking about bottom left which is probably the southwest corner the properties there the front elevation being behind the rear elevation of number 227 now in terms of aesthetic immunity you have already shown hedging and so on like that along there I'd quite like that to continue rather than the temptation being to bring those houses forwards so it's not overbearing either to as a site in itself or overbearing to the neighboring properties is it possible to put that informative in there if this application gets that far I'll cover that chair so yes undoubtedly that is something that this committee could take into account and consider amending the condition that refers to the follow-up reserve matters you would need to add a very clear reference that although this is not a detailed plan you'd be considering there are elements within it that you may wish to see any reserve matters application follow through on and that includes the setback distance of those properties behind so that is clearly something you could add as a committee yeah okay thank you any more questions from the committee members no in which case then if I may I'd like to go to Lisa Wicks please good morning as a mother and Holt resident for 10 years I know what it's really like to live in Holt Redcliffe homes call this proposal sustainable but that word means very little when you look at the reality and I will share three with you today firstly safety this site sits on a fast stretch of the B3107 where cars vans and lorries regularly enter and leave Holt at 50 miles an hour or more there is no safe crossing at this location a dropped curb is not a safe crossing if this development goes ahead children little ones will have to cross that road to get to the preschool to primary school or to catch the secondary school buses every day on foot there is no provision to make that safe it only takes one child being hit on that road for it to be one too many secondly I have concerns about the documents submitted by Redcliffe claiming the site is sustainable their own energy and sustainability statement section eight refers to the site being in a city and section nine mentions existing buildings factually incorrect with a holding objection in place from Wiltshire's own climate officer Redcliffe calls it's a walkable site however their design and access statement and travel plan are also factually incorrect they're listing amenities that don't exist in Holt and timings that are not doable from the site 10.75 minutes to the shop no and that's not without taking the state of the footpath into account councillors don't be swayed by developer spin let's be clear this is not a sustainable site as the appeal inspector for Bewley home stated I acknowledge the limitations of the services available in Holt there would therefore be a reliance on private motorized vehicles third point I would like to make is about the wider sustainability as I began to think about all the times I have to drive out of Holt it has no health facilities no secondary school no pharmacy no supermarket I could go on buses no buses in the evenings none on Sundays you couldn't get your hospital appointment at the IOH you can't get a bus to a train to get to London early in the morning and you certainly can't get home after a late shift in Trowbridge or Bradfranavon in winter months when rural flooding affects nearby towns Holt gets no bus service at all people drive because they have to this site would be a car-led estate from day one so this is the reality of living in Holt this site is not sustainable on this side with a B3107 the planning officer said in her report this application breaches core policies one two and seven the Holt neighborhood plan and Wiltshire's climate strategy from my understanding with this tilted balance if the harm outweighs the benefit you can refuse this application as councillors voted in to make decisions by residents of Holt please refuse this application thank you for that Kate Leroy please good morning councillors I also live in Holt and I'm here to object to this development this housing estate will permanently degrade a very valued Wiltshire landscape the land here rises up from Holt offering long uninterrupted views across open farmland the nearby footpath is well used by locals and visitors alike the National Trust promotes the walk along this footpath which links the historic properties at Great Chalfield Manor and the courts the walk here is so special that it features in regional guidebooks Wiltshire Council's landscape officer described this as one of the better examples of rural farmland in the character area with high susceptibility to change he said the characteristic field pattern seen here was centuries old the landscape officer initially concluded the development would result in such major adverse landscape harm that this development should be refused despite the housing shortfall I find it hard to understand why he has now withdrawn that strongly expressed objection he still accepts that this is a valued landscape that will be significantly damaged I disagree with his new conclusion that the harm is sufficiently justified or adequately mitigated the revised plans push the housing further towards the footpath the housing visible here will not relate to Holt's existing historic boundaries but now project artificially east along Melksham Road the state will intrude into the landscape with generic rooftops fencing park cars and streetlights visible 150 meters from a National Trust promoted walk between two of its historic Wiltshire properties another concern is the new gateway into Holt mature Hedgerow will be removed for a visibility display and replaced with a junction and a bus shelter damaging the rural character of the village the landscape officer also commented on the earlier appeal decision for the opposite side of the road that was judged harmful to the intrinsic beauty of the countryside even though it was less visible and better screened he concluded this red cliff site is significantly more damaging in landscape terms it is more prominent in a more sensitive landscape with less mitigation councillors you are entitled to take a different view from your planning officer the damage being done here is a step too far this is your chance to uphold Wiltshire's policies that protect valued landscapes you don't have to accept the wrong development in the wrong place what's also missing is a proper assessment of the cumulative impacts from these adjacent entirely unplanned developments on ecology drainage flood risk and infrastructure Holt is a village were often entirely cut off by flooding our narrow roads and pavements cannot absorb growth at this scale to pick up on the earlier point made ticketing cars parked parking on the pavement through the village just won't work people are living in old cottages from 200 years old they have no parking provision they have nowhere else to go the village just can't cope with the new traffic and the new parking that's taking place here it's damaging and unsustainable please refuse this application thank you very much kate that's an impassioned plea richard goodman please thank you thank you chair uh good morning councillors i also have lived in holt for many years i'm concerned about this application not just because it's another housing estate on the edge of the village but because of what it means for road safety and the lack of joined up thinking that surrounds it melcham road already carries over 10 000 vehicles a day this includes some of the largest hgvs it's noisy it's fast and for pedestrians and cyclists it's genuinely genuinely intimidating if approved this development will create a long straight unlit road with housing set back behind hedgerows encouraging speeding in and out of the village highways say they cannot be effective speed reducing measures because this is a class two route but why are there speed cushions on other class two routes and wheelchair there are three that i can think of in bradford on avon alone so why not here what this site really needs is a proper entrance feature not just a ghost junction ideally a roundabout but something that slows traffic and signals that you're entering a village the developer originally offered to install a light control crossing why because highways initially said this was a dangerous road and that it would be needed but then they were told to take it out the reason not enough people would use it i find this quite astonishing as has been said children walking to primary school will need to cross this road twice a day older students will be crossing it to catch a bus and in winter they'll be doing this in the dark with no control crossing no cycle infrastructure no traffic calming no joined up plan for sustainable travel and vehicles regularly exceeding the speed limit the scheme as drafted is fraught with potential danger turning in more detail to speed limits the current speed limit along the mulchham road here is 50 miles an hour with the proposed reduction to 30 miles an hour to be applied for only when the first house is occupied this approach will necessitate ripping out a 250 meter length of mature hedgerows to create visibility displays but if the 30 mile an hour limit were to come in before work starts this could be reduced to only 25 meters it's safer cheaper and better for our landscape why isn't this being done please consider this making a condition as has been said again the walking route into the village is very poor uneven narrow and often obstructed residents will be expected to use this daily but there's no commitment to fix it the parish council has asked but it doesn't seem that this can be part of the deal the this application fails wiltshire's own policies the nppf the local transport plan and more importantly it fails the people who live in holt please don't sign off on something so short-sighted if you are minded to approve please insist on proper highways planning first and something that genuinely makes the village entrance safer for everyone thank you thank you richard appreciate that out to the applicant now please david hagan hello councillors my name is david hagan and i'm the planning manager at redcliffe homes as an sma company redcliffe homes like many other smes promote high quality highly sustainable homes which we care passionately about redcliffe homes is not a large national plc where targets and bottom lines are a key consideration however we do require a pipeline of future sites to continue to provide for the well-established housing need in wiltshire both existing homeowners relocating or downsizing or first-time buyers many of our houses are bought by either downsizers or first-time buyers so both are critical to wiltshire and this housing market area we have a very good relationship with wiltshire council's own affordable housing arm and to date have worked with the housing team to deliver 80 affordable houses together the proposal before you is one which we have been working on for well over a year and is now supported by all statutory consultees of wiltshire council together with your own highly qualified planning officers the proposed scheme is relatively modest in size however it still proposes 22 affordable houses a small community orchard significant public open space 33 bng an on-site play area highly energy efficient housing timber frames air source heat pumps electric vehicle charging points to each property a new bus stop and shelter the crossing point highway improvements to relocate the 30 miles per hour further to the east financial contributions and sill payments totaling approximately eight hundred and fifty thousand pounds these will go to local schemes including a significant sill payment of over half a million pounds of which a quarter will go to the local parish council whilst i share of frustrations that this is not strictly plan-led unfortunately a plan-led system alone cannot be relied upon there are always numerous exceptions and sites which do not come forward as planned and small developable and sustainable sites such as this are required to plug the gaps planning law and national planning policy is clear that where there is a housing shortage such as there currently is in wiltshire with a severe shortage then sustainable sites such as this should be supported without delay the site is highly developable and should planning permission be granted redcliffe hope to be on site by early next year and finish the site within two years this will greatly help in achieving a deliverable housing supply to defend against larger more controversial housing developments as i've mentioned previously all statutory consultees support this scheme together with the planning officers national planning policy is clear that applications can not only be refused where harm significantly and demonstrably outweighs the benefits as your planning officer will highlight using appeals as evidence this is an extremely high bar to meet with regards to harm particularly as there are no objections from any statutory consultees furthermore the adjacent appeal decision was very clear and set a strong precedent that development in this location with a severe housing supply was sustainable and acceptable in planning terms as mentioned previously i feel your frustrations that it may feel like you are being attacked from all directions with housing however i would encourage you to assess each site on its own planning merits and to ensure you allow the best and highest quality schemes through such as this to ultimately reach a housing supply and ultimately a defensible position from future large-scale speculative housing the reality is with an increasing population that sometimes you have to make unpopular decisions but i would encourage you to make the correct planning and legal decision to avoid any further delays and associated costs to both sides this will enable redcliff homes to provide a high quality choice for the next generation of homeowners so that children and grandchildren can live near to where they grow up rather than moving to cities such as london or crystal i would ask you to follow the recommendations of all the statutory cons uh statutory experts and planning officer and make the correct planning decision to support this relatively small scale application which will greatly help with a deliverable housing supply thank you very much thank you david uh thank you for your email too tom o'connor please good morning thank you for the opportunity to speak on this application i'm tom o'connor i'm the managing director of redcliff homes um just by way of background redcliff is an independent family house builder we don't like the term developer because we actually get directly engaged in our work we've been building homes now for over 40 years and 30 of those years we've been building in wiltshire in fact it's our home ground i think we've built over 800 homes in wiltshire and we're currently building out schemes in chippenham and devices amounting to 240 homes the affordable housing contracts for which are with your council who we do have a very good working relationship with and i'll pick up on that point later um we employ hundreds of contractors and trades people most of whom live and work in wiltshire and we've worked with them for many many years and we have a very close family relationship with many of them they they always come back and work work for us they like working for us i think i can say that um we'll take a genuine pride in the quality of the work that we produce i think if you go on our website you'll see that you'll see the um design awards that we we won over the years through a lot of hard work and effort by everybody in the office we believe that this site could produce a very good quality scheme it's it's effectively standalone it's on the edge of an extremely attractive village of holt um it has everything that we would like to to to enhance to to to perhaps increase the the vibrancy of the village by providing bungalows for those who become infirm and who want to downsize uh first time houses so that children can remain in the village and of course the 22 and i heard the point affordable homes which again i'll come to a little bit later um so i think we can we can make a contribution um another point i'd like to stress is that we do believe in sustainable house building we build using timber frame modern methods of construction we install air source heat pumps we're not obliged to we could we could put in gas boilers and save ourselves five or six thousand pounds for each house we don't we're committed to ensuring that our house are sustainable in the long term and we are finding it outside in chippenham for example that people do genuinely appreciate it and we're finding that uh is going out very well with people um um it's always difficult isn't it with uh when you're when you're trying to build in a in a local community we understand those concerns and we have tried to work with people throughout the process but understandably they have concerns and i'd be the same frankly but but i but i do think as a company we do try and work with local communities it's important that we do because at the end of the day we want to produce something that's a good quality for everybody um it's not just literally about the the profit margin it's not about that for us it's about quality and good design we have to make a profit because otherwise the banks wouldn't wouldn't support us but our motivation is quality and design um picking up two points very fair points made earlier do we land bank absolutely not can't afford to land bank uh nor would we wish to uh we're keen to move on this scheme as quickly as we possibly can subject to getting the reserve matters application or subject to getting consent in the first place of course but then getting reserve matters consent through the system which is taking time we all know that but we will do what we can and we're keen to progress it as fast as we can um the other point validly made frankly is is the point on affordable housing it it is confusing for everybody um and i have absolutely no problem at all in agreeing here now and having admitted that that 13 of those homes would be social rent um in all likelihood we'll be working with your housing department anyway so i don't see that that would be a a big issue for us so i'm happy to have to record that um i think that's really i don't have any more to say unless anybody's got any questions for me to to answer thank you thank you tom appreciate that um steve siddle please from the parish council thank you mr chairman councillors ladies and gentlemen you've now heard a clear and consistent message from halt this is a speculative application outside the settlement boundary on a valued rural landscape with significant and unaddressed impacts on ecology highways and amenity should this go ahead we will have a brutal new solid edge to the village rather than the feathered edge that the planning inspector weighed in his balance when approving the adjacent development the redcliffe homes transport statement and travel plan were factually inaccurate these documents overstate accessibility and present a picture of sustainable transport that doesn't exist and crucially they ignore the cumulative impacts of 145 homes directly opposite each other feeding into the same overstretched infrastructure there are no new employment opportunities in halt all the residents that can afford a car will have to out commute the carless will remain unemployed is that sustainable the highways officer in this case has steadfastly refused to engage with us and hear our local knowledge in february this committee refused an application at malmsbury where a town councillor highlighted factually incorrect transport statements and highways issues furthermore out of the 75 halt residents who have objected to this application 96 percent mentioned highways impact as a concern that is not nimbyism that's informed local knowledge and community insight which is the kind the mppf says should carry weight and we ask this committee to hold highways officers to account to revisit the entrance to our village with traffic calming measures and control crossing if this application is remotely considered for approval today what we are seeing is death by a thousand cuts slow cumulative irreversible harm to our landscape our infrastructure and the character of our village this development pushes hope beyond what is reasonable sustainable or plan led on top of the 90 home unplanned site in the emerging local plan halt is allocated zero residual housing to 2038 this is because we made a neighborhood plan and we have over delivered on our allocation we now have a 90 house unplanned development permitted and this unplanned application for 55 more unplanned development is contrary to the basic tenant of the mppf and if allowed to continue will wreck rural wiltshire placing people where they are where there are no jobs no infrastructure with poor unplanned highways issues councillor clerk raised this at your february meeting i quote i am sick and tired of feeling we have to approve just because of land supply this is our plan and this is what we build to if you approve this against your and our plans based on the lack of land supply you help you will have spoilt a wiltshire village to cut a negligible 1.5 percent of the housing shortfall if you are going to approve this application and all others like it on the basis of land supply then you call into question your need to exist we have done what was asked of us and we urge you to uphold your policies to protect your credibility and to look to where housing is actually needed not here where it clearly isn't this is not plan-led it damages a valuable landscape it's not safe and it is not sustainable please refuse this application thank you thank you steve i echo many of those sentiments appreciate that thank you um to our local member then please cancer trevor carving thanks chair um right so um i would invite the committee to refuse this application for the reasons you've heard about here in the open forum basically uh cp one and seven also let's consider a cp 51 which is the landscape policy as well um should the committee not wish to refuse today you may also wish to consider deferring the application um i would like you to consider perhaps a site visit i know it would be a new committee but i would love to get you out there to have a look at this site and to actually inspect the problems that you've heard about here another reason for deferral might be to resolve the highways problems that we've heard about which i'll say a bit more about in a moment and we've also heard the point about from councillor foster about the affordable housing that would also be maybe sorted out so there's another option if you nevertheless decide that you wish to permit um again we've heard about various conditions that need to be strengthened or altered and um again we need to reconsider i think the highways problem so if you do wish to commit there's a few details which again i'll go through um in a moment just picking up on a few things from the report next um so if you go to page 42 as i'm referring to the landscape points you have that nice picture at the bottom it does say the site sits on a slope with the northern end being highest in fact the northern end is lowest it slopes away from the road down towards the brook which you can see at the bottom of that sorry the the top of the photograph the bottom of the landscape um also over the page where it talks about um childfield manor which is just off the picture here to the north and it talks about grade two registered parking gardens um i'm not sure about the parking gardens but great child for just grade one mr chairman i should expect um then there's a lot of talk about the approved application to the south of the road for 90 houses um i don't think we should accept really that because one site has been approved another one automatically should be um villages naturally develop incrementally that's happened in holt over the 19th and 20th centuries um rapid development can be very disruptive of this sort of scale um and also if we extrapolate that argument okay because we've given one field we have to give the other field well if you keep going with that why not the next field along and the next one after that and you end up with this sort of tentacle stretching out towards milksham so the argument that because one site has been permitted therefore the next one should be i i think it's not a good argument chairman it's not good planning um then unmentioned on yeah on page 46 it says all the units should be no greater than two stories again if if you're going to permit today i'd like to see that included in the conditions perhaps within condition four just to make sure about that um then the point about the land supply um as we've heard in detail from kenny about where we are with that and the basic point is that whereas in recent years we've argued about are we one side of the line are we once the other side should this site be included should this site be discounted and there were some very detailed appeal decisions where they're looking at individual sites and whether to count them in or out we've got no hope we've got no chance whatsoever of meeting our uh land supply requirements for the foreseeable future unless there's a drastic change in government policy um so there's no point in thinking oh yeah if we permit this one perhaps we'll get within our um required level we won't um and i think in a sense because we are so far away from any hope whatsoever of getting towards our land supply it does give us the freedom to look at these terms in planning terms rather than just numerical terms and it does give us the freedom to refuse in unsustainable applications like this one so we should we can respect our plan we can defend our plan uh page 55 again says at the top again that appeal decision priority should be given to the more sustainable locations yes it should this is not one of them um the lands going back to the landscaping point so i'm on page 59 now the council's landscape officer has viewed the site from the public right of way at various locations of the eight viewpoints the site was only visible from three well that's that's the kind of subjective thing isn't it you can walk along a footpath and you can say oh yeah i can see it now now i can't see it three should be enough really it's it's uh it's visible from the footpath that's really all that matters on that one um and yes so we've heard about the conditions around the the village green and the urban design um and as i say we we do need to tie down i think the various points that have been raised on this otherwise we're up to this um kind of outline reserve matters paradox where if we don't raise it at the outline stage uh we're told when it comes to reserve matters are you too late you should have raised it uh or if we try and raise it up you know we're always told that we should get these things nailed down as much as possible at this stage where we possibly can um um going back then to the highways points which are clearly quite a serious uh bone of contention um the community would like a proper gateway coming into the village uh you've heard that this is a busy road uh we're told that we can't have a roundabout because of the fact that most of the traffic will be on the main road but we we also look at roundabouts not just as a way of distributing traffic we use them as traffic calming and i'm sure you can all think of places where roundabouts do just that we have one at the other end of halt down by the toll gate the main road is going through here much less traffic on the side road um i can think of others around my patch in atworth there's a roundabout which feeds about 10 houses and a small industrial estate coming onto a main road very slight traffic but it's done as a traffic calming we have a similar thing in stabberton um there's a roundabout not far from here which doesn't have any side roads on it it's just a roundabout on a straight road it's there purely as traffic calming so we do use them in this way why not in this case um i would see it as a possibility um the there's a point made on the um where is it phase 70 that should we we cannot impose that access on the approved gladman site to the south uh because they already have an access well that's true we we couldn't force them to do that because they already have their planning permission but there's no harm in talking to them about it they may well decide that it's in their interest to get a more sensible access into their development it might make the properties more saleable um we also have this point about the crossing and the circular argument that if there's no crossing people will have to drive therefore they won't use the crossing if there is if there were to be a crossing then obviously more people would use it if you if you live if you imagine yourself living on this state the primary school the preschool are on the other side of the road you've got to get your kids to school in the morning do you walk or do you take the car the presence or otherwise of a crossing will make a significant impact to that decision if there isn't a crossing people don't cross if there is a crossing people do cross um so again i think that that ought to be looked at chairman um there's the section 106 requirement for a cycle track 61 000 towards the delivery of an off-road cycle route to serve the site the village and melchman bradford-on-avon now you could add in a hundred thousand for the same purpose which came from the other site um you if you want to get a cycle route between melchman bradford-on-avon you can't use the existing road it's too narrow you need an off-road as it says in the thing you need an off-road cycle track it's six miles you're buying the land you're constructing a brand new surfaced site you're not going to get that for 61 or 161 thousand pounds uh that's impossible chairman in real terms it's not going to happen i would love it if it did i mean i live in melch and i work in bradford i'd love to be able to shoot between the two on my bike um i have cycled along the road and i was very impressed the planning inspector did so as well it's generally seen as a sign of lunacy cycling along that road chairman that's the the response i get when i tell people i've done it um it's not something normal people do put it that way it's not something that people in this development are going to do they're not going to get on their bike and toddle into melchman along that road or bradford-on-avon and we're not going to get the off-road route now if we're not going to get an off-road route why are we asking for one why are we asking for money towards something which is never going to happen um we're told that we can have we can have that it's not unreasonable to ask for something which is way out in both centers of the word it's not unreasonable to ask for improvements on the rights of way which goes shooting off in all directions across the county but it is unreasonable to ask for improvements on the pavements the pavements are something which people might use to get into town that might again help people make decisions as to how they're going to get around so it seems crazy chairman that we're told we can't improve the pavements we can because it doesn't relate directly to the development we neither do the rights of way neither the cycle track so why not the pavements so again i think that's something that we could be looking at in more detail the bus um i get around quite a bit on the bus i've never used a bus to get the hold it's very difficult people do you see the zigzag bus zigzagging around you see people on it so it's obviously does get a certain amount of use um but it's compared with the atworth route to the north the hilton route to the south which have both got half hourly services and including weekends and sundays holtz is very badly i don't care what the inspector said holtz is not well served by bus services right so to wrap up chairman again i would like you to refuse if you possibly could it would be nice cp1 cp2 cp51 the neighborhood plan mppf paragraph 15 176b relates to the rural landscape if you wish to defer for a site visit and to get the highways looked at again putting the boot into highways and getting them to take a more positive approach and then that would be good as well if you wish to permit uh could we have the 30 mile an hour before the start of process for the reason you heard about in the open forum two story fixed so they don't creep up to two and a half story and the village green in accordance with the planning statement this gateway question not an informative but a condition please so that it's something which has to be enforced um construction management plan can that be beefed up so the traffic comes in from the east and not through the village and that there's no parking on sorry that any parking during construction has to be on site and again not on the b3107 or the local estates i think that's uh just about concludes what i had to say chairman over to you good luck thank you very much thank you very much there's a lot of uh detail that you've given us i'm going to ask jem i've seen you writing frantically to come back on any of those there's quite a lot to come back on thank you thank you chair so the energy and sustainability document was raised um the council officers have requested more information um to come forward as part of the reserve matters application which is condition six um with regards to landscape obviously the landscape officer has walked along the public rights of way um highlighted by the parish council um and i think it's important to know that the previous inspector did raise harm to the open countryside for the appeal to the south but it was within when doing the tilted balance the benefits outweighed that harm um which obviously is a similar situation to where we are here um highway safety um obviously the village gateway we've heard a lot about that is to be relocated it's on the plans it's also a section 106 requirement um the tucan crossing again is understood yes it was there originally the high-risk team um had a discussion with the traffic management team and as my report states a tucan crossing requires 50 pedestrian crossings an hour um and it is considered that this would not occur from as a result of this site and therefore the tucan crossing has been removed um discussion about the local the emerging local plan and the numbers for halt within that emerging local plan um obviously as you've heard from kenny earlier um it holds very limited weight at this present moment in time and the decisions have to be based on current policy which is unfortunately at this present moment in time based around housing land supply and the tilted balance um i don't think at any point we are as watch council saying that because we've lost the appeal to the south that you therefore have to approve this site every application is based on its own merits there are just similarities with with the case so the inspector previously um confirmed harm to core policy one two and seven by reason of the site being located outside the limits of development he then raised harm in terms of landscape which was core policy 51 but then did the tilted balance and it was his tilted balance made the decision that the benefits outweighed that harm um there's a lot of discussion about sustainability um there's just a few areas in the previous appeal statement um which i think may be helpful um he talks about um the limitations of services available in halt um which of course are also experienced by existing households he recognizes that lots of settlements in wiltshire in a similar position but that does not necessarily mean they should be deemed to be locations that were unsustainable and so inappropriate for further housing he considered the limitations in service provision were not so great to render halt unsustainable for a scheme of this size when taken with the village's recently built developments he continues to say when interpreting government guidance he considers it does not mean new houses should be limited to places where all needs of its residents can be met by a choice of transport modes other than by private motorized vehicles as there would be few if any undeveloped undeveloped sites with such a level accessibility in the county rather there is an acceptance of certain sites being developed even though future occupiers would be reliant to some extent on the private car this is acknowledged to some degree by the framework the mppf recognizing the opportunities to maximize sustainable transport solutions will vary between rural and urban areas and finally he accepted that the access to services and alternative transport modes were restricted to some degree but he concluded that neither the limited facilities in halt nor the distance to them from the site rendered the location unsufficiently unsustainable to conflict with core policy 60 and 61. so that's just highlighting the point that you don't have to just rely on public transport in order to make a site sustainable um with the discussions that we've had with highways and the parish council we've had one meeting with the parish council we've had lots of email correspondence um there is an existing population in halt there are existing children that live on the same side of the road as this development and those people cross the road within the village at a later point this isn't the only crossing available to the people living on this site to cross over and access the other facilities um i think that was it just a reminder we do have chris mans from our highways authority present today if it would be useful to members to hear from chris i already waved to him and indicated that i'd like to come in so thank you for that um so chris um token crossing it's almost like giving somebody a christmas present and taking it away i'd be interested to know what you have to say about that um 50 crossings per hour um i understand your rationale behind that but just say 50 houses had two children each and each of the two children were being walked to school by a parent that's 150 crossings in two hours of the day alone so there would be pinch points there um i think it's slightly miserly taking it away but i'm going to ask you to come back on that um 61 100 pounds towards the delivery and off-road cycle route i don't know if you had any input into this i take trevor's point i don't think that's ever going to happen could that be best used elsewhere and i would like to come back to the pavement issue um so be interested to note you would have been taking notes anyway from what uh has been said i'd like you to come back on some of those if you would please thank you yeah of course thank you chair um on the pedestrian crossing issue uh gemma and yourself are right that the guidance is that they a signalized crossing can only be provided when 50 pedestrian movements happen within the peak hour periods and that's with within all of the peak hour periods it's it's generally not considered best practice to provide it in an area where those targets are not met in this case the development of 55 houses is highly unlikely to meet that those figures um and the infrastructure required to provide such a crossing um can also create an urbanizing effect um and whilst that should not outweigh highway safety matters it is the view of the highway authority that in this instance it is not recommended to provide a signalized crossing in this area and that the uncontrolled pedestrian crossing that has been put in that has been proposed would be adequate to serve the needs of the development as gemma's highlighted as well there's existing residents children that live within the village they use the existing pedestrian infrastructure within the village um as far as we're aware there's no um clear and uh highway safety matters being raised um as a as an existing issue um and we feel that the development as proposed would be would not meet the test of mppf to recommend for refusal on highway safety matters in that regard um moving on to the point about um the condition of the footpath right throughout the village um i think what the point's being made is that contributions can be sought towards improvements pedestrian facilities but it cannot be sought towards um maintenance issues and i think the the points that jemma made earlier about the condition of the footpath is essentially a maintenance issue and not um a safety issue in the sense that the the provision isn't there um we've touched upon um parking issues uh obstructing the pavement obviously that is um uh that's an obstruction and parking on a footway is a police matter um and um neat and can be enforced as necessary um i take the point from a local resident as well that um there are limited off street parking for some properties along there um on street parking can have um an impact on traffic calming as well and slowing speeds um so in the context of the development they are existing issues which i think for the addition of 55 houses is not going to create an unacceptable highway safety impact in the context of mppf in that regard um with regards to the crossing point proposed as an uncontrolled crossing point the highway authority has recommended a condition that is attached to any consent that is granted to ensure visibility displays are provided at those crossing points to make sure that adequate visibility is available for pedestrians but also vehicles to see those pedestrians those visibility displays we would expect to be based on existing 85th percentile speeds of vehicles traveling um along melksham road um to assist with the safety of that um the speed limit is being moved to the eastern boundary of the site this will include a new gateway um a new gateway to uh holes essentially um it's the the recommendation for the gateway is a type b as what we class as a type b gateway which will include uh sort of thermos thermos thermos plastic uh paint rumble strips on the approach to the 30 mile limit and signage and um colored surfacing at the speed limit change um as well as uh 30 mile an hour limit round was painted onto the road so that all vehicles are quite clear that they're entering a different area um i think the the the relocation of that speed limit will help with uh with speeding along that stretch of road um currently it's obviously a 50 mile an hour limit and the the speed limit changes as you enter the village essentially so this will push that speed limit further away from from the entry to the village um notwithstanding the new development um and it will it will give drivers more time to become aware that they're entering a new environment and that they need to adjust their speed accordingly so i think that will definitely have a positive impact i know that additional traffic calming has been uh requested um such as the form of uh a mini roundabout um i think jemma touched on at the beginning that a mini roundabout only tends to work if you have balanced arms to that roundabout um 55 dwellings is is not going to create anywhere near the level of traffic that um that that exists on melksham road currently as through traffic um and therefore it would it's the highway authority view essentially that a roundabout a mini roundabout would actually probably create additional conflict um because uh those traveling through the roundabout on melksham road would not be expecting to have to stop um because of the limited amount of traffic coming from the development um um there's also an issue with having sufficient land to the south of of melksham road to provide such a mini roundabout because you would need to have adequate deflection to ensure that vehicles did actually slow down and didn't just fly straight across the roundabout um and there is it is i do not believe that there is adequate land to the south to be able to provide that deflection necessary um that's quite a number of issues i've kind of whizzed over i don't know if there's anything that i've missed there chair is there anything you want me to come on out forever kemi yeah thank you chair um just a couple of points from me on the highway position just to focus the committee's attention to the actual proposal um it is an outline application for 55 dwellings with all matters reserved except access so the one detailed plan that we've got is the t controlled junction the the t junction that's shown can you get the slide up please gemma so that's the only detailed plan that's submitted with this application that um yeah that plan so it's showing broadly the location of the existing field access that would become a engineered um junction to serve the dwellings that is an important matter because that is part of the application what is not in front of the council or the committee today is a roundabout and you've heard from chris questioning whether a roundabout could even be accommodated within the highway um provision and there's obviously an issue there but more so the application that's in front of this committee is the one that has to be determined uh and that is with that t junction um because that is the only detailed element of this application the other point i would make about highways is just to remind members that the government as they always do they steer decision makers and when it comes to highway matters the government and inspect their inspectors will go down this particular line and look at paragraph 116 which says and i'll quote it out if i may chair development should only be prevented or refused on highway grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network following mitigation would be severe taking into account all reasonable future scenarios so where you've got an application and you've got the experts within our own highway authority concluding that this particular scheme wouldn't result in either unacceptable material impacts to highway safety or severe road network impacts then i suggest chair and fellow councillors paragraph 116 would be a very difficult hurdle to come across at appeal you would always be expected to be able to evidence any harm that that paragraph requires decision makers to have due regard to if it was to be refused and not that i like saying it um the council would be exposed to costs if that was to be a ground for refusal because that is a key test and we've been here before many times with inspectors and it's written very clearly in terms of what they expect decision makers to be able to evidence if there is going to be a highway conflict the other point i would like to make chair is to go back to that appeal decision in terms of landscape and i'm not for the minute suggesting that local residents don't value the landscape um character on the eastern side of holt and all around hope for that matter but the inspector pinpoints the landscape character it's not a valued landscape in mppf terms it's not greenbelt it's not special landscape it's not um national landscape so it's it's valued locally for obvious reasons but it's not a valued landscape in mppf terms and that is covered in paragraph 187 of the mppf so i'm not for a minute suggesting there wouldn't be harm i think jemma's report touches upon this accurately there would be harm there'd be conflict with the mppf in terms of the loss of greenfield but it is a balancing act decision that decision makers have to make in this scenario and unfortunately if we're ever to um address the housing land supply and i take the point council carbon makes about whenever we'll get to that stage but we need to be showing to inspectors when we do appeal decisions that we are making the right decisions and refusing applications that we can fully defend at appeal and the last point chair is the fact just to mention that the government like testing councils and putting them on performance reviews and there is a serious situation that councils enter when we get so many overturns so the 10 you might have heard 10 being mentioned by governments that is the figure the government says if councils breach the 10 rule in terms of over overturns there is the very risk of councils entering special measures special measures means this council cannot determine applications and we're getting close to that 10 percent or seven point something percent and that is a risk moving forward that if we're potentially refusing applications and not having very robust grounds to defend there is obviously not only the risk of losing that appeal but obviously getting close to that that 10 percent threshold and the special measures is not something we want to enter thank you chair thank you kenny for that yeah i was trying to tease out um what mechanisms we had or what instruments we could use to try and mitigate highways impact uh rather than using it as means to refuse i just want to know what we could do to improve issues there with chris um hence my question about the um toucan crossing because obviously if that's taken away potentially you said about uh there being other crossings as i understand it those that will live on this site will have to walk down the broken pavements past the cars that are on the pavement in order to get to the other crossings so i was trying to avoid that but i take your point or at least i listened to your point um the other one i just wanted to mention because it strikes me a little bit bizarre is you said that you'd be or i think it is said within the narrative within the commentary here that the speed limit would be revisited on an application could be made on occupation of the first house that strikes me a little bit like shutting the stable door after the horse is bolted i would have thought possibly it ought to be some application should be made ahead of potentially when the building starts not when the first house is lived in um cannot that be the case i think that's a fair point chair i don't see any reason why we cannot insist that that's done prior to commencement the only caveat i will say with that is that any speed limit change is subject to traffic regulation orders and there are statutory advertising and statutory processes that go along with that any order cannot actually be confirmed at planning stage because it is subject to separate legislation and separate decision making processes but there's no reason why we cannot commence that process at an earlier stage than first occupation yes yeah thank you i've just double checked with kenny we could change uh in the section 106 that talks about the traffic order prior to first occupation that could be changed to um any development above slab level because then that would allow um the developer to do all the site clearance etc on the site but above slab level would be the start of any dwelling on the site yeah that makes sense yeah agent yes yes as we're talking about that particular point and i thank you for your constructive response there too i'm looking at where the um the gates that you're talking about and the 30 mile limit is going it's immediately after a footpath now it's not showing on here but it was showing on the application we had previously which we objected to and got turned down by the um inspector but there's a footpath that comes through if you look at the landscape plan that we've got there's a footpath that comes through that development and it crosses the road and there is a a lane just a little bit further along the road from where this waterworks is this way would it be not more appropriate to have the 30 mile limit further along the road so that the crossing of that footpath is a bit safer for uh people and also gives the chance for traffic to slow down to the 30 miles an hour before they actually get to these handses rather than slamming on the brakes at that point is that realistic or practical proposition i think in the context of this planning application um we would not necessarily require that whilst i don't disagree with the sentiment um there again there are statutory guidelines that we have to meet to uh to implement speed limits and depending on chris there are guidelines and we're in a position to actually make decisions here that are different and we have done so in the past with bus stops which the guidelines are the bus stop should be in the traffic lane and we prefer them to be in lay-bys so i'm saying could we make that decision on a more practical point and being local and knowing what would be best for the locals rather than national guidelines predicted dictated to us by government i i take your point totally and as an officer i'm here to recommend um with what we would suggest with guidance and best practice um in this case i think um having the limit as as shown on plan is is probably pushing it to some extent to meet those guidelines as it is i think extending it further you then potentially create a compliance issue which then can result in raid um you know enforcement problems um and and that can create a whole other range of issues um kenny did you want to say something there thank you chair um just on this point i mean again it comes into the scenario where during the i mean if members are minded to support the recommendation of course it could open up a follow-up discussion with the highways team about where this gateway could actually be relocated it's not part of this application so it's not something you are endorsing today it's something that would be part of a separate process with the highways authority involved but and it certainly is something that we could have that follow-up discussion to get something more clear cut in terms of when we get the cars vehicles slowing down before we get to the site yeah that is absolutely true this the statutory advertising process for tro's would require public consultation so all representations could be made there and that could include suggestions for altering the extent of the speed limit in that regard yeah yes no i was just uh concerned and i think i think you've probably um made my point irrelevant but i was just concerned if you were getting to move the um the crossing further um east that the people wouldn't be using it from the housing estate to get into the village it would just it would be better for the footpath but possibly not for the residents when they were trying to and and there clearly isn't a pavement along the side of the road for the people who were coming from the footpath to reach the other side as it were where the path takes off again but i think as you say these representations could be made at the right time later on thank you well i want to move to debate now um oh ernie thank you um as i'm the nearest local member do you actually want something on the table at some point sorry would you actually like something on the table so i'm the nearest member of the committee to hold to debate a proposal yeah that's what i'm looking for oh right well i'm happy to supply you with one well thank you that's what that was going to be my next question i want to go to debate so i'm going to ask for a proposal yes please okay we probably need a bit of fine training i'm i'm uncomfortable with more i hear about this we've got debates about whether the mini roundabout is possible because you don't know where the land's there we're talking about the traffic gateway where that is we've been told by the parish council that if we approve this it would be a very hard entrance into halt compared to the soft one they've got we've been told about the pavements and the condition of them how narrow they are and how far the the pub the shops the school everything else is from this site and i always hate deferrals because it seems that we've spent a lot of time getting nowhere but i think on this one we should actually defer it aids for their site visit from the members of this committee wherever they may be come next year but in the meantime highways people can look at the concerns that they've heard from the committee members and the public today and also the mentioned about the affordable housing which the i think it was the owner of the company said he was quite happy to take on board again perhaps the deferral would enable that to be sorted out we might have a different form of wording that would keep the members of this committee happy so i've done that sort of very formal way of wording it but i certainly think we should look towards deferral chairman that would be my my proposal thank you foster i have serious concerns about the deferral if a deferral is made an appeal is made by the applicant before we get to discuss it we alone have no say in it at all and it'll be the inspector that makes all well let's just tease that whereas if we have a positive we've got a proposal is anybody prepared to second that no they're not right well i'm going to look for another proposal then please i'm prepared to put my head on the block here given the present situation i believe very firmly that everybody who's spoken today has spoken wisely and i understand the locals concerns here and i firmly didn't want the development on the other side of the road going ahead and i think the inspector's decision was probably one of the worst decisions to be made on wiltshire councils ever since it's been here but being realistic and pragmatic i can't see that any inspector is going to make any different decision on this developments coming forward now so i'd like therefore to propose that we do go ahead with this application and i know that the locals won't be happy with that but we also put in that the social housing occurs and we also put in that the 30 mile limit goes in at an earlier stage than the first house being built so it's there for the development and and yes as uh and what sorry the two year uh yes absolutely um yeah and it's difficult for me to make that decision but this is one of the better developers that we have within the county and when you look at the ratio of houses that's proposed on here for social and affordable it's much more acceptable than the majority of applications that we've seen before so there are policies to this and normally i wouldn't be wanting any development in rural locations like this but i believe that we we don't have a choice because we don't have the five-year land supply we we'd be better off making a decision and getting the things we want in it rather than the inspector deciding what would be in it so that's my advice thank you any seconder please chair before we get a seconder i think it's important that i just clarify that there was a reference made earlier to um restricting the development to two-story dwellings and that would be something you'd want to see in a resolution so before we get a second yeah yeah we did say that thank you kenny i've forgotten that yes just we've got a second there james do you want to speak to that jim has got a list to go through in a minute we'll just uh sort of just tidy this up thank you again um it's with a heavy heart but we are in the predicament we are and kenny made a very uh interesting statement where he said it needs to be fully defended on appeal fully defended and we don't have the ammunition to fully defend on appeal and if i thought we had anywhere near the ammunition to do so i would definitely vote against this application but we can't so it's with a very heavy heart that i actually support adrian's proposition thank you thank you james i'll come to you in just a minute ernie um gemma i've got the changes to include the section 106 to include the social rent and the traffic order to be submitted before development is above slab level i've got condition two to change the reserve matters to two years rather than three um i've got a note to be added to condition three stating that any subsequent application should broadly accord with the submitted layout showing housing setback behind melksham road i've got a condition on note four highlighting the constraints plan and landscape strategy purely relating to ecology and not landscaping um councillor carbon requested changes to the construction management plan to include no parking on the b3107 and the routing plan to require construction traffic to access from the east and a change to informative five relating the development to relate to two stories so you're both happy with that i think that's a constructive approach and i think we've then put an input in rather than relying somebody else making decisions absolutely and you're happy with that james as a second yeah um councillor clark ernie i'm sorry i'm just going to remind you about the setting back that you mentioned earlier yeah that's right but she's covered that yeah yeah um enough did you put your hand up just to say that um again it is with a heavy heart but i agree with councillor foster that um we have to um we're going to have to approve this one because it'll go through on appeal otherwise and we will lose the advantages we have today of putting in our conditions that we would like to see met um and also just to point out that in terms of density it is so much less dense more appropriate to a village setting than the one opposite which was approved but at appeal thank you oh well i'm bound to agree i think the appeal decision on the glabin site the other side of the road was shockingly poor and if i was the appeal inspector i would have been enormously embarrassed having made that decision they did but uh there we are ernie you put your hand up it's just to clarify chairman when the reserve matters came back i think it was before was it western area for that southern site we refused not we the planning committee refused it because they were so disgusted with what was being coming back because it was nothing like what was being what being put right we refused the original one yeah they had got permission but the detailed permission was refused whether they're going to appeal it or redraw it who knows there you are we refused the original one of course steve siddle's point this was one that i raised the last meeting that is that we're just going to fall over each time the government comes up with something like this then this committee may well be null and void it's but uh we're on a horrible position today um does any other member want to say anything please uh cancer britain richard thank you just as just to say that i think this is a dreadful application uh wrong style wrong place this is going to ruin halt and although i completely understand and recognize all the constraints the committee is under my conscience heavy heart or not my conscience won't allow me to support this thank you i appreciate that does anybody else have anything else not to share in which case they're not going to go to the vote then you know the proposal which is effectively what is on the papers in front of you with the uh addendum that uh gemma's just written out seconded by james all in favor of that proposal please six and against yeah three so the proposal has been carried uh thank you for your time and i think i'll call a comfort break um if you'll be back at 20 to 1 i'd be grateful thank you they were the next application so thank jemma for her attendance this morning and welcome verity um this is uh land off freestone grove westbury would you then please verity thank you thank you chair and this application is seeking outline planning permission to construct up to 40 dwellings with two new accesses public open space landscaping provision of a play area and associated infrastructure with all matters reserved therefore this application is seeking to establish the principle of developing the site um with specific details relating to the development to follow as part of a reserve matters submission at a later date this proposal constitutes a development plan departure due to the housing being proposed on an unallocated site outside the established settlement limits for westbury therefore the proposal does not comply with cp1 cp2 and or cp32 of the adopted virtual core strategy which is why this case is being presented um to you as members of the strategic planning committee um in accordance with our scheme of delegation the accompanying report for this item are set out from page 91 of your agendas details why officers consider this proposal to be acceptable and will be discussed during this presentation officers are recommending this application be approved subject to a section 106 legal agreement and planning conditions as set out in section 11 of the accompanying report um those are um from page 124 of your agendas this um slide shows where the uh red line um is um and it shows that there is existing residential development on the western boundary and to the north um with the null um to the south which is an existing cul-de-sac and the site forms an undeveloped parcel of grade three agricultural land um which which borders um this existing residential development um which was known as a millbrook um and the site extends to 1.7 hectares occupying a rectangular shape so we've got the the null um to the the south and then on the eastern side we've got uh coach road which is a single track road with limited passing places with um open countryside um beyond that on the eastern side the site is located within flood zone one and is not shown to be in an area susceptible to groundwater or surface water flooding and does not fall within any landscape designations the site is located within designated buffer zones associated with the um salisbury plane protect special protection area the great uh greater horseshoe bats linked to the bradford and um so bath and bradford and avon bats um special area of conservation and the site is also within the gray hatch zone associated with the tray bridge bat mitigation strategy which is associated with uh recreational impacts from new housing developments this um map just shows where the existing rights of way are to the site they're located along the southern boundary of the site but they fall outside of the red line for this application so the um proposal would be um seeking the formation of two um new um access points one from freestone grove to the north and one from um cheviot road to the west and which are existing roads serving the millbrook development however full details associated with these access points would form part of a future reserve matters application as shown in this image the application site which is um outlined here in red is um is surrounded by existing residential development with land to the east which is shown by this um blue hatching um being a site advance um for future housing in the emerging wiltshire local plan under um the emerging policy uh 62 which if found by if found sound by the planning inspectorate would result in this site being completely enclosed by residential development the emerging local plan policy 62 which is known um as a land at bratton road seeks to allocate um land for approximately 260 dwellings and the provision of 0.3 hectares of land for nursery provision whilst only limited weight can be afforded to this allocation at this stage this does demonstrate that the council considers this to be a suitable location for um future housing growth this slide just provides um a sort of concept plan and so this is an extract taken from from the emerging plan um which shows the um the land um at bratton road site um and it shows um by this sort of green colouring um where um proposed residential uses um would be what would seem to be indicatively located um within that site plan um again this carries limited weight at this stage um but it just highlights the fact that um that the council does consider um this sort of particular part of um westbury to be sort of a sustainable location for for new growth this slide illustrates the um illustrative master plan and for this current application um it is important to note that this drawing is is purely for illustrative purposes only um but it demonstrates how the site could be laid out um and it's important to mention that this drawing hasn't been um included within the approved plans list um provided in condition 4 um on page 126 of your agendas it was purely just to show how the site could be laid out um the indicative master plan illustrates the um sort of formation of two possible access points um off the existing roads from the existing neighboring residential development forming a loop arrangement and to which um our highways department have raised no objection to use um with the existing roads being considered to be of a sufficient width and form to accommodate the traffic associated with the development again it's important to note that that the internal sort of road layout isn't a matter to be considered as part of this application um and and this sort of um internal road layout is just sort of indicatively being shown on this master plan um the um master plans also shows an attenuation basin um in addition to permeable paving to be used across the site which would be the two main um suds features to manage surface water from the proposal with our which our drainage team have um found to be um sort of acceptable in principle subject to a more detailed drainage strategy as part of um reserve matters stage the proposal also includes the provision of an internal path to connect the to the existing um rights of way to the south with public open space and a play area and tucked in that southeast corner um and a 10 meter wide and back corridor along the eastern boundary um in terms of landscape carrier character it is appreciated that the site is currently a green field of um developed land um and but it is located on that urban edge or an existing urban edge of westbury um and would be viewed within the context of the existing residential development um the council's highways officer and does not consider the proposed development to be harmful to the wider character of the area or to be sufficiently harmful to the important views of the salisbury plain escarpment to warrant a landscape based objection it is important to mention that this particular site was previously considered by the neighborhood plan working brief as a potential neighborhood um plan allocation site for approximately 30 um houses so that was um ddh5 um uh so this this is just an extract taken from the pre-examination iteration of the neighborhood plan before it was was made um which which again just sort of shows that these two sites were potentially being considered for for housing um but um it is understood that um these draft allocations were admitted um after concerns were raised by natural england on the value of the site for bats and therefore were not included as part of the made plan but this does reveal that the site was considered a suitable location for future growth growth by the neighborhood plan working group um this um sorry it might not be the clearest drawing but um this has been um sort of taking from the accompanying um uh land um sorry transport statement um which again sort of highlights the um site in red and uh it sort of demonstrates the accessibility of the site to existing um facilities um including supermarkets a primary school and the town center with the the black route sort of indicating a pedestrian um um access or you know a pedestrian um um route that would lead from the application site to the town center and the um transport statement confirms that the site is located so about a one kilometer distance from the town center and about 2.5 kilometers from the railway station which is located to the west with there being um local bus services within um 200 meters of the site and whilst only indicative at this stage the um submitted illustrative master plan does demonstrate that the site um could be accessed through two access points connecting to the existing um neighboring residential development and to the west and to the north and and it is appreciated that there have been some local concerns raised regarding the additional traffic that would be generated from this development including um during the construction phase um our highways department considers that the existing um roads would be suitable to accommodate the traffic posed by the development based on the existing road wits um the submission of a construction traffic management plan has been included within the suite of planning conditions which should incorporate measures to minimize disruption to existing residents and to ensure the safety of those residents the applicant was um um invited to provide an indicative routing plan just to demonstrate how construction vehicles might be able to um sort of access the site through the existing development again this isn't fixed this was just to have a look to see what a possible route might be um and our highways department um do not foresee any significant issues arising for this but this is obviously subject to the submission of a robust um construction traffic management plan and details of sort of mitigation to safeguard um existing residents um it is important to mention that this outline permission does not seek approval at this stage of how the site would be designed laid out or to confirm the internal road position as these matters would be addressed as part of a reserve matters application and as i think you heard this morning um the nppf is clear that in paragraph 116 applications should only be refused on highway grounds if there is an unacceptable impact on highway safety or there would be severe residual accumulative impacts and it is not considered that this proposal would lead to such impacts to raise a highway-based objection to the application um an ecological parameters plan um was required as part of the um hra for the application um um to identify the ecological features of the site and to ensure that the bat habitat is protected the proposal includes a uh 10 meter wide um landscape dark buffer on the eastern edge of the development and where lighting would also be restricted and there's conditions posed to um ensure that sort of any lighting from the proposed development once the layout is is confirmed at reserve matters would not sort of have an unacceptable impact on that corridor with that lighting on that um particular um boundary being restricted to 0.5 lux the proposal also seeks to enhance um on sites grassland provide native planting throughout uh provide log piles for invertebrates and to introduce bat and bird boxes the council's ecology department drafted an appropriate assessment which concluded no likely negative effects on the bat sack which natural england were consulted on and um subject to the mitigation measures being implemented which have been um included within the suite of conditions um no um ecology based objections are raised to the proposal i've just got a series of um site photographs um just to show you where the the show the the current application site so this um drawing is taken um from um so the proposed access point from uh freestone grove to the north so um so um that's where the existing development and the access sort of would be coming in um sort of through where um a car is parked there uh the other access on the west um uh would be sort of located where these sort of like planters are and again with the existing development on on either side uh this photograph has been taken from the public right of way to the south which is uh west one uh and this is looking towards the site so you can see the existing development there to the north and along the western boundary um and and that sort of just provides a kind of view of the existing um site uh this photograph is again taken from the public right of way to the south um and again you can see the existing housing um sort of along that western boundary uh this is taken from coach road um which is located to the east of the site um and um you can see where the public right of way so the entrance to that is there from coach road and again with sort of existing development of the knoll and to the right hand side of the picture and the existing houses associated with the millbrook development and sort of took to the west the back there uh this photograph is taken uh further north along coach road and again facing that western boundary and again with um dwellings sort of visible along that northern edge and along that that western boundary and this sort of demonstrates the sort of urban fringe character of the site and as previously mentioned uh this proposal represents a departure from the adopted virtual core strategy due to the proposal representing speculative development on an unallocated site located outside the settlement boundary for westbury however the emerging local plan sets out how the council should deliver new housing growth in the tray bridge um housing market area which includes westbury up to 2038. within this there is a need to provide a further 570 homes in westbury which this application would contribute towards um and again as gemma and kenny have both sort of explained um sort of explained um earlier this morning um following the government's recent changes to the mppf in december and changes to how housing numbers have been calculated the council has moved from a figure of 1 917 homes per annum to 3525 homes per annum which represents a 95 sorry 84 percent increase to the number of homes compared to previous calculations and furthermore these changes have resulted in the council needing to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply with a five percent buffer which has resulted in a significant increase in the amount of housing the council needs to provide these changes have impacted our current housing land supply figure which is now around 2.03 it is considered that this proposal is located in a sustainable location surrounded on three sides by existing residential properties with the eastern side of the town being considered an acceptable location for further sorry future housing growth in the emerging local plan this proposal would provide up to 40 dwellings with up to 12 affordable housing units uh the benefit of which carries significant weight at a time when we need to boost our housing supply um so to conclude um section 17 um sorry section 11 of the um the um the report from page 124 sort of um sets out um again that the changes to um the mppf um and again details that the council now has to provide a significant increase in housing um and as as a result the presumption in favor of sustainable development also known as the tilted balance applies as set out in paragraph 11 of the mppf in this case there are no protection policies that would prevent the tilted ballot balance being engaged and there are no technical objections on which to refuse the application um it's considered that the provision of up to 40 additional dwellings would contribute towards addressing the council's housing shortfall and meeting affordable housing needs which have been afforded very significant weight in the planning balance also the site's location access to public service links and services and so transport links and services and the economic benefits arising from the development both in the short term and long term and the contribution towards sale are given significant weight and moderate weight has also been given to the section 106 contributions the provision of open space play provision bat habitat and improvements to the section 106 uh sorry improvements to the um sorry the public right of way and to this to further south of the site it is duly noted however that the proposed development would be on an unallocated site located outside the defined settlement boundary for westbury which represents a departure from our current core strategy however offices consider that the harms attributed to the plan plan conflict disruption to existing residents during the construction phase and the loss of agricultural land do not significantly outweigh the benefit of delivering new homes at this stage when we we need to provide it therefore limited weight has been afforded to such harms therefore officers are recommending that this application be approved subject to section 106 agreement and planning conditions thank you chair thank you appreciate that um questions from members please adrian that's all right howard please call me adrian i'll get elizabeth to do it one day um three questions really um what has changed now that it's this wasn't included in the local emerging plan and you explained why before what has changed since then that it's deemed that it should now be part of the emerging local plan which is effectively what we would be doing if we passed it the second question is um there's a coach road that goes along the whole side of it why is no access being given there is there a local reason for that because presumably when the emerging plan comes out on the other side of the coach road coach road will be used anyway um but the third thing which as you will have heard from my previous application i'm more concerned about is you mentioned that there is 40 houses up to in 40 houses um and we'll see if the developer asks for 60 when the time comes uh but if it was 40 percent affordable as you mentioned there rather than social but even if it was 40 of the affordable housing that would be 16 but you're saying there's only 12 in this is there a reason why they're not going to comply with our new emerging plan which does insist on 40 thank you um with regards to the um local plan i did um previously approach um our colleagues in spatial just to see why this site wasn't being included as part of that emerging plan um policy for um sort of housing on that eastern side and i think um at the time when um sort of looking at site allocations was sort of being confirmed by spatial this site was looking to be progressed through the neighborhood plan which is why it wasn't sort of included as part of that um sort of why the site allocation i guess um and why this sort of site has sort of been kept away from that sort of wider um land at bratton road um um application um i i think um during the sort of hra process um the um both um natural england and um our ecology team was sort of satisfied with the information that had been provided by the applicant um and sort of the mitigation measures which i think sort of overcome some of the um initial concerns with this site allocation when it was being looked at as part of the neighborhood plan um which i think is sort of why the application is sort of coming as it has um and why it sort of hasn't been formed as part of that sort of wider sort of emerging um site allocation as part of the the local plan um does that answer your first question and your second question um coach road is a single um lane um that has very limited car uh passing places and um i think there would be some concern and i don't know whether um chris would want to sort of add to that but i think there would be some concern sort of having sort of an access coming off of that that road to sort of serve um the the development here um and again also the um the uh concept plan um which again there should be a copy on your agendas bear with me a second um hang on sorry bear with me i thought i put a snip of the um of the proposed so what page within the agenda yeah what i saw what i wanted to just point out is that the land of brass and roads so i could have just put the drawing up um that this this um potential site allocation and again it hasn't been confirmed it hasn't gone through full examination yet is actually showing the access to be um sort of off um um birch and road to the south rather than through coach road and again i think there probably would be um some highway harm in using such a narrow um road to sort of access sort of additional housing um from either this application or from that emerging site which is why sort of alternative options have been sort of looked at to accommodate the access routes for those sites um in terms of your third question um the again the um emerging plan carries very limited weight at this moment and our um our um housing team were happy to accept a 30 percent um affordable housing um um uh limit on this proposal so that that's why we're not looking to to deliver 40 percent affordable housing off this site and why it's that's very disappointing after the constructive conversations i've had with them because we come to they come to this meeting they don't come as a housing officer to justify where they've done it and we can't challenge it and when i've spoken to them they said that 40 would always be the norm unless there was exceptional circumstances and nobody has mentioned any exceptional circumstances in this case so i would again be reluctant to allow this to go through without a 40 which is wiltshire council's preferred option all i would say on that is i think in accordance with our current core strategy and i think with this site we it currently sort of recommends a 30 percent affordable housing limit which is why and given that the that's the current policy that we're still determining applications against that's why the 30 percent has been sort of put put forward um at this instance rather than looking at that emerging policy as this is um not an outline it's purely outline when it comes to uh full planning application if the emerging plan has been approved will we then have to insist on 40 percent at that point i'm not sure i'm gonna have to go to kenny for that um thank you chair well if an application comes in in a full submission format then the whole principle would be opened up again so if if we've got a adopted plan that requires the 40 percent affordable housing the answer to the question would be yes we would have to insist on 40 percent but if it comes in as a reserve matters application following an outline then the principle isn't open for reconsideration and the terms of the section 106 will still be the current position which is the 30 percent so just to clarify chair some areas of wiltshire requires 30 percent affordable housing some 40 percent which councillors are aware of and westbury is in the 30 area so in terms of policy westbury requires 30 percent not 40 percent however there is a scenario here that if this goes to section 106 stage and the emerging plan becomes an adopted plan before a decision is made bearing in mind that you're only granting a resolution today that would be material change and that would then trigger potentially bringing a report back to this committee for a further review or as you're the decision makers today you can put in a clear trigger within the section 106 that if this application is determined um after a weltshire made plan has been adopted then the requirements of that plan would um apply thank you kenny i would hope that we would put that in carol um i just had a query on the net density of of the housing um i noticed on the holt one uh 55 houses on that site it was a net density of 18 um per hectare um on this site 40 houses but it's 38 dwellings per hectare which kind of suggests it's rather crowded but i i just wondered if if um in our design plan which we just adopted last year whether we had anything about numbers of housing per hectare and also is there an industry standard um or or best practice um number um i was just curious about that um again i i think that again really sort of comes down to sort of the individual constraints of different applications and sort of what sort of buffers might be needed um again this one is um quite different to the hot one in as much that it's got quite a lot of sort of existing existing development sort of on three sides and and i think the 38 um sort of um hector sorry dwellings per hectare um does seem to be sort of another figure that i've sort of seen another application sort of across the county and again it is important to mention this is only an up to sort of 40 dwellings so again knowing that they need to provide those sort of buffers around the existing hedgerows um you know that we might see reserve matters that might see a slight drop in numbers obviously not going beyond the 40 that this outline is sort of seeking to to look at and in the report again it does sort of highlight what our um sort of work to design guide sort of terms of sort of distances between houses and in terms of garden sizes so again we want to see that sort of being reflected as part of any future reserve matters application um so um again that sort of detail is is really sort of to be considered um as part of a reserve matters when we sort of have confirmation of what that sort of layout is going to look like and which which isn't sort of confirmed at this stage yeah good question carol thank you but you're not aware of any industry standard or no i'm not no um um could i just ask um similar question to the last application we looked at is there any indication that this will be since it's an outline application when it might be possible to deliver it start construction that's going to ask the same question and again i've got the similar conditions that gemma had originally put on her committee report um of um so that the three-year um restriction um again i i could see about whether the applicant would be willing to um sort of move that to a two year um so again that's something that i i can have a conversation with um a bit like what with the gemma's application but um otherwise it's still the the three three year as sort of set out within the committee report which is the standard condition kenny can i take the unusual step of asking tara or ellen if we've got a developer here for this application no we haven't i'm afraid okay well on that basis i would say to the committee as a decision maker if you're minded to support this then clearly in the scenario we're in for the housing land supply you make the judgment whether you think it is necessary if they're saying it's necessary to bring the housing for housing land supply then let's make the call and say let's not just slavishly apply the three-year test let's say bring it forward two years like the last case i think it's it's well founded and it's been argued at appeals before previously that if a developer is serious in bringing a site forward then let's place that as a requirement within any permission thank you kenny yes i'm disappointed the developer isn't here to answer that so i think that's quite reasonable yes i just wanted to mention i mean it's a 2023 application so it's been going around for a little while so one would hope that at this stage they'd sort of clarify things thank you james thank you very much um page 121 uh regarding drainage and flood risk um one of paragraphs says the applicant replied to the lf llfa's consultation request confirming that the scheme would deliver a reduction of the discharge rate for the one in one year event and i'm not too sure what a one in one year event is um yeah so i think that might have been a typo sorry i think that should have read one one one 100 so apologies that's that's not really impressive really thank you thank you sorry thank you sorry about that thank you any more questions from the committee please no in which case then i'd like to go to my first speaker our first speaker patty griffin thank you hi thank you for allowing me the time to speak uh having said that i find it interesting that this meeting has been called with such little notice uh booked during a working day and during the easter holidays when the majority of the residents it affects are either at work or on their easter holidays i feel very passionately against this proposed build it is our neighborhood our houses and our families that it's going to affect long term and no consideration has been given to the impact of the build due to the construction traffic it's not like the build is accessed off a main road with no neighbors it is accessed through an established housing estate past people's houses children including my own love to play on freestone grove among other roads on scooters and bikes etc if this bill goes through they will be unable to as it is unsafe i feel that this build is inappropriate and unsafe for all residents as uh to bring an example the tragic incident in dilton marsh last year uh to use it as an example where a child was killed on a wheeled car reversing uh by a car reversing um because it wasn't seen due to parked cars the field shouldn't be considered as a viable site uh due to its location it was removed from the neighborhood uh plan due to the habitat of bats as previously mentioned however the owner um has cut down which isn't illustrated in the photos has cut down all of the hedgerows um surrounding the entire site except on coach road um that hasn't been brought up in this um as already previously mentioned there are approved builds on uh west brit main way and off broughton road um which don't go past people's houses uh although this field is private property it is a green lung in the middle of a busy residential estate and more proposed construction of bratton road why not leave a vital green space within an already built up area and not force the current residents to endure more unwanted construction traffic the committee report mark remarks very significant weight on the benefit of new housing for new residents i think no thought has been given to the current residents why are we prioritizing intelligent potential residents over current ones we have endured six years of construction traffic there have been many issues relating to standards of roads drainage issues which have led to the roads being dug up multiple times to rectify the same issues the latest of which is starting next week to replace the ends of which roads which have been will be completed for the third time this has not been a which have not been adopted currently by the uh the council due to these issues again the report issues the benefit for future residents mentioning the access for commuting routes however the road network is inadequate for the current number of cars and certainly cannot uh have construction traffic as these are occupied houses um by residents they require parking for their own cars and these parked cars will be on these access roads and it's been noted in the uh in the report that there will be a stipulation where parked cars will not be allowed on those access roads so where a resident current residents supposed to park freestone grove has been proposed as an access route construction traffic it isn't wide enough for um for vehicles for example our bin lorries struggle on collection days how is it going to be an access route and also buffalo road is a pinch point not wide enough for large vehicles since the new pavements have been put in i urge councillors to object to this plan and preserve the green space within a built-up residential estate and keep our children and current residents safe thank you very much thank you paddy um taryn usually please thank you hi yes sorry i don't think i can be as eloquent as my fellow speakers i only found out about this last night thanks to my neighbor so this is just speaking more from the heart than anything else um my issue is that the development is predicated on the fact that it's piggybacking on barrett david walson's estate management already so the drainage and the roads they're going to be doing it the drain goes through that area it's supposed to come out into freestone grove you know that and that's been blocked on a regular basis and that's with like two or three houses and it can't handle that at the moment i don't think they've pressure tested it enough to do it i don't think it's going to handle it um but the main thing is really the road access i know it's great to say oh yeah you can get the cars through there you know the highways agency about look is fine you don't and you can underestimate how bad the road layout is it's debacle um uh what's the name of your buffalo road is is a terrible place but coming into buffalo road from the um roundabout there's an area of road there which is so badly designed i can only describe it as gladiatorial um it's dangerous so people come flying around the corners yeah so it's a bit in the top sort of just off the roundabout you can see that tiny little curve there yes there you can't drive around there without coming out into the other lane it's really really quite dangerous so far people have been saying about the children there and how people are going to get run over nothing's happened yet thank god but it may well happen i don't know how they're going to get construction traffic through there they struggled getting construction traffic through when there was no pavements and you could drive up onto the verges without any problem and now we've got parked cars everywhere and it's not going to do it now freestone grove is a is a little cul-de-sac now i know the name of every person in that cul-de-sac for the first time since i was knee high to a grasshopper all the kids playing the road this is going to destroy that and and like paddy mentioned they've ripped out all the mature hedgerows already they didn't care about that they don't care about coming here to defend their their plan in front of everybody they just quite happily just go yeah blase this is going to get through and i'd really like it not to get through the access is there but it's not enough it will never be enough you get one part car in the wrong place nobody's going to get into that site it's bad enough at the moment i'll drive a tiny little car and i have to reverse back to let people through and there's issues all the time it's a constant stress and it's great on paper fantastic have a drive around there at any time of the day just see what it's like it's almost impossible and they still haven't finished what they've done properly so i don't know what else i can say but um that's kind of how i feel about it thank you darren point taken cancer philip harcourt please thank you good afternoon mr chairman councillors ladies and gentlemen i speak on behalf of westbury town council in my capacity as a town councillor but also the deputy chair of the neighborhood plan committee and deputy chair of the highways planning and development committee westbury town council is vehemently opposed to this application which it believes is inappropriate unnecessary and even premature the applicant has relied upon a draft allocation of the site in an early iteration of the westbury neighborhood plan then for 30 not the 40 houses under what was then policy ddh5 that policy was to be read in conjunction with policy ddh4 for a further 65 houses on bytham park uh at excuse me at regulation 16 stage the ddh4 allocation had to be removed because wheelchair council decided that they wanted to be selected as a site for a special needs school so we lost 65 of our allocated houses and then on ddh5 this is the application site here we lost that on the grounds of natural england objecting to its site as it's an important foraging habitat the town council is then was then extremely disturbed that following the application here and the applicant's tree survey report approximately 75 percent of the perimeter hedgerow and habitat was destroyed by the applicant or by the landowner it's very difficult to find out which was behind it because i think each blamed the other but that was an appalling massacre of habitat so it makes me sick to think here uh the applicant saying all the wonderful things they're going to do about replacing bat habitat when they've already desecrated what was there um i just don't know how they're going to deliver an appropriate biodiversity net gain when the when the baseline has been 75 destroyed and i just think this is a very very cynical process that this application has followed um the afterline application fails to address the important issues of access and of highways construction management biodiversity as it's deferred those for later determination but these are all issues that were raised by uh objectives and residents 40 houses in one third more than previously promoted is one third more than previously promoted in the draft neighborhood plan and we've already heard councils questioning the density on here at the neighborhood plan stage we looked into density and when it was before is objected to by natural england we felt 30 was the maximum number of houses and i'm still of that opinion the the red line drawing which you have on page 92 which conveniently is up on the screen at the moment is incorrect and highly misleading as its errors conceal the real access issues narrow streets and tight junctions if you look at roughly in the middle of that thing there's a splay on a corner there that splay does not exist that if they show it as if that'd be very easy for construction lorries to come in and swing around that corner they cannot only yesterday we had a low loader with some uh earth moving equipment to do some of the tarmacking there and he struggled to get out of there he pulled in there and offloaded there and he couldn't get his construction vehicle out and this is repeated across the whole estate on that on particularly on that route you've heard about the the further up north from that the the junction between maize drive and buffalo road that is impossible even for a small too small car to pass in imposing so opposing domestic traffic at the junction of buffalo road maize drive and with sherry road already causes major issues there's no prospect of construction traffic utilizing these junctions without major inconvenience or danger to residents especially to young children who have you heard play safely and happily in some of the streets i might add the the reason some of the reason they play in the streets is that there was a condition on the on the millbrook development that the play area would be open when before 75 percent of the houses uh were occupied that's that um point was reached reached over three years ago and still the the uh that has not been enforced by the planning officers that that should have been open and this is where the residents have little little um reliance upon conditions being being um being pushed by officers to ensure that things decided in this committee actually happen um we've also we've also seen a comment in the in the officer report that the that the applicant is suggesting that in order to facilitate construction traffic they will ban um on the street car parking during the construction phase so what this application means is that 100 plus residents will be told that for two years they will not be allowed to pull up outside their houses and that is simply unacceptable and i'm sure none of you would be happy if somebody came along and told you you couldn't stop outside your house to disabled visitors elderly relatives letting children out close to the front door all of that would be banned and i think that just highlights the failings of this application i think a lot of these these constraints would best be made clear to members of this committee through a site visit before any decision is made because a lot of these things look as i point out might look fine on a plan but when you actually see it in reality it's a different matter residents are concerned of the construction access being via freestone grove which is a small residential cul-de-sac which is not sufficiently wide to access the site but only five meters in place places especially especially especially for construction purposes even in the draft neighborhood plan the town council requested alternative access to the site for construction purposes and believe that there are several opportunities that were that we discussed with the applicant in this case and they declined to to follow up on any of them details of construction management should have been provided to to address these concerns at the consultation phase particularly for the access to the construction traffic the development depends upon roads through millbrook that are not suitable for traffic without major disruption to residents millbrook served by a network of minor residential streets which do not lend themselves to becoming through roads for the proposed development the resulting additional traffic would change the character of millbrook and the dynamics of the community to the detriment of the residential amenity and potentially highway safety residents are unhappy to see construction management access left for reserve matters consent and monitoring by officers for six years residents have suffered from the failure of the council to police adherence to the millbrook construction management plan and to enforce developers planning obligations in 2021 this council refused an application in trowbridge on the basis of there was an unacceptable it was unacceptable in view of its failure to fully demonstrate how and when it would integrate with the wider allocation this is another cancer harcourt class could bring your thank you this is another identical situation we would respectfully request members to vote against the application at least until acceptable construction access solutions arrived at the applicant site application site will serve a better purpose as a green lung the heart of a larger development including the local plan proposal for 250 houses to the east is it really worth upsetting 600 plus council taxpayers just to add a handful of new houses to the housing supply pod so thank you mr jim many thanks appreciate that i'm sorry local member please good to see you councillor gordon king thank you thank you mr chairman and can i say how nice it is to see you back on your feet very good so i would also like to thank very verity for her report and um i also know that the recommendation of the headroom reported um and will be as brief as possible in my reply to that okay i do not expect that any of you would like to hear an argument against that recommendation especially as no statutory um consultee has raised an objection however you should know that it is a deeply unpopular application residents of freestone grove and adjacent groves through um though they thought they were moving into a quiet cul-de-sac that cul-de-sac was always close to the building site and for years upon years and until only recently has peace after construction allowed anything like normal living this application plunges them right back into the construction of construction disrupting their lives for at least the next three years they wonder and i wonder why robert hitchens did not bring have the foresight to include this application in the original indicative plan for millbrook if they had it might have been built first and no one would have been inconvenienced again if they had um beg your pardon consequently they did not i do not and the can council do not appreciate the scattergun approach to planning it is unnecessarily disruptive to people's lives as you have heard residents of freestone grove are rightly concerned that the road networks at millbrook are not wide enough and for construction traffic of you as you have heard the report acknowledges the variation of widths but suggests that overall they provide the minimum width allowed that minimum width does not consider the number of hard right turns right hand turns in an overcrowded space caused by on street parking and children playing residents have already experienced an excess of construction affected living and they do not do not deserve any more construction traffic on street parking and children playing do not mix i agree with the residents who highlight resident who highlighted the possibility of the emergence of the emergence of a loop system that encompasses freestone grove and cheviot road that would produce an unacceptable logjam at the junction with buffalo road this is unacceptable the housing density for this application is 38 dwellings per hectare of up to 40 dwellings whilst the density for 55 houses in the previous application at halt is only 18 dwellings per hectare you know which is or which is not correct i contend that 38 dwellings per hectare is too great a density for the small plot which is enveloped by the historic coach road and it is historic if this was a building it would be listed the report also makes a point that this is that this is also known as site ddh5 as identified by the westbury neighborhood plan along with another site ddh4 nearby where both sites were withdrawn leaving westbury no housing allocation the report does not mention that ddh4 was removed was removed by wiltshire council for the building of a school for me smeh affected children or that westbury town council removed ddh5 when a struck when strongly advised by natural england that ddh5 is a site for significant ecological interest westbury town council considered that such a that such a vision of this site would benefit the location as it would become an oasis of biodiversity and ecology net gain in the crowded spaces but of overdevelopment we regret that now natural england saw fit to remove that objection we cannot currently offer a five-year housing land supply so the tilted balance of the nppf applies however it should be recognized that the tilted balance does not trump the protection of localism provided by neighborhood planning it merely forces a rebalancing of the relative weights of decisions the decisions western town council placed a high priority on this area as a place of the ecological net gain and should provide sufficient weight by itself to counter any tilted balance and as you have heard previously that um that ecological net gain was further weakened by the destruction of the site by the applicant himself chair i object to this application for two reasons first on the grounds that the development of the south site does not outweigh localism or the obvious net gain in biodiversity and in economic and ecological growth and that secondly that the stated housing density of development is too great for the size of the plot contrary to which council's core strategy sections on climate change and high quality development thank you thank you gordon i appreciate that um chris i'm gonna come to you first if i may because there's a number of highways implications there um on the face of it this uh access route does look pretty catastrophic um i'm surprised it's perhaps had the go ahead it has but perhaps you'd like to explain that yeah of course so the millbrook estate is obviously a fairly new estate um the roads are residential roads by nature um they're built to modern residential road design standards um generally they're of a width of 5.5 meters there are some variation with regards to that across the route towards the site um i think there was two main issues raised with regards to traffic i think firstly with regards to traffic from the development once the developments built um i think the five meter 5.5 meter wide uh residential roads would be sufficient to accommodate the additional traffic generated by 40 additional dwellings um that's notwithstanding the the bends and the turns and the narrowings within the estate um i'm of the view that that would not create an unacceptable highway concern um what seems to be more of a contentious issue is access for construction traffic um now i think as verity mentioned it's it's an outline application with all matters reserved currently um and subsequent submissions we would be expecting a construction traffic management plan to be submitted um that would include sweat path analysis for uh vehicles accessing the site to demonstrate that route is uh achievable without causing damage um to the highway or private property um i think in general it will inevitably cause disruption to local residents i think that's unavoidable um but whether it would cause an unacceptable highway safety issue um in my view i don't think it would i think there's certain measures that we can ensure are included within a construction traffic management plan that would mitigate any potential safety issues for example standard mitigation measures within a construction traffic management plan would be um suspending parking i know that's not popular um we would be heavily led by the developer with regards to their requirements for that and that would be led through the size of vehicles that they would be using for deliveries and where pinch points would be um required so generally we'd be looking around the bends um where you would hope that parking doesn't occur anyway um or infrequently um they can the parking would also be suspended with the use of police cones is generally the the way that uh it tends to be restricted in these circumstances those cones can be um uh those cones would have a time limit associated to that so they could be removed during sort of mornings and overnight to allow residents to park overnight in those areas and just restrict during the delivery hours of the development um other mitigating measures would include the size of delivery vehicles so we could restrict um the size of the vehicles delivering to the site now there will be a limit to that you know we're not going to be able to get you know transit vans only for example but um what we could prevent is large articulated vehicles such as you know 16 meter long plus articulated vehicles from accessing the site with only uh fixed axle vehicles being used they would then be more of a comparable size to a refuse collection vehicle which obviously would is already accessing the site to collect refuse and recycling um we would also expect deliveries to be staggered so that there's not two-way delivery vehicles so they do not so they do not conflict um so only when one vehicle is in the site um you know and looking to exit another vehicle is not entering at the same time um and and we would also ensure that um uh yeah that any of those vehicles we did not conflict within the highway network um like i say i think there is an undoubtedly going to be a residential amenity impact to this but i think any safety implications from the highways perspective can be satisfactorily mitigated thank you kenny thank you chair i think the other um option that does exist which um did also exist for warminster um so the councillors that sat on this very committee that determined the urban extension warminster there was a site not too um dissimilar to this where a developer would have to go through an estate and as part of the negotiations i had with the developer i said have you approached landowners for a temporary haulage route to avoid the existing estate now it's not something as part of this application because it is a future requirement the developer will have to submit to this council for its approval but in the scenario that they do come forward and we assess what they submit and don't consider their state to be suitable then we could as a committee today um force their hand to say you really should be approaching the landowner to the east to look at a temporary haulage route purely for a construction purpose it's not something that you're assessing today in any case it's just something that we're flagging up the developer that we've got concerns potentially about the existing roads being used for construction vehicles there is a scenario that chris has mentioned about and restricting the size of the vehicle that might or may not be something the developer has even considered but if they were to consider a temporary haulage route then they wouldn't be likely to be restricted to a size of a vehicle it would just be getting that third party agreement to get down coach road or through the land that's allocated in the local plan it would require obviously a submission to the council to see that it would be fit for purpose so whatever comes forward my suggestion to the committee is to say a route would be needed to make this deliverable a developer will want to convince us that their submission their solution is workable now i don't disagree with the local residents to say that the layout of that estate isn't ideal for 40 more houses and i think a developer would be ill-advised to think that i mean they're not here today unfortunately but i don't know the reasons why not but if the principle of 40 houses or up to 40 houses can be um stomached for this site then the construction is a future requirement that developer will have to satisfy this council and it is the type of application that you as a committee could say to officers you want that submission brought to this committee to make a decision on it's not usually the case that we bring those types of submissions but if this committee is so concerned about what a developer comes up with in terms of all the assessments that would need to be done for the estate road to prove that the construction route through that estate is achievable if that's what they come up with then this committee can make the um decision today that that type of application has to come back to this committee to make a decision but my point is like i made for warminster to the developer go and speak to landowners that are near your site because there's clearly a temporary foliage route option that exists and i don't know the discussions that the um neighborhood plan group had with this landowner but we've got a developer here we've got an applicant they may well force that um sort of narrative that discussion further along the lines to get some reasonable um outcomes so all i would say councillors is that the construction traffic is a future matter you're not making a call on it today it's the principle of the site um in terms of delivering potentially up to 40 houses there would have to be a decision to be made on what route is to be taken to deliver any houses and it's entirely within this committee's decision making powers to either say let's leave it to the highways officer and planning officers or if you want to say that application has to come back to this committee for a committee determination thank you kenny that's been very helpful i've seen you adrian i'll come to in just a minute verity yes there was just a couple of other points that were sort of raised and that i just thought i'll just sort of cut cover off and to do with the high um the hedgerows and um ecology matters that i thought i'd just cover off if that's okay um i i i um fully appreciate that some of the hedgerows had been removed um off the site um and i know that the the tree officer had been sort of tasked with investigating that and unfortunately she's been away the last few weeks and she's out of the office and i haven't been able to sort of get an update on where that's going um because i know that she had um sort of been tasked with looking into that and however the tree officer um had said that she wasn't convinced that a significant amount of hedgerow had been removed um and raised no objections to the the proposal um with um landscaping being a matter to be um addressed as part of a reserve um matters application again there are some conditions um associated with that recommended within the report and that the proposal does include additional tree planting within um within the existing um hedgerows um and um sort of across the the site um even though it is sort of acknowledged that there would be some loss of hedgerow to wherever those um sort of access points um will be once that's sort of fixed again a reserve matters um and um uh yeah the the um a tree officer was happy that um with the information that had been submitted to date noting that landscaping would be a matter to be um addressed as part of a reserve matters um in terms of um the existing hedgerows again our ecologist obviously picked up on the fact that some of those hedgerows had been removed and but um was um satisfied that there was sufficient space and within those existing boundaries um to reinstate hedgerows and for that to be managed for um biodiversity and again that that can be um sort of matters that we um sort of robustly consider as part of a reserve matters application and um also the proposal was seeking um uh to provide sort of a species-rich grassland um which um would help provide um prey species for bats um in addition to um uh reptiles and amphibians um so again the um ecologist was quite happy with the um sort of um mitigation measures that have been um put forward with the application which again have been secured by um condition um within the report thank you verity um adrian yes it's just a technical point really um and i don't know if kenny remembers it but there was the case that mentioned earlier in trowbridge whereby we declined the application because we didn't think the access through the estate market was sufficient uh or adequate um but the difference there was that there was a spatial plan and this land was part of it and we conditioned that they had to be part of that spatial plan and fit in with it and wait and the inspector came down on our side when they appealed it and agreed that they would have to do it in the right way and i don't see any reason why this one shouldn't fit in exactly the same bit i know it's part of an unadopted plan that we're looking at here rather than an adopted plan which is the difference between the trowbridge one but this is not part of the adopted plan either or the local plan and so i think the appropriate route here would be to say and and i think they are good genuine concerns that the the residents have on this matter that um i take on board what you said kenny about the coming to an agreement but and also uh the officer very kindly pointed out that coach road isn't sufficient and the better road would be put in and it just thinking logically this application should wait until there is an adequate route to get there um and i think kenning's given a short-term measure for it but i would prefer to see this development coming together with the other one and being a part of a larger strategic plan rather than this piecemeal approach and taking advantage of the present situation i personally think the inspector would support us on this one and i see no reason why we should object on that basis well councillor york thank you chair and i get rather concerned when established hedgerows are removed particularly just prior to a planning application because along with the hedgerows is the habitat that goes with that um was the developer trying to hide something that uh now doesn't exist um because it's moved on um there's obviously no way that we're going to find that out the other point though again i'd like to reiterate what others members are saying is this transport route i mean it it'd be a nightmare to be honest i don't see why i mean have we considered the coach road being used because it's pretty easy access to the coach road i know it's a narrow road but some form of traffic control could easily be established um to manage the uh the traffic plus um in their management plan um transport management plan they could actually have uh assigned delivery times to uh to make it easy um but to get that traffic away from the main road the uh residential roads i mean it's it's essential in my book absolutely yeah can i just ask please verity um at the very south um west of the site there is not not terribly well seen in that particular map but there is a little strip of land along the side of the houses um to the left that goes straight to bitum road or bitum road um and i just wonder if that would be possible as a it looks like scrubland on google street view um whether it would be possible to use that as a construction thing or is that not within the not all of that within the applicant's ownership so again we are sort of fixed with what um land the applicant has control over uh in terms of where possible routing can can be um uh the applicant sort of has sort of shared blue line plans but again they don't have the right sort of access route to be able to sort of join to the existing um a sort of highway and towards the south of the site to enable sort of an alternative to be explored unfortunately so we are sort of tied with with that sort of red line and what what lands within the applicant's control yes it's unfortunate isn't it that they can't get permission to use that because it would be at least in the short term um a much less uh troublesome um to the residents thank you james cancer shepherd thank you mr chairman um highways officer mentioned about having a one-way delivery through the estate and i was thinking if you can manage and monitor one-way delivery through an estate or you could do it on the road on the east thank you just come back on that chris did you catch that yeah i'd just like to comment on coach road really because it's been raised a few times and i haven't said anything on it yet i mean in terms of um access for long-term development it's not something that the highway authority would recommend or promote because it is a narrow single lane um road there's also what is not clear on the site plan there is a low and narrow bridge to the north of the site um which would sort of prohibit access probably for construction from that direction notwithstanding that as kenny suggested there is an option um certainly from the south that um a whole road may be feasible um it would be challenging as well um due to the width of coach road and um and i i don't know the width of it off the top of my head but it's probably going to be around the three meter mark um so with large vehicles as well um making any turns uh there is potential damage to the highway in that respect um which is a further consideration um so it's not as easy as it may seem on plan to access via coach road um but it is an option nonetheless i could you both in just a minute kenny thank you chair um just a reminder that the illustrative construction traffic plan is not a detailed plan that the applicants are asking the committee to determine it's it's their suggestion that the routing could come through the estate i would just reiterate that there may be another option i i asked the same question you did um councillor about that option for the southwestern corner um many weeks ago and the applicants came back and said they don't own it so they don't have control over it but that doesn't stop them approaching that landowner to see if they can get that temporary route through and i i secured it with persimmon and for warminster not without troubles but we ultimately got it and as chris said coach road may be an option or the land to the east that's allocated in the emerging local plan could be the option it's it's options and because it's a future requirement that developer will have to secure this council's approval for i would suggest that you don't just refuse the whole application because that is a next step that would have to be approved by this council um the construction route isn't part of this application it's clearly part of making this scheme deliverable and unless they convince the council the route that they come up with is as approved as appropriate and safe then they will struggle to get the site um approved ultimately if they don't come through with the requisite information so that's my suggestion to you councillors that we've got an application here where there is again follow-up applications it's just the principle unlike the holt application that had the accesses in detail this isn't this is just purely principle for the site um for housing how about if i come back to james the real issue really for me is the access i mean this is the absolute keystone to this whole development yes and i think really it's of such importance that i would like to see it to come back to this committee i'm happy in principle that the actual plot of land can be used although i still think it's over development but it is absolutely crucial it's not developed through that estate so i'd like to see it come back thank you i agree i'll come back no hand just a minute agent i've seen you uh richard cancer britain nothing could persuade me that the current proposed access is sensible it would involve massive disruption to a great many existing residents and we really shouldn't impose that on them as long as the red line includes that access route i would have to vote against this and therefore i think the idea of a deferral to allow the applicant to consider uh options to that uh would present a way forward and if you like chairman i'll move that i might come back to you a minute on that then buff that's okay adrian that's the foster yes i i i'm with the discussion about transport obviously all the way but i am equally concerned as was carol and i think gordon is as well about the density and i think 30 houses as was in the local plan originally when it was ddh5 i think uh is more appropriate and i think i'd like to have that enforced as well and then if we did the 40 housing it would be 12 12 anyway um this is quite a dense area of housing so therefore there is a reason why it should be denser than the whole 12 it is an urban development but 40 is just too many whereas 30 would be much more appropriate right i'm going to come back to cancer britain then for richard for your proposal if i may your motion then i move that this is deferred to allow the applicant uh an opportunity to consider alternative access proposals is that okay yep it's okay with me you i have a second do we have a second it's great can you you put when you put your mic on yes sorry we're not concerned about access for when the houses are built quite the same as we are for construction but i think if we've said appropriate access for construction needs to be provided which would meet kenny and um the highways just that the halt one came up with the right answer to bit right from the beginning if it was one presented to us with the right answer at the beginning then we would be in a better position yeah okay so you'd be prepared to second it on that basis the word appropriate is it is appropriate right yeah because councillor foster previously referred to 40 houses being too much if you're voting for a motion solely to defer for the applicant to come back with information on an appropriate routing for construction vehicles does that mean that this this motion is purely on construction vehicles well no i'm thinking that we ought to include the rest as well if there's if there's support within the committee to say to come back with an appropriate construction route and appropriate number of housing which we deem as 30 then i'd be happy to support you'd be happy with that and well in terms of the application it does give you the option because the application is for up to 40. it's not rigid it's not 40. so you're not in the scenario where you're asking the applicant to make material change they are setting the bar themselves as 40. so in terms of that motion that's certainly something officers can work with um councillors thank you um james did you want to go back to something just briefly while we have the opportunity i think we should do both at the same time yeah absolutely you're right i agree i'm just going to put a bit of a span in the works because is it possible at this stage to put in two years instead of three i'm just sorry kenny sorry yes again that would apply to this and we could have that discussion with the applicant yeah so that when it comes back to this committee would you have a clear response yeah and you'd be happy to second that agent okay i'm not comfortable with deferrals but i don't think we've got a lot of choice with this one um because i think it's a muddle as it stands at the moment and there's just too much that hasn't been addressed so i'm going to go to the vote on this then are we all aware of what it is if you've got it there you've come from verity oh so did you you want to come back or something sorry chair um i realized the direction of travel but um it's just sort of incumbent upon me to mention about the right of appeal for non-determination if we defer but obviously members are fully aware of that when they're making their decision but i do just have to mention that to you well i'm hoping it will be back here before it gets that far of course and given that there is a previous one where the inspector did decline it because there wasn't appropriate access i think we're a strong ground on this one so i think under the circumstances i'm comfortable with the proposal um and the second with those three provisos um added in there so i'm going to go to the vote then please all in favor please and that is unanimous thank you much indeed thank you thank you officers thank you members of the public um and west britain council and once again thank you all for your indulgence with me over the last electoral cycle and all the very best to you all thank you thank you