The Strategic Planning Committee (SPC) met to discuss two planning applications. Outline permission for 300 homes south of Snarlton Farm in Melksham was refused due to conflict with the Wiltshire Core Strategy and the Joint Melksham Neighbourhood Plan. Outline permission was granted for 95 dwellings west of Marlborough Road in Royal Wootton Bassett, subject to a Section 106 agreement¹ and planning conditions.

Land South of Snarlton Farm, Melksham

The committee voted to refuse outline planning permission for the erection of up to 300 dwellings, community facilities, open space, play space and associated infrastructure on land south of Snarlton Farm, Melksham. The reasons given were that the development conflicted with the Wiltshire Core Strategy² and the Joint Melksham Neighbourhood Plan 2, and that the application failed to secure adequate infrastructure.

Verity Giles-Franklin, the Senior Planning Officer, introduced the report, recommending approval subject to conditions and a Section 106 agreement. She noted that the Joint Melksham Neighbourhood Plan 2 had been 'made' (approved) following a referendum. She also noted that the site had been considered as a housing allocation site by the council as part of the local plan review, but it was not included in the final list of sites. Giles-Franklin updated the committee on changes to the Section 106 agreement, including increasing the monitoring fee from 1% to 2.5% of the total financial contribution, increasing the contribution towards waste and recycling containers from £101 to £115 per dwelling, and reducing the start date for the development from three years to two years from the date of planning permission.

During a discussion, Councillor Nigel White questioned the weighting given to the local plan in the report. Giles-Franklin explained that because the council could not demonstrate the necessary housing land supply, they needed to weigh up the benefits and harms of the proposal. She said that the weighting given to an individual issue was down to the individual decision makers. She also noted that Melksham still had a residual requirement of 910 dwellings.

Councillor Stewart Palmén, Portfolio Holder for Schools, asked what the council was doing to go back to the government to stop the current situation where local plans were being ignored. An officer explained that the local planning authority had two jobs: to determine planning applications within the confines of policy, and to produce a development plan. He noted that the council was well advanced in the process of producing a development plan, but that national policy constrained the decision-making ability of committees.

Councillor Christopher Newbury said that the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) didn't apply paragraphs 11 and 14 at the same time, and that it was one or the other. He asked if the officers were saying that paragraph 14 was not engaged. An officer responded that they had to consider them all. He said that paragraph 14 referred to paragraph 69, which required strategic policy-making authorities to establish a housing requirement figure for their whole area. He said that he didn't think they could mount an argument that paragraph 14 got them off the hook in terms of paragraph 11D, because they would be directed back again to paragraph 69.

An online lawyer advised that paragraph 11 said 'likely', therefore it was not mandatory. If the tilted balance was engaged and where the two criteria, A and B, of paragraph 14 were met, then it was contrary to a neighbouring plan that was likely, not mandatorily, warranted refusal of planning application. It was a planning judgment.

Kenny, an officer, referred to an application submitted during the early stages of Melksham's first neighbourhood plan for affordable housing on land at Semington Road, which the council refused. The appeal was allowed because the inspectorate considered the countywide considerations with a council having its own local plan more than five years old. He said that the inspectorate said that they needed to have a holistic review of the deliverability of housing.

Councillor Kym-Marie Cleasby said that it seemed that if an application would make a material difference, it would be recommended for approval, and asked if she was missing something. Councillor Dominic Muns said that the officers would deliver a report and a recommendation, but it didn't need to be followed. He said that if they didn't like the development, they could vote to refuse it, but it needed to be on sensible grounds.

Edward David Pafford, chair of Melksham Neighbourhood Plan, spoke in objection to the application. He said that the neighbourhood plan was supported in the referendum with 88% of the votes cast. He said that the plan was the product of four years work, underpinned by periods of public consultation and a close working relationship with Wiltshire Council. He said that the application was not plan led and was entirely speculative. He said that while Wiltshire as a whole may have a housing shortfall, the same could not be said for the Melksham neighbourhood area. He said that during the lifetime of the first neighbourhood plan, up to 26 more houses had been built in Melksham than required by Wiltshire Council. He said that the new neighbourhood plan proposed a total of 453 houses, enough to cover any potential increase of housing numbers required if and when the local plan was finalised. He said that if the application was successful, it would mean that the neighbourhood plan was completely undermined within a few days of it being voted through.

Ian Humble, Associate Planning Director at Catesby Estates, spoke in support of the application. He said that the site was located almost immediately to the south of Blackmore Farm, which had recently been granted outline planning consent. He said that the development would provide 300 much needed homes, of which 90 dwellings would be affordable. He said that over 40% of the site was shown as public open space. He said that the proposals would also deliver considerable biodiversity net gain enhancements. He said that there were no objections to the application from any statutory consultee. He said that the council's head of strategic housing had confirmed that there were 3917 households on the housing register in Wiltshire, many of which had listed the Melksham community area as their preferred location of residence.

Treesa Strange, clerk to Melksham Without Parish Council, said that the parish council agreed with everything that Pafford had said about the neighborhood plan. She said that the parish council supported plan led development but not speculative. She said that there was no direct link from the application to the 500 houses in the north at Blackmore Farm. She said that the site was independently assessed for the neighbourhood plan and commented that the development would contribute to substantial urban expansion in the open countryside. She said that the noise assessments took no account of the rugby club. She requested that if the application was approved, the affordable housing should be 40 percent not 30 percent. She said that the parish council would like first refusal on all of the equipped play areas allotments the community use land for contributions for maintenance and to be involved in those section 106 legal wording discussions.

Councillor Nick Holder said that he objected to the development and that the parish council also objected to it. He said that he did not believe that the applicant had had positive engagement with himself as the local member or the parish council. He said that it was massively disappointing to be told that the Melksham area neighborhood plan carried no weight. He said that the development was speculative and didn't take account of the emerging local plan. He said that the proposals did not take account of the safety of crossing the A3102. He said that the development did not connect with Blackmore Farm at all.

Officers responded to the points that had been made. They said that the application included a pedestrian crossing facility between the two accesses. They said that the figure that had been included within the report for the community and hub building to be delivered on the Blackmore Farm site was produced from evidence that was provided as part of the Blackmore Farm section 106 agreement. They said that officers weren't saying that they were not going to be giving the neighborhood plan any weight. They said that both paragraphs 11 and 14 of the MPPF were engaged. They said that the current core strategy stated there to be a 30% affordable housing requirement.

Councillor Bill Parks said that he approached the meeting with an open mind, but that he had some sympathies with what he had heard. He said that the site was a speculative development, outside the settlement boundary and on agricultural land. He said that he was finding it very difficult to support the officers' recommendation.

Councillor Chris Brautigam proposed that the application be deferred so that the recently approved neighborhood plan could be fully evaluated. Councillor Howard Greenman seconded the proposal.

Councillor Christopher Newbury said that he was struggling with the deferral, but that he could see that it might have a benefit. He said that he would rather that they refused the application.

Councillor Howard Greenman said that if they were to defer the application, they would have to put some kind of time frame on it. He said that if there was going to be a risk of non-determination, he would rather withdraw his second and go for refusal.

An officer said that the applicants had served notice of an intention to appeal.

The proposal to defer consideration of the application was not supported.

Councillor Dominic Muns proposed that the application be refused because it hadn't been adequately demonstrated that the positive impacts of the development outweighed the negative impacts, and therefore paragraph 14 applied. He said that the principle of development was not supported due to conflict with the neighborhood plan. He said that insufficient weight had been given to the neighborhood plan. Councillor Bill Parks seconded the proposal.

Officers provided wording for the reasons for refusal. The first reason was that the development as proposed would materially conflict with the Wiltshire Core Strategy and significantly and demonstrably conflict with the Joint Melksham Neighbourhood Plan 2, and that the benefits of the development would not outweigh the plan conflicts. The second reason was that the application required developer contributions in accordance with policy CP43 and the MPPF, and at the time of determining the application there was no legal mechanism to secure the necessary obligations to make the development acceptable in planning terms.

Councillor Christopher Newbury said that he was happy to support the refusal. He said that he couldn't see that they would go down on costs on that. He said that he didn't have the ability to predict which way it would go, but he couldn't see that it would be fair for the government to count this one against them in whether they moved from nine percent to ten percent on the designation question.

Councillor Kym-Marie Cleasby said that she was minded to support the motion for similar reasons. She said that she felt that they would be bringing clarity to the situation and informing future decisions.

The committee voted to refuse the application.

Land West of Marlborough Road, Royal Wootton Bassett

The committee voted to grant outline planning permission for the demolition and clearance of existing buildings and structures and the development of up to 95 dwellings, with associated car parking, open space, landscaping, drainage and other associated infrastructure on land west of Marlborough Road, Royal Wootton Bassett.

Adrian Smith, the Senior Planning Officer, introduced the report, recommending approval subject to conditions and a Section 106 agreement. He said that the site was 6.7 hectares lying to the south of Royal Wootton Bassett outside but immediately adjacent to the limits of development off Marlborough Road. He said that the site was not allocated housing and nor was it identified in the made neighborhood plan or in the emerging local plan. He said that given the significant housing land supply deficit, paragraphs 11 and 14 of the MPPF required a holistic planning judgment on the benefits versus the harms of the development. He said that the site was a greenfield site consisting of three fields which were split by Hancock's Water. He said that the fields were considered to be grade 4 agricultural land, meaning that no best and most versatile land would be lost through development. He said that the proposed development would deliver up to 95 dwellings on the northern part of the site. He said that of the 95 homes proposed, 38 would be affordable homes of 40% provision. He said that this was considered to provide a very significant benefit with regard to the planning balance in terms of both housing and affordable housing provision. He said that the indicative layout showed the retention of existing hedgerow. He said that due to concerns over amenity impact from the potential for flies from the nearby wastewater treatment works, residential development was kept at a distance of 250 metres from the works and the intervening area within the site was given over to allotments, a community orchard and play spaces. He said that the application proposal did not comprise any operational development on land that was outside flood zone one. He said that the application was supported by a detailed flood risk assessment that was consulted on with drainage experts at Atkins, and they had concluded the application had no technical drainage concerns that could not be addressed by conditions or through the reserve matters submission. He said that the access to the site of marble road had been configured to provide the necessary visibilities visibility displays can be achieved. He said that pedestrian and cycle access was provided on the north side of the access and then up the boundary of the site of Marlborough Road to the templars way junction there joining existing pavement. He said that a full consideration of the potential impacts of the development on surrounding infrastructure had been provided included committed development within royal wood and bassett. He said that whilst there would be an increase in road traffic from the proposal it was considered that most junctions would not reach capacity those that would should see only minor increases as a result of this proposal. He said that a survey of the existing pedestrian infrastructure along Marlborough Road across the railway and towards station road had identified areas for improvement and as part of the planning obligations the applicant would provide upgrades to the drop curbs at the junction with dunnington road refreshing the existing junction lining and road marking at the new mini road at the new road many roundabout a provision of bus stop infrastructure by way of covered shelters with seating at the nearest bus stops on station road a travel plan would be provided to encourage sustainable travel. He said that the section 106 would include bespoke clauses to cover section 38 and 278 highways agreements. He said that the proposal would entail development on existing grade 4 agricultural land. He said that whilst the entire site covered some 6.7 hectares the majority of the space would be retained for biodiversity net gain improvements sustainable drainage systems and green infrastructure. He said that the residential aspect of the proposal would cover some 2.6 hectares at a density of 36.5 dwellings per hectare. He said that the landscape officer agreed with a submitted landscape visual assessment that any impacts would be localized. He said that as the council was at present unable to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply and the tilted balance came into effect the mppf stated that permissions should be granted unless there were policies within that document protecting areas or assets of particular importance that provide strong reasons for refusing development or when the adverse impacts of approving the scheme would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. He said that when undertaking the planning balance officers considered that the provision of up to 95 homes should be accorded very significant weight the provision of 38 affordable homes should also be accorded very significant weight this was due to the significant shortfall in the council's current housing land supply the location adjacent to existing limits of development with good access to services and public transport which should also be accorded very significant weight economic benefits from construction jobs local spending and seal contributions section 106 contributions providing infrastructure and community benefits and green infrastructure in the form of public open space play areas and biodiversity habitats were all accorded moderate weight. He said that with regard to the adverse impacts of the development the fact that the site was unallocated and located outside the settlement boundary and was in conflict with the development plan including the neighborhood plan this was accorded moderate weight the the loss of open field character was accorded moderate weight as the impacts were considered to be localized due to the restricted views of the site from the public realm the loss of grade four agricultural land was accorded limited weight as it represented no loss of best and most versatile agricultural land. He said that therefore despite the fact that there would be a conflict in policy with the core strategy and the neighborhood neighborhood plan it was considered as a result of planning balance that the significant benefits of housing provision and affordable housing provision at a time when there was significant housing lands supply shortfall infrastructure investment and biodiversity net gain officers concluded that the the benefit of the scheme was substantially outweighed the identified harm from the departure from the development plan for this reason it was recommended that outline planning permission be approved subject to planning conditions following the completion of a section 106 legal agreement particular to this site it should be added that there would be a bng monitoring fee within the section 106 the amount to be agreed and also as per the previous item the section 106 monitoring fee was now 2.5 percent of the financial contributions and there was no cap.

During a discussion, Councillor Howard Greenman asked if the neighborhood plan was in train. Smith said that he didn't believe it had come forward in the neighborhood plan, but that discussions were ongoing. He said that the town council could hopefully address that point when they addressed this in a few months.

Nathan McLoughlin, Managing Director of McLoughlin Planning, spoke in support of the application. He said that he wished to focus on how they had worked collaboratively and positively with the town council since 2013 regarding the site. He said that the town council acknowledged that this was a site that would be allocated in the emerging neighborhood plan. He said that it would help the town council meet its housing target of 150 homes for the neighborhood plan area of Royal Wootton Bassett as set out in policy 47 of the emerging local plan. He said that they had advised on the benefits of bringing the site forward now to give them the benefit of immediate housing delivery within the next five years as well as benefit from the direct protections of paragraph 14 of the mppf. He said that the town council had also asked to look into the adoption arrangement arrangements of the open space and the bng area.

Tom McInerney, a councillor for Royal Wootton Bassett Town Council, said that the engagement from the developer had been positive. He said that the housing aligned with their proposal for neighborhood plan. He said that the neighbor plan hadn't gone to referendum yet, but that it was currently within there. He said that as a town councillor there had been positive engagement and that they were keen to take over the ownership of the green spaces and make sure that the other section 106 agreements were put in place.

Councillor Howard Greenman said that the application provided 40% affordable housing and that the agriculture land classification was alc4. He said that he would like to recommend the officer's recommendation for approval. Councillor Christopher Newbury seconded the proposal.

Councillor Christopher Newbury agreed with Councillor Howard Greenman. He said that this was a completely different kettle of fish. He said that he liked the layout of the recommendation having the section 106 agreement points set out under the heading of recommendation.

The committee voted to approve the application.