Appeal Decision Inquiry held between 5-7 April 2011 Site visit made on 4 April 2011 by Neil Pope BA (Hons) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 12 May 2011

Appeal Ref: APP/Y3940/A/10/2141906 Land at Brynard’s Hill, Bincknoll Lane, Wootton Bassett, Wiltshire, SN4 7ER. • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Wainhomes (South West) Holdings Ltd against the decision of Wiltshire Council. • The application Ref. N/10/03055/FUL, dated 26 July 2010, was refused by notice dated 4 November 2010. • The development proposed is residential development of 50 dwelling houses and associated works.

Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for residential development of 50 dwelling houses and associated works at Land at Brynard’s Hill, Bincknoll Lane, Wootton Bassett, Wiltshire, SN4 7ER. The permission is granted in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref. N/10/03055/FUL, dated 26 July 2010, subject to the conditions in the attached Schedule. Procedural Matters 2. In determining the appeal I have taken into account the Statement of Common Ground (SCG) that has been agreed by the Council and the appellant. Amongst other things, the SCG clarifies that the Council no longer wishes to pursue its reasons for refusal Nos. 5-7, relating to site levels/cross sections, use of the footpath across the nearby rail line and matters concerning waste disposal and recycling. Following my request, the Council and the appellant have agreed an Addendum to the SCG. This relates to the supply of housing land. I have also taken the Addendum into account in determining the appeal. 3. The appellant has submitted a planning obligation under the provisions of section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended). This includes a mechanism for delivering affordable housing, a financial contribution towards the cost of educational infrastructure, the provision of a local equipped area of play (LEAP) and open space, funding for a Travel Plan and a mechanism for the operation and maintenance of a flood storage area. With the exception of the educational contribution, the Council informed me that this obligation overcomes its fourth reason for refusal. I shall return to this matter below. 4. At the Inquiry both main parties agreed that the landscaping details were those shown on drawing No. 1566/103 Rev A. It was also agreed that drawing Nos. 1566/104 and 1566/05 listed in the SCG were no longer relevant but the http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk

Appeal Decision APP/Y3940/A/10/2141906

revised cross sections (drawing No. 1566/105 Rev B) does form part of the scheme. I have noted these matters in determining the appeal. 5. The Council has queried whether all of the site lies within the area edged red on the submitted plans. However, it does not dispute the validity of the appeal and this area of land lies within the ownership/control of the appellant. No party would be prejudiced by this minor discrepancy in the plans. Main Issues 6. The four main issues are: the effect upon the character and appearance of the area; whether there is a five year supply of deliverable sites for housing; whether the proposal would undermine the achievement of the Council’s policy objectives for housing or prejudice its emerging Core Strategy (CS) and; whether the proposal should include financial contributions towards the cost of educational infrastructure. Reasons Character and Appearance 7. The appeal site forms part of the countryside and the eastern slope to Brynard’s Hill. This 3.2 ha site lies outside the settlement boundary to the market town of Wootton Bassett as defined in the adopted Local Plan1. 8. The site is included within the ‘Upper Thames Clay Vales’ national character area and the ‘Swindon-Lyneham Limestone Ridge’ regional character area, as defined in the Wiltshire Landscape Character Assessment (2005). At the more local level, it forms part of the ‘Urban Fringe Scarp’ as defined in the North Wiltshire Landscape Character Assessment’ (2004). The main characteristics of this local landscape are identified as “Rolling lowland hills with a scarp slope and mixed farming. Influence of settlements which have been significantly extended in the 20th century and evidence of urban fringe uses.” 9. Within the countryside LP policy H4 permits new housing where it meets the needs of essential rural based enterprises or is a replacement dwelling. In addition, Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 72 provides strict control over new house building, away from established settlements or areas allocated for housing in development plans. PPS7 also states that planning authorities should continue to ensure that the quality and character of the wider countryside is protected and, where possible, enhanced. 10. The proposed development would be in conflict with the provisions of LP policy H4 and would comprise a sizeable extension to Wootton Bassett. It would be visible from some sections of public rights of way to the north east, east and south east, including a bridge over the Wilts and Berks Canal to the south east. Part of the scheme would also be seen from a small section of the footpath that crosses the southern slopes of Brynard’s Hill. However, from these areas the site is seen alongside the existing urban edge of Wootton Bassett, including the adjacent Interface Business Park, which lies towards the bottom of the hill. 11. In assessing the impact of the proposal the Council’s Landscape Architect accepted, under cross-examination, that the correct starting point should include the permitted outline development for 100 dwellings alongside and the 1 2

North Wiltshire Local Plan 2011 (LP) adopted in 2006 Sustainable Development in Rural Areas

http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk

2

Appeal Decision APP/Y3940/A/10/2141906

extension to the business park which were all approved in March 2010 (Ref. APP/Y3940/A/09/2115332). [Ground preparation works are in progress in respect of the residential element of this neighbouring development.] 12. The Council’s Landscape Architect accepted that he had not used this as the correct baseline and, instead, had relied on a landscape appraisal submitted in support of this earlier scheme. He conceded that his assessment was flawed. The Council’s landscape witness also informed me that the appeal site was not described within any Council document or any of the above character appraisals as part of the “visually prominent main slopes of Brynard’s Hill”. 13. The permitted 100 dwellings would be built on the plateau of Brynard’s Hill with some housing also taking place on the eastern slope. Even with new landscape planting (which has yet to be approved as part of the reserved matters) this development would be apparent in public views to the north east, east and south east. The business park would remain prominent in some of these views. The scheme before me would be seen in association with this immediately adjacent (existing and permitted) development. It would not harmfully intrude into the undeveloped southern and more visually prominent slopes of Brynard’s Hill and would appear as a coherent extension of the settlement. There would also be no harmful disruption to any important views from Brynard’s Hill. 14. Although the proposal would result in some further loss of the open and unspoilt qualities of the eastern slope of Brynard’s Hill it would not seriously harm the character of the area or the landscape setting of the town. A swathe of open land would remain between the edge of the development and the business park. This would form part of the country park that was approved in 2010 (Ref. APP/Y3940/A/09/2115331) and it would not be so narrow as to diminish the quality of this permitted area of informal recreation. 15. The development would include some landscape planting down the slope and a thick boundary hedge. This would assist in softening the impact of the scheme. New landscape planting would also take place within the country park as part of the scheme approved in 2010. The roofs of the buildings, which would be the most prominent aspect of the scheme, could also be finished using clay tiles to reflect the distinctive qualities of the local environment. There would be no significant harm to the appearance of the landscape. 16. Had development on this part of Brynard’s Hill been deemed by the Council to be so harmful it is difficult to understand why it was included as part of the preferred strategic option for Wootton Bassett, as identified within the ‘Strategic Sites’ background paper to the CS. I also note that this preferred option was identified following a sustainability appraisal. I shall return to the CS as part of the third main issue below. 17. I conclude on the first main issue that the proposal would result in only limited harm to the character and appearance of the area. Supply of Deliverable Sites for Housing 18. For assessing housing land supply the appeal site lies within the ‘North Wiltshire Rest of District’ sub-area as defined in the Wiltshire and Swindon Structure Plan 2016 (SP). There is in excess of 40 years deliverable supply of housing land within this sub area. I note the ruling in Wiltshire Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Robert Hitchins Limited [2010] EWHC 1009 and for the former ‘North Wiltshire District’ there is

http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk

3

Appeal Decision APP/Y3940/A/10/2141906

about 22 years deliverable supply of housing land. When judged against the development plan there is well in excess of 5 years supply of housing land. Nevertheless, I note that when assessed against the housing requirement of LP policy H1 there appears to be a shortfall of several hundred dwellings. 19. The SP housing figures are however based on RPG103, which was adopted in 2001. Notwithstanding the Government’s intention to abolish Regional Strategies in the Localism Bill, RPG10 remains part of the development plan. At this stage in the parliamentary process the Localism Bill carries little weight. Notwithstanding this the housing figures in RPG10 are based on 1996 household projections. These have been updated since that time and the most recent projections (November 2010) show an increase for Wiltshire since 2001. 20. This situation is very different to the circumstances before the Secretary of State in respect of a site at Wesham, in the North West of England (Ref. APP/M2325/A/10/2127459). In that instance, household projections had fallen and a new supply of housing had been identified from other sources. (The scale of the scheme before me and its impact on the size of the settlement is also significantly less than the proposal at Wesham.) 21. National planning policies for housing have also changed since 2001. The principal aim of PPS34 is to bring about a step-change in housing delivery, through a more responsive approach to land supply at the local level. Amongst other things, PPS3 reflects the Government’s commitment to improving the affordability and supply of housing based upon concepts and principles that include market responsiveness and a robust evidence-based policy approach. The Government’s objective is to ensure that the planning system delivers a flexible, responsive supply of land for housing. In those situations where a 5 year housing supply can be demonstrated, PPS3 does not impose a ceiling or limit on the level of housing provision. I agree with the Inspector who determined the appeal for 100 houses on adjoining land in 2010, that the SP housing figures do not reflect this step-change in housing delivery. 22. In 2008, the former Secretary of State’s Proposed Changes to the RSS were published. I note the Council’s arguments that these Changes were based on work that was carried out more than 5 years ago in very different economic circumstances. However, the evidence base is more up-to-date than the one which underpins the SP housing requirements. The Proposed Changes are also based on the most recently publicly examined housing figures. As noted by the Secretary of State in a decision at Avonmouth (APP/Z0116/A/10/2126342), these Changes are a material consideration which has some weight in determining applications and appeals. The Council’s argument that the housing requirements of the development plan are the start and end point for determining this appeal is untenable. 23. The Proposed Changes to the RSS include a requirement of 13,700 dwellings over the period 2006-2026 for the former North Wiltshire District. 5,200 of these dwellings would have been provided in the rest of North Wiltshire. The appellant has calculated that this would result in only a 4.73 years supply of deliverable sites in the rest of North Wiltshire area, whereas the Council has calculated that there would be a 5.57 years supply. For the former North Wiltshire District, both main parties agree that there would be only a 2.8 years supply. 3 4

Regional Planning Guidance for the South West (also referred to as RSS) Planning Policy Statement 3 ‘Housing’

http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk

4

Appeal Decision APP/Y3940/A/10/2141906

24. In reaching its figure of a 5.57 years supply the Council accepts the appellant’s arguments as to why four out of six large housing sites that it has identified (three of these are included within the Council’s latest Annual Monitoring Report) would not contribute to a 5 year supply of deliverable sites. This indicates that the Council’s assessment of the deliverability of sites is not as rigorous as it ought to be. However, there is disagreement between the two main parties in respect of two other sites at Lickhill Road, Calne (permission for 11 dwellings) and Sandpit Road, Calne (outline permission for 350 units and reserved matters approval for 285 dwellings). 25. The Housing Technical Paper agreed by the Council and the appellant identifies that if the yield from the “Councils Deliverable Supply” was 109 dwellings below prediction the Council would be unable to demonstrate a 5 years supply against the Proposed Changes to the RSS. (This table appears to erroneously show a deliverable supply of 1,153 units, whereas the Council’s supply in table 4 of the Addendum to the SCG has a supply of 1,166 units. This would require 122 fewer units to be delivered over the next 5 years.) However, even with a margin of 122 units, there is little room for error in the Council’s assessment. 26. The developer for the Lickhill Road site has advised that “due to the market” works are intended to commence in July/August 2011. However, permission was originally granted in 2007, when the market was more buoyant. I understand the developer first obtained an interest in this land in 2004, but has repeatedly put off the start date with previous commencements given as Spring 2009 and then Spring 2011. I also understand that an attempt to sell the site has fallen through. There is substance to the appellant’s scepticism as to whether this site will be developed in the next 5 years. 27. The appellant has obtained the build rate from the developer (Redrow) in respect of Sandpit Road and has included this within its assessments of housing land supply. In response, the Council has contacted Robert Hitchins Limited, who also has an interest in the site, and has been informed that the Redrow figures supplied to the appellant would be mirrored on the rest of the site. 28. However, the Robert Hitchins Group is no longer a house builder and the reserved matters approval involves Redrow house types. This is likely to delay the development on the remainder of the site unless Redrow agree to their house types being used by another house builder. I have also been informed that part of the site is being marketed, although no evidence of any marketing was presented to the Inquiry. Furthermore, I am mindful that the response from Robert Hitchins Limited was only sought after proofs of evidence had been exchanged and following an email from the Council which stated that “We are defending our 5 year land supply and this site has been questioned by the appellants…” Commercial competition may have influenced the response received by the Council. On balance, there is more substance to the appellant’s arguments that this site will not deliver the same numbers of houses within the next 5 years as assumed by the Council. 29. My findings in respect of Lickhill Road and Sandpit Road lead me to the view that the Council’s assessment in respect of the deliverable supply of housing is overly optimistic. It is very far from certain that there is a 5 year deliverable supply of housing based on the Proposed Changes to the RSS. In this regard, I note that in 2010, the Inspector who determined the appeal for 100 houses abutting the appeal site found that the Council was unable to demonstrate an

http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk

5

Appeal Decision APP/Y3940/A/10/2141906

up-to-date 5 year supply of deliverable sites for housing. Since that time household projections have increased. 30. Some interested parties have argued that additional housing would become available following the closure of RAF Lyneham. However, the closure of this military base was announced a number of years ago and its future remains uncertain. The intention to close this base would also have been apparent during the preparation of the evidence base to the draft RSS, emerging CS, as well as to those with responsibility for undertaking the predicted household projections. The Council has not relied on this argument as part of its case and the same argument was raised in the appeal for 100 houses in 2010. The previous Inspector found it unlikely that the base’s impending closure would significantly reduce the demand for housing in Wootton Bassett. I see no reason to disagree. 31. When assessed against the housing requirements of the Proposed Changes to the RSS there is more cogent evidence to support the appellant’s arguments that the Council does not have an up-to-date 5 year supply of deliverable sites for housing. As a consequence, paragraph 71 of PPS3 is engaged, which requires local planning authorities to consider applications favourably. 32. I have found above that the Council is able to demonstrate a 5 year supply of housing land under the provisions of the development plan. However, when assessed against the more up-to-date and robust evidence to support the housing requirements of the Proposed Changes to the RSS, and the evidence presented on behalf of the appellant, I conclude on the second main issue that the Council does not have a 5 year supply of deliverable sites for housing. Policy Objectives/Emerging Core Strategy 33. In October 2009, the Council published its consultation document and some background papers to inform the CS. This included the ‘Strategic Sites’ paper that I have already noted above. These documents were published following the collection and assimilation of much evidence and the proposed housing requirements were based upon the draft RSS figures. Whilst the CS is at an early stage it is a material consideration and carries limited weight. 34. The preferred strategic option for Wootton Bassett was identified by the Council as being capable of delivering up to 150 dwellings. This was also recognised as being relatively unconstrained, well located to the existing town and offering the potential to increase the self-containment of Wootton Bassett. Although the sustainability appraisal was a broad appraisal and does not convey tacit approval for development, it identified this part of Brynard’s Hill as the most sustainable of the five options that were put forward for consideration. Furthermore, although the consultation responses to the CS reveal some concerns in respect of development at Brynard’s Hill, there was also general concern that the level of development proposed in the CS was inadequate. 35. The proposed development would accord with the provisions of the emerging CS, which was published in October 2009. In this regard, an email from the Council’s housing land supply witness dated 20 August 2010, states: “In summary, if you are minded to permit the development I do not consider that it would undermine the overall strategic planning objectives even when a five year land supply can be demonstrated as per paragraph 70 of PPS3 Housing. As the site has already secured planning permission and has been identified as a preferred option I raise no policy objection to this proposal.” This witness http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk

6

Appeal Decision APP/Y3940/A/10/2141906

informed me that there had been no changes in national or local planning policies between sending that email and his subsequent advice that permission should be withheld. 36. In October 2010, and in response to the Government’s intention to abolish RSS, the Council resolved, amongst other things, to agree that Wiltshire’s new housing requirement should be determined through a comprehensive review involving local communities. The Council also resolved that “the new housing requirement” be progressed as part of the CS process. In February 2011, the Council agreed that a range of housing figures (35,900 – 43,200) put forward as part of a ‘Housing Requirement Technical Paper’ should be used to determine a draft housing requirement for Wiltshire. However, the Council does not rely on these figures and its housing land supply witness informed me that this Paper was “not significant” and should be given “little weight”. 37. Although the Council’s attempts to determine locally derived housing figures is in line with Government policy, its assessment is at a very early stage. Various housing scenarios were presented at a public meeting on the evening of 4 April 2011, and I note the appellant’s arguments that the lower range figure would not meet natural population growth within the Wootton Bassett & Cricklade Community Area. Moreover, by the Council’s own admission, there is a “substantial” period of time before the CS is likely to be adopted. 38. It is unclear following the Council’s decision to review its housing requirements what figure it will eventually advance within the CS. It is therefore difficult to comprehend how the appeal scheme would prejudice matters which have yet to be determined. PPS3 also advises that applications should not be refused solely on the grounds of prematurity. 39. At the present time there is a much greater weight of evidence to support the release of the appeal site for housing development. This includes an acute shortage of affordable housing in Wiltshire. This shortage is recognised within the Council’s Technical Paper. The background papers to the CS also note that the estimated supply of affordable dwellings in the Wootton Bassett and Cricklade Community Area is significantly lower than the average for the former North Wiltshire District. 40. The proposal would include the provision of 15 affordable dwellings. These would make an important contribution towards meeting the housing needs of the local community. This would also assist in strengthening the selfcontainment of the town and contribute to meeting the housing objectives of the Council’s Corporate Plan. 41. The Council accepts that other large housing schemes already permitted in Wootton Bassett (with the exception of the 100 house scheme alongside the appeal site) are unlikely to come forward for development over the next 5 years. Furthermore, it is very unlikely that any affordable housing would come forward on windfall sites or schemes of less than 10 dwellings. The delay in bringing forward these other large housing schemes not only reveals a lack of substance to the Council’s concern that the appeal scheme would ‘front-load’ the housing provisions of the CS, but also indicates that along with the appellant’s permitted 100 unit scheme alongside, the proposal before me represents one of the few opportunities for securing new affordable housing in Wootton Bassett in the next 5 years.

http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk

7

Appeal Decision APP/Y3940/A/10/2141906

42. I understand that Woottton Bassett and Cricklade Community Area has recently been included as part of the Government’s Neighbourhood Planning Vanguards scheme. However, unsurprisingly at this very early stage in the process, there is no draft plan or order in existence and there is nothing of substance to demonstrate that the appeal scheme would prejudice any due process or important planning interests. A Neighbourhood Plan would in any event have to conform to the CS. I note that the Local Planning Authority does not rely on the Neighbourhood Planning Vanguards scheme to support its case. 43. I conclude on the third main issue that the proposal would not undermine the achievement of the Council’s policy objectives for housing or prejudice its emerging Core Strategy. Educational Contributions 44. The Council has argued that the development should include a financial contribution (£73,542) towards the cost of educational infrastructure. It has calculated that the proposal would generate a demand for 6 additional primary school spaces at Wootton Bassett Infant School (WBIS). This school has a net capacity of 150 places. At present there are about 102 children on the school roll. However, numbers are predicted to increase above that suggested in the Council’s School Places Plan. The Council anticipates full capacity would be reached by 2014. 45. The Council’s evidence on this matter was submitted at a late stage of the appeal process and on the final day of the Inquiry it was still providing details to the appellant to justify its stance. In response, the appellant drew my attention to the Council’s School Admissions Designated Area Guide. This suggests that WBIS may not be the designated school for all of the houses proposed on the appeal site. Parental choice would also have a bearing on which school a child attends. 46. There are two other infant schools within the town. I understand that both would continue to have spare capacity after 2014. Furthermore, even if 6 or more children from the appeal site attended WBIS, the Council’s representative informed me that there was a risk that a financial contribution derived from the appeal scheme may not be used at this school. It is by no means certain therefore that a contribution would be spent on its intended purpose. This would be at odds with the provisions of Circular 05/2005 ‘Planning Obligations’. 47. The Council’s representative had only been in position for a very short period of time prior to the Inquiry. Whilst no criticism is intended of this officer, the Council’s evidence on this matter is far from convincing. I agree with the appellant that there are insufficient grounds for requiring a financial contribution towards the cost of educational infrastructure. I note that a similar finding was reached by the Inspector who determined the appeal for the 100 house scheme alongside in 2010. 48. I conclude on the fourth main issue that it is not necessary for the proposal to include financial contributions towards the cost of educational infrastructure. Other Matters 49. The Written Ministerial Statement of 23 March 2011, ‘Planning for Growth’, by the Minister of State for Decentralisation, is an important material consideration. Amongst other things, this sets out the Government’s clear expectation that the answer to development and growth should wherever http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk

8

Appeal Decision APP/Y3940/A/10/2141906

possible be 'yes', except where this would compromise the key sustainable development principles set out in national planning policy. Wherever possible, applications should be approved where plans are out of date. When deciding whether to grant planning permission, local planning authorities should support enterprise and facilitate housing, economic and other forms of sustainable development. This includes taking into account the need to maintain a flexible and responsive supply of land for key sectors, including housing. 50. In strengthening the self-containment of the town the proposal would comprise sustainable development. The scheme would also provide important economic benefits, including support for the construction industry, and social benefits in terms of affordable housing. These matters weigh strongly in support of the appellant’s arguments for granting permission. 51. The application was accompanied by detailed transport, flood risk and ecological assessments. An archaeological evaluation report was also prepared on behalf of the appellant. Whilst I note the concerns of some interested parties, there is no cogent evidence to refute the findings of these reports that the scheme would not compromise highway safety interests, not increase the risk of flooding and not harm nature conservation or archaeological interests. 52. PPS15 includes a requirement for developments to incorporate good design and create or reinforce local distinctiveness. Plot 133 would occupy a prominent position within the development. Whilst the submitted plans identify it as a key building, this ‘set back’ and poorly aligned building would be an inappropriate response to this corner plot. It would be a weak design feature at odds with best practice guidance6 relating to new housing. However, as agreed at the Inquiry, this matter could be addressed by way of a planning condition. Planning Obligation 53. I agree with the Council and the appellant that the submitted planning obligation includes the necessary mechanisms for delivering affordable housing, LEAP and open space provision, management/maintenance of surface water drainage facilities and a Travel Plan. These aspects of the obligation accord with Circular 05/2005 and the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010. I have taken them into account in determining the appeal. Planning Conditions 54. For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning it would be necessary to attach a condition specifying the approved plans. I have also noted above that to secure good design it would be necessary for revised details to be submitted and approved in respect of plot 133. In order to reflect the distinctive qualities in the local environment clay roof tiles rather than concrete tiles, which are specified on the application form, would be necessary. 55. To safeguard the character and appearance of the area it would be necessary to attach conditions regarding the submission and approval of details/samples of other external materials, including hard surfacing areas. For the same reason, conditions would be necessary regarding landscaping (including a maintenance schedule and measures to protect trees/hedgerows that are to be retained), finished floor levels and details of street furniture/minor artefacts.

5 6

‘Delivering Sustainable Development’ By Design Better Places to Live A Companion Guide to PPG3

http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk

9

Appeal Decision APP/Y3940/A/10/2141906

56. To ensure that the development includes adequate links to neighbouring land uses and encourages travel by means other than the car, it would be necessary to require details of the construction of the footpath/cycle route shown in the submitted Transport Assessment and referred to in the Travel Plan. 57. In the interests of highway safety and to encourage the recycling of waste during the construction phase, it would be necessary to attach a condition requiring the submission and approval of a Construction Method Statement. This Statement and a separate Construction Environmental Management Plan, dealing with any pollution, would also be necessary to safeguard the living conditions of neighbouring residents. 58. To avoid congestion on the highway, it would be necessary to attach conditions requiring the parking spaces to be provided for the proposed dwellings and removing permitted development rights to ensure that the garage spaces were retained for the parking of vehicles. As discussed at the Inquiry this does not prevent future residents from applying to use their garages for alternative purposes, but allows the Council to retain control and prevent congestion. To ensure incoming residents have adequate access to their properties it would also be necessary to attach a condition requiring the roads and footways to be provided to at least base course level prior to occupation. 59. A condition would also be necessary to ensure adequate foul and surface water drainage was provided. To safeguard nature conservation interests it would be necessary to attach a condition requiring the submission and approval of an Ecological Management Plan. To reflect national planning policies for including small scale renewable energy technologies in developments7 and to assist in tackling climate change8, it would be necessary to attach a condition requiring details of renewable energy technologies to be used in the scheme. 60. Finally, where necessary, I have altered the suggested conditions to reflect the advice in Circular 11/95 and have not included matters that would be duplicated by the planning obligation. Overall Conclusion 61. My findings in respect of the second and third main issues and the benefits that I have identified within the ‘other matters’ above, outweigh the limited harm that I have found to the character and appearance of the area. I therefore conclude that the appeal should succeed.

Neil Pope Inspector

7 8

Paragraph 18 of PPS22 ‘Renewable Energy’ ‘Planning and Climate Change’ Supplement to PPS1

http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk

10

Appeal Decision APP/Y3940/A/10/2141906

APPEARANCES FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY: Mr P Cairnes of Counsel (assisted by Mr K Breslin, Senior Solicitor to the Council, on matters relating to the planning obligation and planning conditions)

Instructed by Mr I Gibbons, Director of Legal and Democratic Services

He called Mr J Millard BA (Hons), MA, MA

Senior Spatial Planning Officer

Mr M Goodwin

Landscape Architect, Urban Design Team

Mrs T Smith MRTPI

Area Team Leader

Mr N Glass

Head of School Buildings and Places

FOR THE APPELLANT: Mr D Elvin QC

Instructed by Emery Planning Partnership

He called Mrs C Brockhurst BSc (Hons), DipLA, FLI

Partner, Tyler Grange LLP

Mr S Harris BSc (Hons), MRTPI

Associate Director, Emery Planning Partnership

Mr S Robinson spoke during the discussion in respect of some matters relating to the planning obligation and the suggested planning conditions

Wainhomes

INTERESTED PERSONS: Cllr P Doyle

Member for Wootton Bassett South, Member of Wootton Bassett Town Council, Chairman of Wootton Bassett and Cricklade Area Board (appearing as local Member and on behalf of the Town Council)

Mr G Yates

Wootton Bassett For Brynards Hill (WB4BH)

Mr R Gosnell

Local Resident

http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk

11

Appeal Decision APP/Y3940/A/10/2141906

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED AT THE INQUIRY Document 1 Addendum to Statement of Common Ground Document 2 Draft planning obligation Document 3 Copies of landscape drawing 1566/103 Rev A and preliminary highway sections (drawing No. 31364/PHL/04 Rev A) Document 4 Summary of Mr Goodwin’s proof of evidence Document 5 Summary and Conclusions to Waterman report, forming part of Appendix 5 to Mr Goodwin’s evidence Document 6 The appellant’s opening submissions Document 7 The Council’s opening submissions Document 8 Secretary of States decision and extract from Inspector’s report APP/M2325/A/10/2127459 Document 9 Copies of emails between the Council and site owners/agents in respect of two housing sites in Calne Document 10 Mr Glass’s Statement and Appendix Document 11 Addendum to Mr Glass’s Statement Document 12 Additional Statement from Cllr Doyle, including details of Core Strategy revised timetable provided by the Leader of Council and Cabinet Liaison Document 13 Extracts from the Consultation Methodology and Output Report to the Wiltshire Core Strategy dated August 2010 Document 14 Extract from www.parliament.uk, Abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies – Memorandum from Robert Hitchins Limited Document 15 Design Statement for Land off Sandpit Road, Calne Document 16 Site layout plan for Land off Sandpit Road, Calne Document 17 Copy of PowerPoint presentation – Neighbourhood Planning and Wiltshire Core Strategy Document 18 Extracts from Wiltshire Council’s School Admissions Designated Area Guide for Larger Towns Document 19 Housing Technical Paper agreed by the Council and appellant Document 20 Planning Inspectorate Good Practice Advice Note 16 ‘Submitting Planning Obligations’ Document 21 List of suggested planning conditions Document 22 Closing Statement on behalf of Wiltshire Council Document 23 Closing Submissions on behalf of the appellant DOCUMENT SUBMITTED AFTER THE CLOSE OF THE INQUIRY Document 24 Executed planning obligation

http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk

12

Appeal Decision APP/Y3940/A/10/2141906

SCHEDULE OF PLANNING CONDITIONS 1. The development hereby approved shall commence within three years of the date this decision. 2. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the details shown on drawing Nos: 1566/101 (site location plan); 1566/102 Rev B (site layout); 1566/105 Rev B (site cross sections); 1566/103 Rev A (landscaping); bundle of 22 unnumbered A3 format house type plans (excluding plot No. 133), including screen enclosure details and typical garages; 31364/PHL/03 Rev C (preliminary highway layout); 31364/PDL/01 Rev E (preliminary drainage plan); and 31364/PHL/04 Rev A (preliminary highway sections). 3. Notwithstanding the details shown on drawing No. 1566/102 Rev B, no development shall commence until a revised layout, elevations and floor plans for plot No. 133, which shows an ‘L’ shaped building on this corner plot or other suitable layout to reflect this prominent corner position, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 4. No development shall commence until details/samples of the materials to be used on the external walls of the buildings and samples of the clay tiles to be used on the roofs have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details/samples. 5. No development shall take place until details of the finished floor levels of buildings and levels of access roads have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 6. No development shall take place until the precise route of the 3 metre wide footpath/cycle link referred to in paragraph 6.5 of the PFA Interim Residential Travel Plan (updated September 2010) and illustrated in Appendix E of the PFA Transport Assessment (updated June 2010) together with details of its construction (including a timetable for its provision) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 7. No development shall take place until a Construction Method Statement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved Statement shall be adhered to during the construction phase and shall provide for: • • • • • • •

the parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors; loading and unloading of plant and materials; storage of plant and materials; the erection and maintenance of security hoarding; wheel-washing facilities to prevent the deposit of mud on adjacent highways; measures to control the emission of dust and dirt; and a scheme for recycling/disposing of any construction waste.

8. No development shall take place until drainage details, including surface water run-off, foul sewage and a timetable for implementation, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall

http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk

13

Appeal Decision APP/Y3940/A/10/2141906

be undertaken in accordance with the approved details. 9. No development shall take place until an Ecological Management Plan, including details of proposed mitigation and enhancement measures on the site (such as bird and bat boxes) and on the adjoining land edged blue on drawing No. 1566/101, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved Plan. 10. No development shall take place until a Construction Environmental Management Plan, incorporating pollution prevention measures, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The construction phase of the development shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved Plan. 11. No development shall take place until a landscape maintenance schedule or management plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This should include a minimum aftercare period of 5 years following the completion of landscape works and details for the management of existing and proposed landscaping across the site (other than privately owned domestic gardens). Any trees or plants which, within a period of 5 years, die or are removed, shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species. The maintenance schedule/management plan shall be carried out as approved. 12. No development shall take place until details of all hard surfacing materials and minor artefacts and structures (e.g. street furniture, refuse and other storage units, signs, lighting etc..,) to be provided within the site and a timetable for implementation have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 13. The landscaping/planting shown on drawing No. 1566/103 Rev A shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding season following the first occupation of the dwellings or the completion of the development whichever is the sooner. 14. The roads, including footpaths and turning spaces, shall be constructed so as to ensure that, before it is occupied, each dwelling has been provided with a properly consolidated and surfaced footpath and carriageway to at least base course level between the dwelling and existing highway. 15. No dwelling shall be occupied until the parking spaces together with the access thereto, have been provided in accordance with the approved plans. 16. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order with or without modification), the garages hereby permitted shall only be used for the parking of vehicles and shall not be converted. 17. No development shall take place until details for protecting those trees and hedgerows shown to be retained on drawing No. 1566/103 Rev A during the construction phase have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved details. 18. No development shall take place until details have been submitted to and http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk

14

Appeal Decision APP/Y3940/A/10/2141906

approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority for the incorporation of renewable energy technologies as part of the scheme, such as solar panels and/or photovoltaic cells and/or small wind turbines and/or rainwater harvesting. The development shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved details.

http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk

15