The Western Area Planning Committee of Wiltshire Council met on Wednesday 19 August 2026. The primary item scheduled for discussion was an outline planning application for residential development at Land North of Berryfield Lane, Melksham. The meeting also included a section for public participation, where questions and statements from members of the public were scheduled to be heard.

Outline Planning Application for Berryfield Lane, Melksham

The committee was scheduled to consider an outline planning application for up to 58 dwellings at Land North of Berryfield Lane, Melksham, SN12 6DT¹. The application, submitted by Martin Grant Homes, sought permission for residential development and the formation of new access points, with all matters reserved other than access.

The report pack indicated a recommendation to grant planning permission, subject to conditions and the completion of a Section 106 legal agreement². This agreement would cover various contributions and provisions, including 30% affordable housing (17 units), contributions towards highways, public rights of way, education, open space, sports pitches, waste and recycling, ecology monitoring, and safeguarding land for the Melksham Canal Link route³.

Key considerations for the application included:

• Principle of Development and Housing Land Supply: The report noted Wiltshire Council's inability to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply, which engages the tilted balance under paragraph 11(d) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)⁴. It was highlighted that recent appeal decisions, including the Snarlton Farm case, suggested that conflicts with the Wiltshire Core Strategy (WCS) and the Joint Melksham Neighbourhood Plan (JMNP2) might carry limited weight due to their age and the housing land supply deficit⁵.
• Safeguarding the Melksham Canal Route: A significant aspect of the discussion was the safeguarding of land for the proposed Melksham Canal Link, a project supported by WCS Core Policies 16 and 53, and JMNP2 Policy 12⁶. Through negotiations, the applicant had revised the plans to accommodate this route, with the land intended for surface water attenuation until the canal is delivered⁷.
• Design and Visual Impacts: While detailed design matters were reserved for a future application, parameter plans indicated a commitment to a landscape-led vision, with significant green space and landscaped boundaries⁸. The proposed density was noted as modest, considered acceptable for an edge-of-village location, especially given the land safeguarded for the canal⁹.
• Loss of Agricultural Land: The site was identified as Grade 2 agricultural land, classified as best and most versatile (BMV). However, the report indicated that the loss of 3.7 hectares of BMV land was considered a small loss and unlikely to warrant refusal, especially when weighed against the benefits of the development¹⁰.
• Impact on Heritage Assets: The site itself contained no designated heritage assets. While there were Grade II listed cottages nearby, the proposed development was considered to cause less than substantial harm to their setting, with mitigation measures proposed¹¹. Archaeological investigations were recommended to be secured by condition¹².
• Highway Safety and Drainage: The proposed access arrangements were considered acceptable by the Local Highway Authority, subject to conditions and contributions¹³. The site was located in Flood Zone 1, and a detailed drainage strategy, including Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS), was proposed, with the Lead Local Flood Authority raising no objections subject to conditions¹⁴. The strategy also aimed to provide betterment to existing drainage and potentially benefit the future canal link¹⁵.
• Ecology and Biodiversity: Surveys indicated the presence of protected species, including bats, but the proposed mitigation measures and revised layout were considered sufficient to avoid undue harm, subject to conditions securing a Landscape and Ecology Management Plan (LEMP) and a Lighting Plan¹⁶. A Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) of 10% was required, with the applicant proposing a gain of over 29% for habitat units¹⁷.

The report concluded that, despite conflicts with some local planning policies, the substantial benefits of the proposal, particularly in terms of housing delivery and affordable housing, along with the safeguarding of the canal route, outweighed the identified harms. The presumption in favour of sustainable development under NPPF paragraph 11(d) was considered to apply¹⁸.

Public Participation

The agenda also included a slot for public participation, where members of the public could make statements or ask questions related to items on the agenda. This would have provided an opportunity for local residents and stakeholders to voice their views directly to the committee¹⁹.