The Strategic Planning Committee of Wiltshire Council met on Tuesday 24 March 2026 to discuss several significant planning applications. The committee granted planning permission for the expansion of Abbeyfield School in Chippenham, subject to infrastructure contributions, and approved an outline application for a new Motorway Rest Area at Junction 16 of the M4 near Swindon, also subject to legal agreements and conditions. However, the committee refused planning permission for a proposed warehouse development near Melksham due to concerns about its location, scale, and impact on the surrounding environment and heritage assets.

Expansion of Abbeyfield School, Chippenham (PL/2023/01340)

The committee granted planning permission for the expansion of Abbeyfield School to provide 450 school places over three phases. This expansion includes new teaching accommodation, a new vehicular access point from Stanley Lane, car parking for 47 staff and visitors, and a covered cycle store for 56 bicycles. The decision was subject to the applicant, Wiltshire Council, agreeing to significant financial contributions towards off-site highway and accessibility improvements. These contributions, totalling £227,500 before development commences and a further £80,500 before the second phase of development, will fund upgrades to footways, the installation of a toucan crossing on London Road, traffic management measures, bus stop improvements, and traffic regulation orders to manage speed limits and waiting restrictions. Additional contributions of £62,500 are also required if a neighbouring housing development does not proceed as planned.

The committee noted that while the principle of expanding educational facilities is strongly supported by national policy, concerns were raised by Chippenham Town Council and members of the public regarding traffic, parking, and the provision of safe cycle routes. The Council's Highway Engineer, while acknowledging these concerns, deemed the proposed contributions proportionate and necessary to mitigate the impacts of the development. Conditions were imposed to ensure the implementation of a travel plan, the provision of adequate cycle parking, and the completion of highway works.

Motorway Rest Area at Junction 16 (M4), Swindon (PL/2023/09142)

Outline planning permission was granted for the development of a new Motorway Rest Area (MRA) at Junction 16 of the M4. The proposal includes up to 241 car parking spaces, 63 Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV) parking spaces, coach and caravan parking, an amenity building, a fuel filling station, and associated landscaping and infrastructure. The decision was delegated to the Head of Development Management to complete a Section 106 legal agreement to cover identified contributions and subject to planning conditions.

The committee heard that the development, which represents a £30 million investment and is expected to create 150 jobs, addresses a critical shortage of secure HGV parking and EV charging facilities in the region. While there were objections regarding the impact on the environment and local residents, including the nearby Hay Lane Gypsy and Traveller site, officers concluded that the benefits of the development, such as improved road safety and economic growth, outweighed the identified harms. Conditions were imposed to ensure ecological mitigation, sustainable energy strategies, and appropriate highway works, including improvements to the M4 junction itself. A specific condition was added to secure the provision and emptying of a dog waste bin along the Public Right of Way.

Warehouse Development near Melksham (PL/2024/11426)

The committee refused planning permission for the construction of a warehouse with office space, parking, and landscaping on land to the south of A365 Bath Road and west of Turnpike Garage, Melksham. Officers recommended refusal on several grounds, citing the proposal's conflict with national and local planning policies.

Key reasons for refusal included:

• Principle of Development: The proposed warehouse was considered to be located outside defined settlement limits and a principal employment area, constituting a significant industrial building in the open countryside. This was deemed contrary to Wiltshire Core Strategy (WCS) policies CP1, CP2, CP15, CP34, and CP51, the Joint Melksham Neighbourhood Plan, and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).
• Impact on Residential Amenity and Local Character: The indicative size, siting, scale, and design of the warehouse were considered incongruous and harmful, with materially harmful impacts on nearby residential properties, particularly at 454 and 455 Bowerhill. The proposed landscaping and bunding were not considered sufficient to mitigate these impacts.
• Noise Impacts: The Council's Public Protection team maintained an objection due to insufficient noise assessment data for hours outside of 07:00-19:00, making it impossible to fully assess the impact of deliveries and collections.
• Landscape Impacts: The development was considered to have a significant deleterious impact on the rural landscape character, reducing the undeveloped land parcel between Bowerhill and Seend/Seend Cleeve, contrary to WCS CP51 and the NPPF.
• Heritage Impacts: The proposals were found to cause high-level, less than substantial harm to the setting of the Grade II listed Old Loves Farm, contrary to WCS CP58 and Section 16 of the NPPF.
• Drainage Matters: The Council's Drainage Authority maintained an objection due to unresolved issues regarding the feasibility and adequacy of the proposed surface and foul water drainage strategy, contrary to WCS CP67 and CP68.
• Ecology Issues: The applicant had not submitted sufficient ecological information to adequately assess and mitigate impacts on protected species and habitats, and a required Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) had not been undertaken, making the proposal contrary to the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 and WCS CP50.

While acknowledging the potential economic benefits of the proposal, including job creation and the release of existing premises for other businesses, officers concluded that these did not outweigh the significant policy conflicts and demonstrable harm. The committee was also reminded that if they were minded to approve the application against officer advice, it would be classified as a plan departure and require notification to the Secretary of State.