The Strategic Planning Committee of Wiltshire Council is scheduled to meet on Tuesday 16 December 2025 to discuss planning appeals, updates, and a planning application for the redevelopment of land south of Westwells Road, Neston. The meeting will be held at County Hall in Trowbridge.

Here are the topics scheduled for discussion:

Planning Application: Land South of Westwells Road, Neston

The committee will consider planning application PL/2024/05527 for the redevelopment of land south of Westwells Road, Neston. The proposal involves the redevelopment of the site to deliver an extension to the existing Spring Park data centre campus. The development would consist of:

• A free-standing data centre building
• Energy, power, and water infrastructure
• Site access and internal roads
• Site security arrangements
• Diverted public rights of way
• Hard and soft, green and blue, landscaping
• Other ancillary and auxiliary forms of development

The planning application report included in the Public Reports Pack notes that the application site comprises land not presently allocated for development, but it is brownfield land, having previously been developed with structures associated with its former defence use. The proposed development would be a sustainable form of development which would accord with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and local plan policies. The report also notes that the NPPF provides strong support for data centres, in terms of local plans identifying sites for these uses and for planning decisions to recognise and address the specific locational requirements… making provision for clusters or networks of knowledge and data-driven industries; and for new, expanded -- facilities and infrastructure …(including data centres) .

The planning application report states that the proposal would be a sustainable form of development achieving one of the highest levels of BREEAM¹ at very good whilst not introducing significant levels of traffic at the post construction stage.

The report notes that there have been a large number of objections to the proposal, and lists the following concerns:

• Traffic during construction and operation
• Drainage and flooding
• Impact on wildlife, including bats
• Noise and light pollution
• Visual impact
• Impact on local infrastructure
• Sustainability

Planning Appeals and Updates

The committee will receive details of completed and pending appeals. The Appeals Report included in the report pack lists planning appeals received between 12 September 2025 and 5 December 2025 relating to decisions made at Strategic Committee, and planning appeals decided between those dates.

The following appeals have been received:

• An appeal against the decision to refuse outline planning permission for up to 70 dwellings, open space, ecological enhancements, play space, associated infrastructure, access, parking, servicing and landscaping at Land off Woodrow Road, Melksham (PL/2024/10674).
• An appeal against the decision to approve with conditions the erection of up to 300 dwellings; land for local community use or building; open space and dedicated play space and service infrastructure and associated works on land South of Snarlton Farm, Melksham (PL/2024/07097).

The following appeal decisions have been received:

• An appeal against the decision to approve with conditions the erection of up-to 49 dwellings, accesses from Church Road, Laverstock, Salisbury (20/11598/OUT) has been allowed with conditions.
• An appeal against the decision to approve with conditions outline planning permission for up to 55 residential units at Land off Sherston Road, Malmesbury (PL/2024/06897) has been allowed with conditions.

Land East of Church Road, Laverstock, Salisbury

The appeal decision relating to Land East of Church Road, Laverstock, Salisbury (20/11598/OUT) notes that Wiltshire Council refused planning permission because of conflict with the development plan for the area, but the council stated in its appeal statement that it would not defend the reason for refusal, because under the provisions of the current iteration of the NPPF a five-year housing land supply cannot be demonstrated. The Inspector, E Pickernell, allowed the appeal, noting that the Council can now demonstrate only 2.03 years of housing supply, which represents a significant shortfall in housing provision in the area. The Inspector gave significant weight to the contribution the appeal scheme would make to housing supply, and moderate weight to the economic and social benefits of the scheme.

The Inspector found that the proposal would conflict with Core Policy (CP) 1, 2 and 23 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy and the Laverstock and Ford Communities Neighbourhood Plan 2021 2036 because the site is in a small village, outside of a settlement boundary and is not infill. However, because the Council cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites, these policies which relate to the delivery of housing are deemed to be out of date.

The Inspector considered the effect of the proposed development on the integrity of protected species, and undertook an appropriate assessment. The appeal site lies within the catchment of the River Avon Special Area of Conservation (SAC), the Zones of Influence (ZOI) of the Great Yews Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI)/SAC, the Salisbury Plan SPA, the Porton Down SPA and the New Forest SAC/SPA/Ramsar/SSSI site. The Inspector concluded that the proposals would not adversely affect the integrity of these habitat sites.

Land off Sherston Road, Malmesbury

The appeal decision relating to Land off Sherston Road, Malmesbury (PL/2024/06897) notes that the main issues were whether the site would be a suitable location for residential development in consideration of local and national policies, with particular regard to the accessibility of the site for pedestrians, and whether the proposal would make suitable contributions towards infrastructure requirements.

The Inspector, B Plenty, found that the site would be a suitable location for housing and provide sustainable access to a range of goods and services for pedestrians, cyclists and bus and train users. As such, the site would not be heavily reliant on private car journeys and would provide realistic alternative travel options for future occupiers. The Inspector also found that the proposal would make suitable and necessary contributions towards infrastructure requirements.

The Inspector noted that it was undisputed between parties that the Council cannot demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply, with a provision of 2.42 years, causing a substantial shortfall.

The Inspector concluded that there was conflict with the locational requirements of the development plan. However, the Inspector's findings indicate that the development would be sustainably located and that several benefits would be delivered. In the absence of any identified harm, these considerations indicate that despite conflict with the development plan, the decision should be made other than in accordance with it.