Wiltshire Council Housing Land Supply Appendix 1

WC Housing Land Supply Proof of Evidence

Housing Land Supply Statement Base date: April 2015

Published: September 2015

Housing Land Supply Statement Base Date: April 2015

Policy Context – why is a land supply assessment required?

1.1 This Housing Land Supply Statement has been prepared using a base date of April 2015 and covers each Housing Market Area (HMA) in Wiltshire. It is essentially a snapshot in time, taken annually, as required by the NPPF. It updates the previous Housing Land Supply Statement (July 2014) and addendum in the Wiltshire Core Strategy Inspector’s Note (October 2014). The HMAs are presented in Figure 1.

This statement fully accords to the requirements and definitions of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) as summarised below.

Figure 1: The HMAs in Wiltshire1

1 Any development immediately adjacent to the urban area of Swindon but within Wiltshire’s administrative boundaries is not considered to contribute to the housing requirements of the North and West HMA. See paragraph 4.34 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy for clarification.

1.2 Within the NPPF, the Government has set out its guidance to deliver sustainable development. With regard to housing provision, paragraph 47 states that:

“To boost significantly the supply of housing, local planning authorities (LPAs) should:

...... identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide five years worth of housing against their housing requirements with an additional buffer of 5% (moved forward from later in the plan period) to ensure choice and competition in the market for land. Where there has been a record of persistent under delivery of housing, local planning authorities should increase the buffer to 20% (moved forward from later in the plan period) to provide a realistic prospect of achieving the planned supply and to ensure choice and competition in the market for land;....”

1.3 Furthermore, it goes on to define the deliverability of sites in footnote 11, as follows:

“To be considered deliverable, sites should be available now, offer a suitable location for development now, and be achievable with a realistic prospect that housing will be delivered on the site within five years and in particular that development of the site is viable. Sites with planning permission should be considered deliverable until permission expires, unless there is clear evidence that schemes will not be implemented within five years, for example they will not be viable, there is no longer a demand for the type of units or sites have long term phasing plans.”

1.4 The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) was published in March 2014 with further amendments related to the housing land supply assessment published in March 2015. It sets out guidance on the methodology to be used in the assessment of housing land supply. This assessment follows the guidance, aside from two areas where the guidance has been departed from:

• The PPG requires that all sites considered are individually assessed. However, in an authority as large as Wiltshire, with circa 1000 sites with either planning permission or prior approval, with a resolution to grant subject to planning obligations, proposed or allocated in an emerging or adopted development plan, such an exercise is considered to be disproportionately onerous. Therefore, the assessment only assesses large sites (10 or more dwellings) individually.2

2 Both large and small sites in emerging and adopted Neighbourhood Plans are also assessed individually.

• The PPG requires that each site should be listed and cross-referenced to a map. However, given the number of sites within the deliverable supply this would be impractical, and so a reference is included in the assessment which can be used to identify sites either within the development plan in which it is identified or on the Council’s online planning applications portal. The Housing Land Availability report will also provide maps of large permitted sites up to March 2015.

The housing requirement 2.1 The Wiltshire Core Strategy (WCS) was adopted on 20 January 2015. The housing requirement contained in the WCS represents the only up to date housing requirement for Wiltshire. This is the requirement against which the land supply is assessed.

Housing completions 3.1 Wiltshire Council monitors housing completions annually. The number of completions from April 2006 to March 2015 has been used in this assessment.

Buffer 4.1 Paragraph 47 of the NPPF (see paragraph 1.3) requires a buffer to be added to the land supply. The size of this buffer is dependent on whether or not there is a record of persistent under-delivery.

4.2 In order to assess whether or not there is a record of persistent under- delivery, Table 1 presents the level of delivery over the last five years for which completion data is known. This is compared to the requirements set out in: i. the Wiltshire and Swindon Structure Plan (WSSP) 2016 which was the adopted development plan for all areas for the majority of this period3, ii. the South Wiltshire Core Strategy (SWCS) which was adopted in April 2011 and was the adopted plan for the South area of the authority from this date until the adoption of the Wiltshire Core Strategy, and iii. the Wiltshire Core Strategy.

4.3 The Wiltshire Core Strategy Examining Inspector took into account the evidence sources listed above and concluded in paragraph 93 of his final report that a 5% buffer should be applied.

4.4 Those years in which the annualised delivery has been exceeded are shaded. Table 1 also provides the average annual level of completions across the respective plan periods.

3 The housing requirement for South Wiltshire in the Structure Plan was superseded by the South Wiltshire Core Strategy from April 2011 and was revoked for all areas in May 2013.

Table 1: Housing delivery compared to annualised requirement

Annual completions Average annual % of Annualised completions annualised Housing housing 2006 / 2007 / 2008 / 2009 / 2010 / 2011 / 2012 / 2013 / 2014 / across plan requirement Requirement Area requirement 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 period* achieved Former Kennet District 263 336 598 402 245 441 249 183 262 267 308 117% Former North Wiltshire District 450 850 839 562 398 353 483 342 649 660 576 128% Chippenham Town 150 221 250 197 115 67 83 24 38 20 150 100% Former North Wiltshire remainder 300 629 589 365 283 286 400 318 611 640 426 142% Former Salisbury District 400 371 456 484 485 398 445 455 427 545 421 105% WSSP 1996- 2016+ Salisbury City 195 151 107 182 223 239 231 185 324 327 195 100% Former Salisbury District remainder 205 220 349 202 262 159 214 270 103 218 226 110% Former West Wiltshire District 588 514 769 437 521 880 574 720 897 626 644 110% Trowbridge Town 250 210 332 198 257 344 138 264 474 381 284 114% Former West Wiltshire remainder 338 304 437 239 264 536 436 456 423 245 360 107% Wiltshire 1,700 2,071 2,662 1,885 1,649 2,072 1,751 1,700 2,235 2,098 1,949 115%

Average annual % of Annualised completions annualised Housing housing 2006 / 2007 / 2008 / 2009 / 2010 / 2011 / 2012 / 2013 / 2014 / across plan requirement Requirement Area requirement 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 period* achieved SWCS 2006- + South Wiltshire 2026 HMA 495 371 456 484 484 398 446 456 429 547 452 91% East Wiltshire HMA 297 335 597 402 247 438 248 182 260 267 331 111% North and West WCS 2006- Wiltshire HMA 1,237 1,365 1,609 999 925 1,218 1,027 1,032 1,507 1,139 1,202 97% 2026+ South Wiltshire HMA 521 371 456 484 484 398 446 456 429 547 452 87% Wiltshire# 2,100 2,071 2,662 1,885 1,656 2,076 1,778 1,718 2,239 2,118 2,023 96%

* The plan period for the WSSP is 1996 to 2016. The plan period for the SWCS and WCS is 2006 to 2026.

+ Gypsy and Traveller pitch completions are not counted against the WSSP, but are counted against the SWCS and WCS.

# Values in this row may not sum from the HMA figures due to completions on sites at the West of Swindon.

Components of Supply 5.1 The supply of deliverable land includes: • Sites with planning permission or prior approval, • Sites with planning permission subject to a section 106 agreement, • Saved Local Plan allocations (that have been reviewed and carried forward as part of the Wiltshire Core Strategy), • Strategic Site allocations within the adopted Wiltshire Core Strategy, • Site allocations identified within the submission draft of the Chippenham Housing Site Allocations Development Plan Document, • Adopted Neighbourhood Plan allocations • Emerging Neighbourhood Plan allocations (where the Neighbourhood Plan has reached the formal consultation stage), • a windfall allowance (in accordance with paragraph 48 of the NPPF).

5.2 A summary breakdown of all large sites which included in the deliverable supply is available in Appendix 1. The full list of small sites which contribute to the deliverable supply are presented in Appendix 2 (except Neighbourhood Plan allocations of less than 10 dwellings which are included in the large sites table).

5.3 For small sites (except for Neighbourhood Plan allocations) a standard development rate is applied based on historic levels of delivery across Wiltshire for such sites. Each large site (of 10 or more dwellings) and all Neighbourhood Plan allocations have been individually assessed to determine site specific delivery trajectories. The detailed assessment of each large site is presented in Appendix 3.

5.4 Paragraph 3-037 of the PPG states that Local Authorities should count housing provided for older people, including residential institutions in Use Class C2 against their housing requirement, with the approach taken to be clearly set out in the Local Plan. Wiltshire Council adhered to the guidance introduced in March 2014 and considered that policies within the Wiltshire Core Strategy set out the Council’s stance on development of such accommodation. As such, completions of residential care homes were included in the completions figures contributing to the housing requirement set out in the development plan, and large sites considered to be deliverable were included in the trajectory in the July 2014 Housing Land Supply Statement.

The Council considered its approach to be sound and to comply with the PPG. However in a number of Section 78 appeal decisions Planning Inspectors have iterated how the Local Plan should set this out definitively in order to justify their inclusion. Decisions studied show that it should be based on an assessment of the need and provision of older persons housing, and set out the likely release of standard housing from persons moving into this type of accommodation. Without 8

such evidence, units should not contribute to the housing requirement or housing supply. The Council have reconsidered its position and removed non-self contained care units from the completions figures and housing trajectory.

5.5 The second bullet point to paragraph 47 of the NPPF, and paragraph 3- 033 of the PPG requires that the deliverable supply should be updated annually. An updated housing trajectory, consistent with this analysis, is included in Appendix 4.

5.6 A number of sites at Chippenham were identified in the pre-submission draft of the Wiltshire Core Strategy, but later removed as the Examining Inspector considered these sites had not been assessed equitably. The Inspector recommended in his Final Report that a separate Site Allocations development plan be produced for Chippenham to allocate suitable sites, and this plan is now at an advanced stage. The Chippenham Site Allocations Plan has now reached Examination stage and the sites therefore continue to be included in the trajectory.

5.7 The Wiltshire Core Strategy Strategic Allocation sites form the most sustainable options for delivering strategic housing developments across Wiltshire. They have been appraised using a site identification methodology and using the Sustainability Appraisal (SA). It is therefore necessary only to demonstrate the availability and achievability of each site to warrant its inclusion in the land supply.

5.8 A windfall allowance is also included in the deliverable supply set out in Table 3 in accordance with paragraph 48 of the NPPF. A full description of the calculation of the windfall allowance is included in Appendix 5.

5.9 The Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) identifies a further pool of sites adjacent to settlement boundaries that could be brought forward in accordance with Development Plan policy, through the Neighbourhood Planning process, or the Housing Sites Allocation Development Plan Document (DPD). However, not all such sites will be suitable (and therefore developable) following further site specific assessments, such as landscape for those sites that lie in an AONB, and so are not included in the deliverable supply.

Housing Land Supply 6.0 The table below provides an overview of the five year land supply against the housing requirements contained in the Wiltshire Core Strategy.

Table 2: Housing Land Supply relative to the housing requirement of the adopted Wiltshire Core Strategy

Five year Number of Housing Housing housing Deliverable years of requirement completions requirement supply deliverable Area 2006-2026 2006-2015 2015-2020 2015-2020 supply East Wiltshire HMA 5,940 2,976 1,347 2,213 8.21 North and West Wiltshire HMA 24,740 10,821 6,327 7,092 5.60 South Wiltshire HMA 10,420 4,071 2,886 3,274 5.67 Wiltshire HMAs 41,100 17,868 N/A 12,579 N/A Swindon (within Wiltshire) 900 335 N/A 402 N/A Wiltshire Total 42,000 18,203 N/A 12,981 N/A

6.1 Appendix 6 to this statement identifies the contribution of the various sources of supply to the delivery of the housing requirements of the Wiltshire Core Strategy for the Community Areas, Principal Settlements, Market Towns and Local Service Centres. From these the remaining housing to be identified through windfall delivery, Neighbourhood Plans, rural exception sites, military redevelopments and emerging housing DPDs can be calculated.

Future Monitoring

7.0 The housing land supply situation and the residual requirement will continue to be monitored on an annual basis using up to date evidence from developers and other relevant bodies, to inform and where necessary, trigger the allocation of sites to meet outstanding requirements. This is consistent with the requirements of the NPPF (paragraph 47).

Appendix 1: Summary breakdown of all sites in the deliverable supply

N.B. Neighbourhood Plan allocations which are Small sites (i.e. less than 10 dwellings) are shown as a site-specific record, rather than in the aggregated total for Small permitted sites.

Dwellings outstanding at April 2015 April at 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 Site ref

Site Address Town CA East Wiltshire HMA Total 2,657 293 431 621 468 396 289 194 178 310 168 143 Small permitted sites (see Appendix 2) 217 73 61 32 11 5 3 1 1 0 0 0 Drummond Park Ludgershall E14.5846 82 0 50 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ludgershall Tidworth Former Katherine McNeil Clinic Site E13.0715 50 0 34 15 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Devizes Devizes Land East of High Street E13.6529 45 20 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Remainder Pewsey Land at Zouch Manor E13.0397 74 54 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tidworth Tidworth Land to North of Tidworth between A338 (Pennings Road) and A3026 (Ludgershall Road) E09.1078 311 0 13 75 72 75 75 1 0 0 0 0 Tidworth Tidworth Bridge Garage, London Road E13.5263 10 0 4 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Marlborough Marlborough Former Wiltshire Council Depot, Salisbury Road E14.1649 28 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Marlborough Marlborough Land to Rear Of Wilcot Road E12.1216 14 0 10 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pewsey Pewsey Ludgershall Garden Centre Granby Gardens 25 Astor Crescent E14/6522 181 0 30 50 80 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ludgershall Tidworth

Dwellings outstanding at April 2015 April at 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 Site ref

Site Address Town CA 25 North Street E11.1127 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pewsey Pewsey 10 The Green E12.1157 11 5 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Marlborough Marlborough Former Builders Yard, Park Road E10.1104 10 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Remainder Pewsey Riverbourne Fields E12.1447 122 70 52 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tidworth Tidworth Land at Lay Wood south of Horton Road E13.1243 230 0 20 40 60 80 30 0 0 0 0 0 Devizes Devizes Land east of Quakers Walk, off London Road E11.1139 139 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Devizes Devizes Land off Hambleton Avenue E13.0978 38 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Devizes Devizes Manor Farm Yard High Street E12.0147 15 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Remainder Devizes Southfield House Victoria Road E14.10471 47 0 0 47 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Devizes Devizes The former Jam Factory Kings Road E12.0077 34 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Remainder Devizes Large permitted and 'subject to S106' sites 1,447 203 271 272 213 176 105 1 0 0 0 0 Drummond Park WCS/E2 393 0 0 18 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 25 Ludgershall Tidworth Salisbury Road WCS/E3 220 0 40 60 60 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 Marlborough Marlborough Adopted Strategic Sites and Local Plan allocations 613 0 40 78 110 110 50 50 50 50 50 25 Bath Road Business Centre, NP/E1 (Site Bath Road 9) 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 Devizes Devizes NP/E17 (Site Browfort, Bath Road 4003) 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 0 0 Devizes Devizes 12

Dwellings outstanding at April 2015 April at 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 Site ref

Site Address Town CA Former Katherine McNeil NP/E14 (Site Clinic Site 4001) -8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Devizes Devizes Former St Peter's School, NP/E15 (Site Bath Road 4002) 30 0 0 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Devizes Devizes Former Wadsworth's Warehouse, Northgate NP/E16 (Site Street 4004) 40 0 0 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Devizes Devizes Garden Trading Estate, NP/E13 (Site London Road 540) 38 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 0 0 Devizes Devizes Land at the end of Hillworth NP/E5 (Site Road 532) 42 0 0 42 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Devizes Devizes NP/E4 (Site Land off Elm Tree Gardens 1088) 10 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Devizes Devizes Former Dairy, New Park NP/E9 (Site Street 358) 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 Devizes Devizes Land at Former Magistrates NP/E11 (Site Court, Northgate Street 361) 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 Devizes Devizes NP/E6 (Site 26 Northgate Gardens 362) 8 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Devizes Devizes Railway Cutting, Hillworth NP/E7 (Site Road 713) 9 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Devizes Devizes NP/E8 (Site North Arakan Road 714) 35 0 0 0 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Devizes Devizes Stonebridge House, NP/E3 (Site Nursteed Road 15) 14 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Devizes Devizes The Meadow, Heartmoor NP/E10 (Site Road 367) 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 Devizes Devizes 13

Dwellings outstanding at April 2015 April at 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 Site ref

Site Address Town CA Marlborough Road NP/E1 49 0 0 0 0 0 20 20 9 0 0 0 Pewsey Pewsey Old Hospital Phase III NP/E2 9 0 0 0 0 0 4 5 0 0 0 0 Pewsey Pewsey Adopted and emerging Neighbourhood Plan allocations 380 0 0 153 35 0 24 25 9 142 0 0 Windfall allowance 17 59 86 99 105 107 117 118 118 118 118 North and West Wiltshire HMA Total 12,469 960 1,040 1,573 1,878 1,662 1,638 1,345 1,229 1,134 843 752 Small permitted sites (see Appendix 2) 834 281 234 123 44 20 11 5 2 2 1 0 Royal Wootton 23 Calne Road Bassett & Lyneham N13.2365 10 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Remainder Cricklade Bradford on Bradford on 249/250 Winsley Road W13.3987 10 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Avon Avon 3 Lowbourne W13.7076 16 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Melksham Melksham Adcroft Villa 1a Adcroft Drive W13.3058 9 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Trowbridge Trowbridge Bell Orchard W14.12035 11 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Westbury Westbury Brook Farm N13.5915 30 0 0 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Remainder Malmesbury Royal Royal Wootton Brynards Hill Phase 3, Wootton Bassett & Bincknoll Lane N12.4026 43 20 20 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bassett Cricklade Castlemead W04.2105 40 0 0 30 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Trowbridge Trowbridge Castlemead W14.1658 76 66 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Trowbridge Trowbridge 14

Dwellings outstanding at April 2015 April at 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 Site ref

Site Address Town CA Castlemead W14.3248 28 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Trowbridge Trowbridge Castlemead W11.0466 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Trowbridge Trowbridge

Castlemead W14.11125 70 0 50 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Trowbridge Trowbridge Cedar House Riverside Cowbridge Mill N14.2246 30 0 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Malmesbury Malmesbury Corsham Police Station, Priory Street N14.10498 10 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Corsham Corsham Cowbridge Mill N07.0975 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Malmesbury Malmesbury Faccenda Chicken Factory, High Street N12.4072 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Remainder Chippenham Fairview House, Gypsy Lane W14.5980 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Warminster Warminster Forest And Sandridge Church Of England School Sandridge Road W13.0524 12 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Melksham Melksham Royal Royal Wootton Former Beaufort Brewery, Wootton Bassett & St Ivel, Station Road N11.3978 9 6 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bassett Cricklade Former Hygrade Factory Site, Westmead Lane N12.1714 58 58 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Chippenham Chippenham George Ward School, Shurnhold W11.2312 270 0 0 50 50 50 50 50 20 0 0 0 Melksham Melksham Royal Royal Wootton Gerard Buxton Sports Wootton Bassett & Ground, Rylands Way N12.3941 91 52 39 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bassett Cricklade

Dwellings outstanding at April 2015 April at 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 Site ref

Site Address Town CA Hangars 18 and 20 N11.3148 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Remainder Corsham Hanger 19, Colerne Industrial Park N13.1567 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Remainder Corsham Hunters Moon N13.1747 450 0 0 80 80 80 80 80 50 0 0 0 Chippenham Chippenham Kingston Mills, Kingston Bradford on Bradford on Road W06.2394 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Avon Avon Land adjacent Rowden Lane N12.4160 84 33 51 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Chippenham Chippenham Land at Audley Road N12.2000 10 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Chippenham Chippenham Royal Royal Wootton Wootton Bassett & Land at Brynards Hill N14.3343 90 0 0 34 36 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bassett Cricklade Royal Royal Wootton Land at Brynards Hill, Wootton Bassett & Bincknoll Lane N10.2399 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bassett Cricklade Royal Royal Wootton Land at Brynard's Hill, Wootton Bassett & Bincknoll Lane N10.3055 18 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bassett Cricklade Land at Copenacre, Bath Road N12.0836 100 0 0 23 52 21 4 0 0 0 0 0 Corsham Corsham Land At Hazelwood Farm, Seagry Road N14.3544 21 10 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Remainder Chippenham Land at Silver Street & White Horse Way Calne N13.6774 72 0 0 10 45 45 45 10 0 0 0 0 Calne Calne Land at Slag Lane and Hawkeridge Road W10.3406 23 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Westbury Westbury

Dwellings outstanding at April 2015 April at 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 Site ref

Site Address Town CA Land at Southview Farm W08.0896 101 35 35 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Trowbridge Trowbridge Land at Station Road W14.3371 13 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Westbury Westbury Land at Station Road N11.3934 39 39 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Calne Calne Land At The Mead, Trowbridge Road W14.10977 220 20 45 45 45 45 20 0 0 0 0 0 Westbury Westbury Land East Of Damask Way Smallbrook Lane W14.3655 16 9 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Warminster Warminster Land North East of Green Lane Farm, Green Lane (The Pastures) W11.1932 85 50 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Trowbridge Trowbridge Land North East of Snowberry Lane W09.0579 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Melksham Melksham Land North of Cranesbill Road W14.0211 17 16 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Melksham Melksham Land North West Of Boreham Mill, Bishopstrow Road W13.6782 35 0 0 26 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Warminster Warminster Land off Lewington Close and Longford Road W14.4399 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Melksham Melksham Land off Oxford Road N11.3524 200 0 0 50 50 50 50 0 0 0 0 0 Calne Calne Land off Silver Street and White Horse Way N11.3628 82 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Calne Calne Land Rear Of 16 Holbrook Lane W14.10154 15 12 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Trowbridge Trowbridge Land South of Abberd Lane Calne N13.2833 125 0 32 43 43 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 Calne Calne

Dwellings outstanding at April 2015 April at 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 Site ref

Site Address Town CA Land South of Bradford Road N13.5724 88 0 15 20 20 20 13 0 0 0 0 0 Remainder Corsham Royal Royal Wootton Land South of Cloatley Wootton Bassett & Crescent N13.5400 48 48 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bassett Cricklade Land south of Devizes Road, Hilperton W13.6879 15 0 0 10 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 Trowbridge Trowbridge Land South of Filands N11.4126 180 0 30 70 70 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 Malmesbury Malmesbury Land South West Of Kingston Farm Buildings, Bradford on Bradford on Holt Road W13.0643 138 0 25 45 45 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 Avon Avon Lawn Farm, 21 The Street N13.1316 14 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Remainder Chippenham Marden Farm N14.8305 125 0 25 40 40 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 Calne Calne

North Chippenham N12.0560 750 0 0 0 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 50 Chippenham Chippenham Old Glove Factory Adjacent to 25 Brockleaze N13.2173 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Corsham Corsham R&R Coaches Ltd, Bishopstrow Road W14.0823 10 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Warminster Warminster Royal Arthur Park, Westwells Road N10.4093 221 26 60 50 50 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 Corsham Corsham Royal Wootton Bassett Royal Royal Wootton Town Council Civic Centre, Wootton Bassett & Station Road N13.5863 10 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bassett Cricklade Stanton St Quintin Garage, Lower Stanton St Quintin N12.0895 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Remainder Chippenham

Dwellings outstanding at April 2015 April at 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 Site ref

Site Address Town CA Terry's Social Club, Hill Street W09.2934 16 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 Trowbridge Trowbridge Trowbridge Rugby Football Club W05.0821 11 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Trowbridge Trowbridge Warminster United Services Club 36 Imber Road W10.2407 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Warminster Warminster Westbury North Junction Station Road W10.2479 102 0 40 40 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Westbury Westbury Westinghouse Recreation Ground, Park Avenue N11.0134 74 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Chippenham Chippenham RAF Yatesbury Jugglers Lane Yatesbury Wiltshire SN11 8YA N14.0153 46 0 0 28 16 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 Remainder Calne Land at Potley Lane N14.5686 64 0 0 20 30 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 Corsham Corsham Blounts Court N14.9769 28 0 0 10 12 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 Remainder Calne Large permitted and 'subject to S106' sites 4,706 637 578 889 827 553 378 240 170 100 100 50 AB Carter Haulage Contractors, 14 Happy Land 2/LPA/11 11 0 0 0 0 0 5 6 0 0 0 0 Remainder Malmesbury Cedar Grove 5/LPA/43 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Trowbridge Trowbridge Court Street 5/LPA/21 112 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Trowbridge Trowbridge East Chippenham CH3 800 0 0 0 0 0 80 100 100 100 150 150 Chippenham Chippenham Foundary Lane 2/LPA/18 250 0 0 0 25 50 40 0 0 0 0 0 Chippenham Chippenham Land adjacent to Westbury Hospital 5/LPA/64 25 0 30 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Westbury Westbury

Dwellings outstanding at April 2015 April at 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 Site ref

Site Address Town CA Land at the Market Place/East Street 5/LPA/38 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Warminster Warminster Land at West Street 5/LPA/55 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Warminster Warminster Land off Oldfield Road 5/LPA/49 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Westbury Westbury Patterdown and Rowden CH1 800 0 0 60 150 150 150 150 150 150 40 0 Chippenham Chippenham Rawlings Green CH2 700 0 0 0 45 80 80 80 85 85 85 80 Chippenham Chippenham Rear of Westbury Road 5/LPA/58 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Warminster Warminster Royal Royal Wootton Wootton Bassett & Rugby Club, Stoneover Lane 2/LPA/39 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bassett Cricklade South East Trowbridge WCS/NW6 2600 0 0 100 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 Trowbridge Trowbridge Station Road WCS/NW9 250 0 0 0 50 100 100 0 0 0 0 0 Westbury Westbury Station Road 5/LPA/59 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Warminster Warminster West of Warminster WCS/NW7 900 0 0 90 125 140 145 145 140 115 0 0 Warminster Warminster Works, Cocklebury Road 2/LPA/17 66 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Chippenham Chippenham Adopted and emerging Strategic Sites and Local Plan allocations 6,659 0 30 300 675 770 925 801 755 730 440 400 NP/NW1 Backridge Farm NP (Sites 3a & allocation 15) 170 0 0 20 50 50 50 0 0 0 0 0 Malmesbury Malmesbury Burnham House NP Allocation NP/NW3 50 0 0 20 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Malmesbury Malmesbury

Dwellings outstanding at April 2015 April at 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 Site ref

Site Address Town CA NP/NW2 (Sites 6, 10 Burton Hill NP allocation & 11) 50 0 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Malmesbury Malmesbury Adopted and emerging Neighbourhood Plan allocations 270 0 50 40 79 50 50 0 0 0 0 0 Windfall allowance 42 152 221 253 270 274 299 302 302 302 302 South Wiltshire HMA Total 6,116 479 707 740 705 613 682 618 588 528 527 475 Small permitted sites (see Appendix 2) 267 90 75 39 14 7 4 2 1 1 0 0 Erskine Barracks S13.4870 80 0 0 40 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Wilton Wilton Land to the East of A345 and West of Old Sarum Southern (Longhedge) S13.0673 673 0 50 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 23 Salisbury Wiltshire The Old Dairy, London Road S11.1135 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Amesbury Amesbury Land immediately to the south and west of, Archers Gate S12.0497 153 0 55 64 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Amesbury Amesbury Land at The Hill Brush Co Ltd Woodlands Road Mere Warminster S14.6780 134 0 0 0 14 40 24 0 0 0 0 0 Mere Mere Castle Works Castle Road Salisbury SP1 3SB S14.6650 60 0 0 25 32 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 Salisbury Salisbury Land off A338 and Bourne View Allington SP4 0AA S14.7832 18 0 0 0 16 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 Remainder Amesbury 21

Dwellings outstanding at April 2015 April at 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 Site ref

Site Address Town CA United Kingdom House, Castle Street S14.3037 78 0 40 21 11 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 Salisbury Salisbury Grove House Surgery, 18 Wilton Road S13.7176 14 0 10 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Salisbury Salisbury Land to the west of Archers Gate S13.6755 49 49 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Amesbury Amesbury Land to the south of Archers Gate (Kings Gate Phase B) S14.6993 129 48 45 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Amesbury Amesbury Milford House 43-55 Milford Street S14.10997 31 0 23 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Salisbury Salisbury Erskine Barracks S13.4870 262 70 100 61 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Wilton Wilton 15-17 Middleton Road S14.9204 12 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Salisbury Salisbury Southern Area 9A/9B Old Sarum S14.5623 38 26 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Salisbury Wiltshire Southern Local Centre, Old Sarum S12.1829 30 0 23 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Salisbury Wiltshire Area 2, Castle View, Old Southern Sarum S07.1485 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Salisbury Wiltshire Land off Hindon Lane S11.0322 20 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tisbury Tisbury Land North, West and South of Bishopdown Farm S09.1943 349 85 85 85 50 44 0 0 0 0 0 0 Salisbury Salisbury Our Lady of Heaven Church, Philip Road S07.1863 11 9 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Remainder Amesbury Former Highbury and Fisherton Manor School Sites S12.1282 13 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Salisbury Salisbury

Dwellings outstanding at April 2015 April at 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 Site ref

Site Address Town CA 37 39 High Street S12.1491 13 0 11 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Amesbury Amesbury Former National Cooperative Store, 23-29 Salisbury Street S13.0422 33 33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Amesbury Amesbury Land adjacent Hideaway Garage London Road S13.6337 12 0 11 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Amesbury Amesbury Land adjacent to 15 Butterfield Drive S14.12116 10 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Amesbury Amesbury Land at The Hill Brush Co Ltd Woodlands Road Mere Warminster S14.6780 58 0 0 30 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mere Mere 50 Winterslow Road (Land to rear of Chalk House) Porton S14.2043 20 0 0 16 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Salisbury Salisbury Matrons College Farm, Southern Whaddon S13.2543 28 0 0 21 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Remainder Wiltshire

Former Shrewton School High Street Shrewton S13.2101 14 10 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Remainder Amesbury Large permitted and 'subject to S106' sites 2,357 375 481 496 341 171 100 75 75 75 75 23 Southern Odstock Hospital 3/LPA/41 45 0 0 0 0 0 15 15 15 0 0 0 Salisbury Wiltshire Bulbridge 3/LPA/36 45 0 0 0 0 0 15 15 15 0 0 0 Wilton Wilton Old Manor Hospital 3/LPA/11 80 0 0 0 25 25 26 0 0 0 0 0 Salisbury Salisbury RAF Baverstock 3/LPA/38 30 0 0 0 0 0 10 10 10 0 0 0 Remainder Wilton

Dwellings outstanding at April 2015 April at 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 Site ref

Site Address Town CA Central Car Park WCS/S5 200 0 0 0 20 40 40 40 20 0 0 0 Salisbury Salisbury Kings Gate WCS/S1 782 0 0 40 100 129 80 80 80 80 80 80 Amesbury Amesbury Fugglestone Red WCS/S3 1250 0 100 120 120 150 150 130 120 120 120 120 Salisbury Salisbury Churchfields & Engine Sheds WCS/S4 1100 0 0 0 0 0 150 150 150 150 150 150 Salisbury Salisbury Adopted Strategic Sites and Local Plan allocations 3,532 0 100 160 265 344 486 440 410 350 350 350 Windfall allowance 14 51 75 86 91 92 101 102 102 102 102 Swindon (within Wiltshire) Total 565 96 96 70 70 70 70 70 70 3 0 0 Small permitted sites (see Appendix 2) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Royal Wootton Bassett & Land at Moredon Bridge N08.0403 -50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Swindon Cricklade Royal Wootton RIDGEWAY FARM, Bassett & COMMON PLATT N10.4575 482 0 59 70 70 70 70 70 70 3 0 0 Swindon Cricklade Royal Wootton Land at Moredon Bridge, Bassett & West Swindon N11.2763 52 26 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Swindon Cricklade RIDGEWAY FARM, Royal Wootton COMMON PLATT, LYDIARD Bassett & MILLICENT N13.1615 81 70 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Swindon Cricklade Large permitted sites 565 96 96 70 70 70 70 70 70 3 0 0

Appendix 2: Small sites contributing to the deliverable supply

Small sites within the supply (except for Neighbourhood Plan allocations of less than 10 dwellings, which are included in Appendix 1) have been ordered by their Community Area sub-areas, i.e. either the main settlement in the Community Area, or the rural remainder. The summary for each sub-area shows the total number of units still outstanding on the permission and the number of units assumed to be developable based on historic delivery rates for small sites (rounded to the nearest whole unit.).

The ‘Dwellings outstanding at April 2015’ column represents the net dwelling units remaining to be developed on the permission. As such values of zero (e.g. an as yet unimplemented replacement dwelling) and values less than zero (e.g. an as yet unimplemented conversion of two dwellings into one unit) in this column are a valid assessment of the remaining development still to be implemented.

Dwellings Application outstanding Site Address Number at April 2015 Town CA HMA East Wiltshire HMA Uphill Farm, Uphill E11.0248 0 Devizes Devizes East Land Adjoining 19 Caird Lawns E14.7718 1 Devizes Devizes East Plot adjacent to 44 Roundway Park E14.9447 1 Devizes Devizes East Old Swan Yard, High Street E14.10265 1 Devizes Devizes East 2 - 3 Long Street E14.10228 4 Devizes Devizes East 6 The Brittox E14.11852 2 Devizes Devizes East Wyndhams St Josephs Place E13.4763 2 Devizes Devizes East Out Yonder Hartfield E11.1297 1 Devizes Devizes East Former Caretakers House, Devizes School, The Green E12.1211 5 Devizes Devizes East 32 New Park Street E12.1515 1 Devizes Devizes East Bolwell Court 44A New Park street E13.0321 4 Devizes Devizes East Land Off Elm Tree Close E11.1315 6 Devizes Devizes East Devizes - total Small site units outstanding 28 of which 24 considered developable in the plan period. Land at Common Farm Common Lane E14.1375 1 Remainder Devizes East The Tyning 8 Sunnyside West Lavington Devizes Wiltshire SN10 4HU E13.6333 1 Remainder Devizes East Land between 18 and 19 Highfield E14.11204 3 Remainder Devizes East Land at Springfield Road E14.11247 2 Remainder Devizes East 66 Blackberry Lane E12.1179 1 Remainder Devizes East Land Adjacent Four Winds, 11 Silver Street E14.3580 1 Remainder Devizes East

Dwellings Application outstanding Site Address Number at April 2015 Town CA HMA Land to the rear of The Stage Post, 9 High Street E14.6092 4 Remainder Devizes East 57 Bell Inn High Street E14.5544 1 Remainder Devizes East Land adjacent 4 Sandfield E14.7251 1 Remainder Devizes East Manor Farm, Allington E14.7671 1 Remainder Devizes East Crossways House, Parham Lane E14.8004 0 Remainder Devizes East 5 Close Lane E14.8435 1 Remainder Devizes East 2 White Street E14.10189 1 Remainder Devizes East Barn at Wyatts Farm 250 Westbrook E14.11743 1 Remainder Devizes East Vicarage Lane Nurseries Kings Road E13.5576 1 Remainder Devizes East 15 Greengate Road Wedhampton Devizes Wilts E13.1926 1 Remainder Devizes East Staggs Cottage The Street Bishop`s Cannings Devizes E13.4442 1 Remainder Devizes East Uphill Farm, Uphill E11.0858 1 Remainder Devizes East Land adjacent to Overton House High Street E12.1396 1 Remainder Devizes East 6 White Street E13.0244 1 Remainder Devizes East Land adj Standard Bakery, High Street E12.0643 1 Remainder Devizes East Land adjacent 9 South Cliffe Road E14.11986 1 Remainder Devizes East Land Adjacent To The Brambles Blackberry Lane E14.11151 1 Remainder Devizes East Church Farm Barn, Peppercombe Lane E14.6735 1 Remainder Devizes East Lydeway Garage A342 Etchilhampton Turning C60 South East to Junction Past Bell Inn E15.0230 4 Remainder Devizes East Land adjacant to Springfield 92 High Street E14.12143 1 Remainder Devizes East

Devizes CA remainder - total Small site units outstanding 34 of which 30 considered developable in the plan period. Land Adjacent 44 St Margarets Mead E14.1408 1 Marlborough Marlborough East York Lodge, High Street E14.3923 4 Marlborough Marlborough East Plot 2 Wakefield House Cardigan Road E14.4084 1 Marlborough Marlborough East Killycoonagh House Back Lane E14.5432 1 Marlborough Marlborough East Former Builders Yard, Plume of Feathers Lane E14.6254 1 Marlborough Marlborough East Crooks Yard, Adj Hilliers Yard E14.11905 4 Marlborough Marlborough East 25 The Parade Marlborough E13.7162 3 Marlborough Marlborough East

Dwellings Application outstanding Site Address Number at April 2015 Town CA HMA The Beacon Leaze Road Marlborough E13.7170 1 Marlborough Marlborough East Culvermead Meadow, George Lane K.57234 1 Marlborough Marlborough East Land at the rear of Cross keys House The Parade E13.0358 3 Marlborough Marlborough East 1st & 2nd floors, Block C, Ailesbury Court, High Street E11.0862 8 Marlborough Marlborough East The Former Ropeworks Kennet Place E10.0040 3 Marlborough Marlborough East The Former Ropeworks Kennet Place E10.0040 3 Marlborough Marlborough East 18 St. Martins E12.1069 1 Marlborough Marlborough East 41A High Street E12.1455 2 Marlborough Marlborough East 9 & 10 St Martins E13.0027 1 Marlborough Marlborough East Cedar House The Parade E13.0395 1 Marlborough Marlborough East Upper Quarry Tin Pit E14.11885 1 Marlborough Marlborough East Land North East of Crabbes Close Hyde Lane E14.11683 1 Marlborough Marlborough East Marlborough - total Small site units outstanding 41 of which 36 considered developable in the plan period. Rabley Barns, Rabley Hill E14.2549 1 Remainder Marlborough East 6A Lottage Road Aldbourne Marlborough E13.3443 -1 Remainder Marlborough East Whittonditch Farm Whittonditch Ramsbury E13.0171 4 Remainder Marlborough East 4 Main Road E14.0922 1 Remainder Marlborough East Glenavon, High Street E14.2205 0 Remainder Marlborough East Lower Acre, Bray Street, Avebury E14.2099 0 Remainder Marlborough East Land To The Rear Of Nos 34 To 35 Oxford Street E14.3810 1 Remainder Marlborough East Land adjacent to Park Close, High Street E14.9222 1 Remainder Marlborough East 32 & 33 Froxfield E14.5569 2 Remainder Marlborough East Rabley Barns Rabley Hill E14.5870 1 Remainder Marlborough East Parliament Piece, Back Lane E14.1188 1 Remainder Marlborough East Hilltop Cottage Marridge Hill E14.6688 1 Remainder Marlborough East Luton Lye House Sawpit Drive E15.0658 0 Remainder Marlborough East Former Kennet Valley C.E. Aided Primary School E14.5027 1 Remainder Marlborough East Land rear of Foxfield and Escots, Aldbourne Road E14.5491 4 Remainder Marlborough East Poughcombe Barns E14.8554 1 Remainder Marlborough East 14 Burdett Street E14.7981 0 Remainder Marlborough East Park Farm E14.5721 0 Remainder Marlborough East

Dwellings Application outstanding Site Address Number at April 2015 Town CA HMA Land South Of Elm Bank, Whittonditch Road E14.10169 1 Remainder Marlborough East Mount Pleasant, 18 Oxford Street E14.11276 0 Remainder Marlborough East 6a Lottage Road E14.9411 0 Remainder Marlborough East The Old Farmyard Rockley Manor Rockley E14.7980 1 Remainder Marlborough East Downs Equestrian Centre Baydon Wilts SN8 2JS E13.0394 2 Remainder Marlborough East Land at 50B Chilton Foliat Hungerford RG17 0TF E14.0245 1 Remainder Marlborough East Melrose E09.0255 1 Remainder Marlborough East Seymour Place Savernake Marlborough SN8 3HW E14.0595 1 Remainder Marlborough East Ground Floor of The Dutch Barn Elm Tree Park Bath Road Manton E13.5564 1 Remainder Marlborough East Eastridge House, Eastridge E12.0427 1 Remainder Marlborough East 1 Ermin Street, Baydon E11.1636 1 Remainder Marlborough East Red Lion Ermin Street E12.1575 1 Remainder Marlborough East 50 Chilton Foliat E13.0218 2 Remainder Marlborough East The Coach House Preston E13.1345 1 Remainder Marlborough East Cookes Meadow East Kennett E15.0143 0 Remainder Marlborough East 1 Westfield Farm E14.11275 1 Remainder Marlborough East M4 Trade Centre, A4361 E15.0136 3 Remainder Marlborough East Maisey Farm E14.8625 0 Remainder Marlborough East

Marlborough CA remainder - total Small site units outstanding 36 of which 31 considered developable in the plan period. Reeders, North Newnton Garage Park Road E14.8885 4 Remainder Pewsey East Dairy House Puckshipton E12.1047 3 Remainder Pewsey East 54 Ball Road E14.0355 2 Remainder Pewsey East Colerne, Mill Lane E14.3961 0 Remainder Pewsey East Half Acre The Sands E14.3932 0 Remainder Pewsey East Bungalow Farm House E14.5989 0 Remainder Pewsey East 63 High Street Burbage E14.6548 1 Remainder Pewsey East 26 River Street Pewsey E14.2128 9 Remainder Pewsey East 34 High Street E13.0315 2 Remainder Pewsey East 34 High Street E14.3829 2 Remainder Pewsey East Land to the North of Ailesbury Way E14.6846 4 Remainder Pewsey East 114 High Street E14.6222 1 Remainder Pewsey East Three Horse Shoes E14.8335 1 Remainder Pewsey East

Dwellings Application outstanding Site Address Number at April 2015 Town CA HMA The White Hart, Oare E14.7813 1 Remainder Pewsey East 41 Ball Road E14.9866 1 Remainder Pewsey East Sirosa & Kohima, East Grafton E14.9756 2 Remainder Pewsey East Highleaze House Lodge Oare Marlborough SN8 4JE E13.6982 0 Remainder Pewsey East Land adjacent 229 East Grafton Marlborough SN8 3DH E13.7073 1 Remainder Pewsey East Kingwardstone Farm Burbage Marlborough SN8 3BU E13.6956 1 Remainder Pewsey East Haredown Farm Great Bedwyn Marlborough Wilts SN8 3ND E13.5931 1 Remainder Pewsey East The Cottages, Down Farm, Everleigh Road E09.0776 1 Remainder Pewsey East Honey Street Mills Honey Street Pewsey Wiltshire SN9 5PS E10.0772 3 Remainder Pewsey East Rivar Farm Buildings Rivar Farm Shalbourne Marlborough SN8 3RL E13.1104 2 Remainder Pewsey East Land North West Of 91 Church Street, Great Bedwyn, Marlborough, Wiltshire E13.4738 1 Remainder Pewsey East The Mill House First Floor, Conygre Farm Burbage Road E13.5729 1 Remainder Pewsey East Stype Wood Stud Gate Close East To Stype Grange Hungerford E13.5250 0 Remainder Pewsey East 57 High Street K.59033 4 Remainder Pewsey East Rear of London House, High Street E11.0133 3 Remainder Pewsey East 3 Devizes Road E11.0270 1 Remainder Pewsey East Keeble, Kingston Road E13.0518 0 Remainder Pewsey East 3 & 4 China Cottages, East Stowell E11.0898 1 Remainder Pewsey East Land to rear 23-27 High Street E12.1110 3 Remainder Pewsey East Field Place Firgreen E14.0814 0 Remainder Pewsey East Burbage Wharf E13.0112 0 Remainder Pewsey East 1 Stratton Road E13.0144 -1 Remainder Pewsey East The Depot, Station Approach, Wilcot Rd E14.6941 9 Remainder Pewsey East Pewsey CA - total Small site units outstanding 64 of which 56 considered developable in the plan period. Malbar Andover Road Andover Road Tidworth & Ludgershall E13.3798 1 Ludgershall Tidworth East

Dwellings Application outstanding Site Address Number at April 2015 Town CA HMA South Park Farm Barn Andover Lane Tidworth & Ludgershall E13.4893 1 Ludgershall Tidworth East 22 Pretoria Road Ludgershall Tidworth & Andover E13.2702 1 Ludgershall Tidworth East 48 Andover Road Ludgershall Tidworth & SP11 9NA E13.5163 2 Ludgershall Tidworth East 4 - 6 Andover Road Tidworth & Ludgershall Andover E11.1231 6 Ludgershall Tidworth East 23 Astor Crescent Tidworth & Ludgershall E12.1362 1 Ludgershall Tidworth East

Tidworth & Ludgershall - total Small site units outstanding 12 of which 10 considered developable in the plan period. Land At Pigleaze Farm E15.1060 1 Remainder Tidworth East Rutherford Stud Chantry Lane Upper Chute E14.0495 0 Remainder Tidworth East Red House Farm Clanville Andover E12.1067 1 Remainder Tidworth East

Tidworth CA remainder - total Small site units outstanding 2 of which 2 considered developable in the plan period. North and West Wiltshire HMA Bradford on 199 Winsley Road W14.6020 2 Avon Bradford on Avon North and West Bradford on 30 Winsley Road W13.0274 0 Avon Bradford on Avon North and West Bradford on 84 Bath Road W14.9738 2 Avon Bradford on Avon North and West Bradford on Adj 7 Mount Pleasant W08.2281 1 Avon Bradford on Avon North and West Bradford on Former Depot, Frome Road W08.0754 4 Avon Bradford on Avon North and West Bradford on Former Depot, Frome Road W14.1695 4 Avon Bradford on Avon North and West Garage Block South East Of Bradford on 16 Southville Road W14.9863 1 Avon Bradford on Avon North and West Garage Site - Land adjacent Bradford on to 39 Southville Road W14.9111 2 Avon Bradford on Avon North and West Hudds Farm Westwood Bradford on Road W12.0427 0 Avon Bradford on Avon North and West Kingston Mills, Kingston Bradford on Road W12.2347 5 Avon Bradford on Avon North and West Bradford on Land adj 8 Sladesbrook W14.7638 1 Avon Bradford on Avon North and West Land Adjacent to 46 Bradford on Poulton W14.9112 2 Avon Bradford on Avon North and West Land Adjacent to 53 Bradford on Poulton W14.9113 1 Avon Bradford on Avon North and West

Dwellings Application outstanding Site Address Number at April 2015 Town CA HMA Bradford on Land At Beaglers Green W13.0781 1 Avon Bradford on Avon North and West Land rear of Hill Leigh Bradford on Coronation Avenue W14.6136 7 Avon Bradford on Avon North and West Land South East Of Kennet Bradford on Gardens W14.2137 1 Avon Bradford on Avon North and West Land South Of Former Bradford on Garage Site, Frome Road W13.3868 5 Avon Bradford on Avon North and West Land south of The Bradford on Paddocks, Whiteheads Lane W11.1954 1 Avon Bradford on Avon North and West Land West Of Budbury Bradford on Close W12.2150 3 Avon Bradford on Avon North and West The Seven Workshop Elms Bradford on Cross Yard Frome Road W13.3273 3 Avon Bradford on Avon North and West Bradford on Willow Cottage Leigh Road W14.8895 0 Avon Bradford on Avon North and West Bradford on Woodpeckers 7 Holt Road W13.6984 1 Avon Bradford on Avon North and West Woolley Barn Farm Woolley Bradford on Green W14.2659 0 Avon Bradford on Avon North and West

Bradford on Avon - total Small site units outstanding 47 of which 41 considered developable in the plan period. 127 - 128 Winsley W12.2226 1 Remainder Bradford on Avon North and West Bays Farm Pinkney Green Farleigh Wick W14.8318 1 Remainder Bradford on Avon North and West Chilliswood 2A Church Lane W12.1799 1 Remainder Bradford on Avon North and West Garage site and vacant land at Tynings Way W14.2362 4 Remainder Bradford on Avon North and West Garage site at Leslie Rise W14.2361 2 Remainder Bradford on Avon North and West Heronsview, 91B Winsley Hill W12.1636 1 Remainder Bradford on Avon North and West Holt Joinery, The Midlands W11.3225 1 Remainder Bradford on Avon North and West Home Farm W14.8322 3 Remainder Bradford on Avon North and West Hudds Farm Westwood Road W13.1032 1 Remainder Bradford on Avon North and West Land At Smallbrook House Smallbrook Gardens W12.1675 3 Remainder Bradford on Avon North and West Land North West Of 199 The Common, Beckerley Lane W12.0810 1 Remainder Bradford on Avon North and West Manor Farm, Bradford Road W12.0862 1 Remainder Bradford on Avon North and West Methodist Church Staverton W13.0833 1 Remainder Bradford on Avon North and West Smallbrook Gardens W11.0726 3 Remainder Bradford on Avon North and West Woolley Park Farm, Woolley Green, Bradford On Avon W15.1132 3 Remainder Bradford on Avon North and West

Bradford on Avon CA remainder - total Small site units outstanding 27 of which 23 considered developable in the plan period. 127 London Road N12.3177 9 Calne Calne North and West

Dwellings Application outstanding Site Address Number at April 2015 Town CA HMA 13 High Street N12.0769 1 Calne Calne North and West 22 - 24 Oxford Road Calne N14.5550 2 Calne Calne North and West 36C North Street N11.1502 1 Calne Calne North and West Chilvester House N13.1137 1 Calne Calne North and West Church Street Calne N13.3999 1 Calne Calne North and West Land at 268 Oxford Road N15.0511 1 Calne Calne North and West Marden Farm N12.4038 -1 Calne Calne North and West Salmons Leap Calstone N13.2361 0 Calne Calne North and West The College, The Green N12.3107 1 Calne Calne North and West The Granary, Church Road, Derry Hill N14.10510 2 Calne Calne North and West Calne - total Small site units outstanding 18 of which 16 considered developable in the plan period. Adj The Old Bakehouse, 4 Main Road N11.2802 1 Remainder Calne North and West Agricultural Building at Wick Bridge Stables, East Tytherton N14.5471 1 Remainder Calne North and West Cedarwood, Middle Lane N11.3190 1 Remainder Calne North and West Coach House N11.3636 9 Remainder Calne North and West Hare Street Farm, Hare Street, East Tytherton N14.6025 1 Remainder Calne North and West Land off Stockley Road Heddington Calne N14.2900 1 Remainder Calne North and West Land to the Rear of The Old Police House, 6 Main Road N12.0497 1 Remainder Calne North and West Mill Farm, 48 The Street 48 The Street Cherhill Calne N14.2786 1 Remainder Calne North and West Teal Farm, Hare Street, Foxham N11.3606 0 Remainder Calne North and West

Calne CA remainder - total Small site units outstanding 16 of which 14 considered developable in the plan period. 1 CHESTNUT ROAD N13.1483 1 Chippenham Chippenham North and West 1 Forest Lane Cottages N13.1274 1 Chippenham Chippenham North and West 12 The Causeway N12.1445 1 Chippenham Chippenham North and West 13-16 Market Place Chippenham N14.3748 8 Chippenham Chippenham North and West 14 Brook Street, Chippenham, Wilts N13.1444 1 Chippenham Chippenham North and West 15 New Road N11.1240 2 Chippenham Chippenham North and West 163 London Road Chippenham N14.1772 1 Chippenham Chippenham North and West 18 St Mary's Place N11.2167 3 Chippenham Chippenham North and West 184 Sheldon Road N13.6981 1 Chippenham Chippenham North and West

Dwellings Application outstanding Site Address Number at April 2015 Town CA HMA 186 Malmesbury Road Chippenham N14.5258 0 Chippenham Chippenham North and West 209 Wood Lane N12.0211 1 Chippenham Chippenham North and West 27b, 27c & 28a Park Lane N12.1851 8 Chippenham Chippenham North and West 31 New Road N13.0550 3 Chippenham Chippenham North and West 31 New Road N13.1077 1 Chippenham Chippenham North and West 31A The Causeway Chippenham N14.8760 1 Chippenham Chippenham North and West 36 B Malmesbury Road Chippenham N14.5005 -1 Chippenham Chippenham North and West 36 The Causeway Chippenham N14.7894 2 Chippenham Chippenham North and West 37 PALMER STREET N11.3470 1 Chippenham Chippenham North and West 4 Hardenhuish Lane Chippenham N14.7241 2 Chippenham Chippenham North and West 48 Market Place Chippenham N13.6541 1 Chippenham Chippenham North and West 51 - 52 Parkfields Chippenham N14.3025 3 Chippenham Chippenham North and West 51 - 52 Parkfields Chippenham N14.8559 4 Chippenham Chippenham North and West 68 A Greenway Lane Chippenham N14.6484 0 Chippenham Chippenham North and West 78 Sheldon Road Chippenham N14.6785 1 Chippenham Chippenham North and West 8 The Causeway N12.3845 1 Chippenham Chippenham North and West 88 Greenway Lane Chippenham N14.7700 0 Chippenham Chippenham North and West 9 A Malmesbury Road Chippenham N14.4658 5 Chippenham Chippenham North and West 9 London Road N12.3755 2 Chippenham Chippenham North and West Adj 22 Lady Coventry Road N08.1345 1 Chippenham Chippenham North and West Adj 64 Dallas Road N11.2416 1 Chippenham Chippenham North and West Brethren Meeting Room, Goldney Avenue N12.0286 5 Chippenham Chippenham North and West Chas Hart (Jewellers) Ltd 19 Market Place N13.4367 1 Chippenham Chippenham North and West Cote House, 24 Rowden Hill N12.0654 2 Chippenham Chippenham North and West Doorworld, Bristol Road N14.6619 6 Chippenham Chippenham North and West Land adj 88 London Road N12.3632 1 Chippenham Chippenham North and West Land Adjacent to 78 Sheldon Road N14.6786 1 Chippenham Chippenham North and West Land Adjacent to 82 Sadlers Mead N14.11249 1 Chippenham Chippenham North and West LAND AT END OF BRUGES CLOSE N10.3467 0 Chippenham Chippenham North and West Land Between 78 & 80 Derriads Lane N13.5529 1 Chippenham Chippenham North and West

Dwellings Application outstanding Site Address Number at April 2015 Town CA HMA Land rear of Hawthorn House, Hawthorn Road N11.1823 2 Chippenham Chippenham North and West Land to the Rear of 31 Rowden Hill N14.0746 1 Chippenham Chippenham North and West Little George Hotel, 29 New Road N13.1501 5 Chippenham Chippenham North and West Pew Hill House, Pew Hill N13.0611 9 Chippenham Chippenham North and West R/O 88 Bristol Road N14.11708 2 Chippenham Chippenham North and West Rear of 2-3 Market Place Chippenham N14.5479 2 Chippenham Chippenham North and West Rear of 25 Market Place N10.3285 4 Chippenham Chippenham North and West Rear of 36 Market Place N10.1747 1 Chippenham Chippenham North and West The Embankment Site, Bath Road Bath Road Chippenham N13.3099 5 Chippenham Chippenham North and West Units 1-2 The Works The Butts N14.7107 2 Chippenham Chippenham North and West Chippenham - total Small site units outstanding 107 of which 93 considered developable in the plan period. 1 & 2 Nettleton Road, Burton N13.0086 0 Remainder Chippenham North and West 26 High Street Sutton Benger N14.4152 1 Remainder Chippenham North and West 49 Peckingell N14.0796 0 Remainder Chippenham North and West 57d Kington St Michael N14.1103 1 Remainder Chippenham North and West 8 Plough Lane N13.1836 1 Remainder Chippenham North and West Arms Farm, 9 High Street N11.2233 2 Remainder Chippenham North and West Former Chapel, Newtown N10.4250 1 Remainder Chippenham North and West Garages at Stubbs Lane N13.1254 1 Remainder Chippenham North and West Great Rideway Farm, Main Road N10.0958 1 Remainder Chippenham North and West Kington House, Kington St Michael N15.1009 2 Remainder Chippenham North and West Land Adjacent 9 Church View N14.9205 1 Remainder Chippenham North and West Land Adjoining 72 The Green Christian Malford N13.5580 1 Remainder Chippenham North and West Land at Hill Hayes Lane Hullavington N14.5905 1 Remainder Chippenham North and West Land at Honey Knob Hill N11.4132 2 Remainder Chippenham North and West Land off Nettleton Road, Burton N14.8698 7 Remainder Chippenham North and West Land Rear of Bay Tree Cottage, The Butts N15.0267 1 Remainder Chippenham North and West Lipgate Farm Kington Langley N13.5839 0 Remainder Chippenham North and West New Homestead Farm Mountain Bower N13.4717 1 Remainder Chippenham North and West

Dwellings Application outstanding Site Address Number at April 2015 Town CA HMA Newlands, Sutton Lane N13.1363 1 Remainder Chippenham North and West Rear of 26 High Street, Sutton Benger N10.2190 1 Remainder Chippenham North and West Seagry and Startley Village Hall, Upper Seagry N12.2359 1 Remainder Chippenham North and West Seagry Hill N15.1401 1 Remainder Chippenham North and West Swallett Farm Main Road N13.5680 2 Remainder Chippenham North and West Tallywacker Farm, Nash Lane N11.1164 0 Remainder Chippenham North and West Tanglewood, The Gibb, Littleton Drew N14.3874 0 Remainder Chippenham North and West THE OLD FARMHOUSE, SEAGRY ROAD N12.3709 1 Remainder Chippenham North and West Town Close Kington St. Michael Chippenham N14.9655 3 Remainder Chippenham North and West

Chippenham CA remainder - total Small site units outstanding 34 of which 30 considered developable in the plan period. 3A High Street N12.2984 1 Corsham Corsham North and West 45 Queens Avenue N13.0004 1 Corsham Corsham North and West 9 Queens Bridge Cottages Patterdowne Chippenham N14.9973 0 Corsham Corsham North and West Adj 1 Bradford Road N08.1194 1 Corsham Corsham North and West Former Dairy, Priory Street N12.3980 5 Corsham Corsham North and West Garage site adj. Long Close Avenue Rudloe N14.4484 8 Corsham Corsham North and West Garage site adj. Sandy Lea Avenue, Rudloe N14.4482 3 Corsham Corsham North and West Land rear of 16 High Street N10.3094 2 Corsham Corsham North and West Land to the rear of 6 & 8 Bradford Road N10.2625 4 Corsham Corsham North and West Rudloe Manor, Box Hill N08.0986 4 Corsham Corsham North and West Rudloe Manor, Box Hill N08.0986 2 Corsham Corsham North and West Taffswell Farm Saltersford Lane Chippenham N14.0878 1 Corsham Corsham North and West The Methuen Arms Hotel, 2 High Street N12.1905 1 Corsham Corsham North and West Corsham - total Small site units outstanding 33 of which 29 considered developable in the plan period. Arnolds Mill N12.0825 1 Remainder Corsham North and West Ashley Lodge Farm, Ashley N12.1198 1 Remainder Corsham North and West Chapel Barn Farm, Chapel Paister N14.10822 2 Remainder Corsham North and West Cloud's Farm, Box Hill N10.3028 0 Remainder Corsham North and West Cloud's Farm, The Clouds, Box Hill N11.2176 1 Remainder Corsham North and West

Dwellings Application outstanding Site Address Number at April 2015 Town CA HMA Fordswood Miniature Horse Stud, Lower Kingsdown Road N12.1252 1 Remainder Corsham North and West Glen Echo, Lower Kingsdown Road N13.1147 0 Remainder Corsham North and West Land at Pew Mead N12.4073 0 Remainder Corsham North and West Land to the North of 20 Bath Road N14.1904 1 Remainder Corsham North and West Langleys Folly, Adjacent 4 Silver Street N12.1199 1 Remainder Corsham North and West Lower Eastrip Farm, Eastrip Lane N14.9719 1 Remainder Corsham North and West Rudloe Manor, Box Hill N14.5421 6 Remainder Corsham North and West Showell Farm, Showell N11.3045 2 Remainder Corsham North and West The Studio Quarry Hill Box N13.6368 1 Remainder Corsham North and West

Corsham CA remainder - total Small site units outstanding 18 of which 16 considered developable in the plan period. 109 Gloucester Road N11.0935 7 Malmesbury Malmesbury North and West 12 Oxford Street Malmesbury N14.11180 2 Malmesbury Malmesbury North and West 36 Gloucester Street Malmesbury N14.5617 4 Malmesbury Malmesbury North and West 52 Corn Gastons N13.1868 2 Malmesbury Malmesbury North and West 7-9 Gloucester Street Malmesbury N13.6278 1 Malmesbury Malmesbury North and West Cowbridge Mill N13.4122 7 Malmesbury Malmesbury North and West East Cottage, Burton Hill N09.2226 8 Malmesbury Malmesbury North and West Henry George, 34 Cross Hayes N13.2718 1 Malmesbury Malmesbury North and West Land adj 45 Parklands N14.3079 1 Malmesbury Malmesbury North and West Land at Delmont, Holloway Hill N14.9502 1 Malmesbury Malmesbury North and West Stainsbridge Mill House, Gloucester Road N14.3616 1 Malmesbury Malmesbury North and West The Forge, High Street N13.1174 1 Malmesbury Malmesbury North and West The Mill House, Sir Bernard Lovell Road N14.5563 4 Malmesbury Malmesbury North and West The White House, Tetbury Hill N14.6803 1 Malmesbury Malmesbury North and West Westerfield, Bremilham Road N14.6719 1 Malmesbury Malmesbury North and West Malmesbury - total Small site units outstanding 42 of which 36 considered developable in the plan period. 10 GOSDITCH, ASHTON KEYNES N13.1462 1 Remainder Malmesbury North and West 12-14 Noble Street N13.5507 1 Remainder Malmesbury North and West 22 MILBOURNE PARK, MILBOURNE N12.0293 1 Remainder Malmesbury North and West 3 Almshouses, The Green N14.5505 -1 Remainder Malmesbury North and West

Dwellings Application outstanding Site Address Number at April 2015 Town CA HMA 6 Malmesbury Road, Leigh N11.3637 0 Remainder Malmesbury North and West 8 The Mead Ashton Keynes N13.5613 2 Remainder Malmesbury North and West 9 Gaston Lane N11.0312 1 Remainder Malmesbury North and West 9 Gaston Lane Sherston N13.7226 1 Remainder Malmesbury North and West Adelaide, Upper Minety N14.5203 0 Remainder Malmesbury North and West Applewood House, Noble Street N13.0331 0 Remainder Malmesbury North and West Ashbury, Stoppers Hill N09.0625 1 Remainder Malmesbury North and West Avondale, Brook End N12.0730 0 Remainder Malmesbury North and West Bowds Farm, Bowds Lane, Lyneham N14.7988 1 Remainder Malmesbury North and West Brown Leaves, Hollow Street N12.1264 1 Remainder Malmesbury North and West Burton Hill House, Burton Hill N13.0703 9 Remainder Malmesbury North and West Church Farm Coach House, Wheatsheaf Lane N10.1162 2 Remainder Malmesbury North and West Clitchbury Farm Swindon Road N13.1450 3 Remainder Malmesbury North and West Cox Hill Farm North End N13.2989 1 Remainder Malmesbury North and West Deo Gratias, Milbourne Lane, Milbourne N14.11982 1 Remainder Malmesbury North and West Derryfield Farm, The Common N13.6457 0 Remainder Malmesbury North and West DOWER HOUSE, PARK STREET N12.4057 1 Remainder Malmesbury North and West Elmbrook, Startley N14.5444 0 Remainder Malmesbury North and West Garden of Ivy Cottages, The Street N14.3319 1 Remainder Malmesbury North and West Good Mondays Farm Dauntsey N14.1923 1 Remainder Malmesbury North and West Headmasters House, Burton Hill N14.8530 0 Remainder Malmesbury North and West Hill Farm N14.2591 1 Remainder Malmesbury North and West Hillside Farm, Dauntsey Lock N12.2019 0 Remainder Malmesbury North and West Hulberts Green Riding School, Braydonside Brinkworth N14.4072 1 Remainder Malmesbury North and West Ketchil Villa, Little Middle Green Farm N13.1554 0 Remainder Malmesbury North and West Ladyswood House, Ladyswood N14.10590 1 Remainder Malmesbury North and West Land Adjacent Pilgrim Cottage, Back Street N13.0336 0 Remainder Malmesbury North and West Land at the Mead Ashton Keynes N13.5914 9 Remainder Malmesbury North and West Little Smithcott Farm N13.5600 0 Remainder Malmesbury North and West Manby's Farm N12.3822 0 Remainder Malmesbury North and West

Dwellings Application outstanding Site Address Number at April 2015 Town CA HMA Manor Farm, Corston N12.0327 5 Remainder Malmesbury North and West MANSELLS COACH HOUSE, UPPER MINETY N11.3550 1 Remainder Malmesbury North and West Morley Farm, Eastcourt N14.7872 0 Remainder Malmesbury North and West Morley Farm, Eastcourt, Malmesbury N12.0100 2 Remainder Malmesbury North and West Olivemeade, Charlton Road N15.1347 1 Remainder Malmesbury North and West Pool House, Twatley, Malmesbury N15.0310 0 Remainder Malmesbury North and West Riverside, Foxley Road N11.3161 0 Remainder Malmesbury North and West Sherston Community Church, Cliff Road N12.4050 2 Remainder Malmesbury North and West Stables at Willow End N10.3927 2 Remainder Malmesbury North and West Summerhouse Farm, Minety N12.2913 1 Remainder Malmesbury North and West Swallow Cottage, Junction With Fosse Way South & East Past Fosse Farm N15.0425 0 Remainder Malmesbury North and West The Hawthorns, Heath Road, Startley N14.5800 1 Remainder Malmesbury North and West The Horse and Jockey, Gosditch N13.0477 0 Remainder Malmesbury North and West The Leach, Hollow Street N13.5782 0 Remainder Malmesbury North and West Thornhill Farm, Common Road N11.1392 1 Remainder Malmesbury North and West Unit 8 & 9 Warren Business Park, Knockdown, Tetbury N14.11368 2 Remainder Malmesbury North and West Upper Stanbridge Farm N10.4629 1 Remainder Malmesbury North and West Whitehouse Cottage, Olivemeade Lane N14.11062 1 Remainder Malmesbury North and West Willow House, Ashton Road N14.10304 1 Remainder Malmesbury North and West Workshop at Chelworth Manor Farm, Chelworth N11.3523 1 Remainder Malmesbury North and West

Malmesbury CA remainder - total Small site units outstanding 62 of which 54 considered developable in the plan period. 2 Union Street W11.0798 1 Melksham Melksham North and West 23-25 Bath Road W10.2671 2 Melksham Melksham North and West 27 Forest Road W11.3043 1 Melksham Melksham North and West 271 Sandridge Lane, Bromham W15.0085 0 Melksham Melksham North and West 28 Bank Street Melksham W14.1698 1 Melksham Melksham North and West 28 Littlejohn Avenue W14.10120 1 Melksham Melksham North and West 29-32 Eden Grove W14.6177 4 Melksham Melksham North and West 32 Beanacre Road W14.7908 1 Melksham Melksham North and West 35 Barnwell Road W13.4731 1 Melksham Melksham North and West 36a Roundpond W14.0249 1 Melksham Melksham North and West 4 6 8 And 10 Bank Street W12.1255 4 Melksham Melksham North and West

Dwellings Application outstanding Site Address Number at April 2015 Town CA HMA Garage Block Eden Grove Whitley Wiltshire W14.6462 1 Melksham Melksham North and West Garage Site ,Holbrook Vale, Berryfield W14.3464 2 Melksham Melksham North and West Garage Site, Orchard Gardens W14.3476 1 Melksham Melksham North and West Garden of 27 Forest Road W14.11269 1 Melksham Melksham North and West Land adj 105e, Top Lane, Whitley W12.2126 1 Melksham Melksham North and West Land adj 14 Woodrow Road W11.2267 1 Melksham Melksham North and West Land adj 54 Methuen Avenue W11.1290 1 Melksham Melksham North and West Land adj to 52 Craybourne Road W11.1493 1 Melksham Melksham North and West Land adjacent 4a Wellington Drive W12.0479 1 Melksham Melksham North and West Land Adjacent to 1 Strattons Walk W13.4492 2 Melksham Melksham North and West Land Adjoining 54 Methuen Avenue W14.9951 1 Melksham Melksham North and West Land at 347 Snarlton Lane W14.7674 2 Melksham Melksham North and West Land North of 16 Berryfield Park W14.5698 1 Melksham Melksham North and West Land Rear Of 25 And 26 Union Street W11.2320 2 Melksham Melksham North and West Land Rear Of 4 Sandridge Road W12.2344 1 Melksham Melksham North and West Land rear of 49-57 King Street W10.3631 2 Melksham Melksham North and West Land rear of 523 Semington Road W10.3428 1 Melksham Melksham North and West Land Rear Of 63, Shaw Hill, Shaw W13.5142 1 Melksham Melksham North and West Land South West Of 16 Philip Close W12.1767 1 Melksham Melksham North and West Land South West of 28 Roundpond Melksham W14.5178 1 Melksham Melksham North and West Shaw Pet Centre, Bath Road, Shaw W13.0288 0 Melksham Melksham North and West Melksham - total Small site units outstanding 42 of which 36 considered developable in the plan period. 51 Little Marsh W14.10176 0 Remainder Melksham North and West Broad Lane Farm Broad Lane Seend E15.0937 1 Remainder Melksham North and West Building Rear Of 65 Bradford Road W12.0340 1 Remainder Melksham North and West Land North West Of 6 Holmeleaze W13.0152 1 Remainder Melksham North and West Owls Corner Martinslade E11.1013 1 Remainder Melksham North and West

Dwellings Application outstanding Site Address Number at April 2015 Town CA HMA The Cromwell Buildings The Street W12.1733 1 Remainder Melksham North and West

Melksham CA remainder - total Small site units outstanding 5 of which 4 considered developable in the plan period. Royal Wootton Royal Wootton Bassett & 111a High Street N14.1802 1 Bassett Cricklade North and West Royal Wootton Apsley House, 50 High Royal Wootton Bassett & Street N12.1542 2 Bassett Cricklade North and West Royal Wootton Royal Wootton Bassett & Beaufort Park, Station Road N11.2567 3 Bassett Cricklade North and West Royal Wootton First Floor, Potters Walk, Royal Wootton Bassett & 133-134 High Street N14.8645 3 Bassett Cricklade North and West Royal Wootton Garabrecan, Brinkworth Royal Wootton Bassett & Road N14.7702 1 Bassett Cricklade North and West Royal Wootton Hunting Villa Farm, Hunts Royal Wootton Bassett & Mill Road N14.7100 1 Bassett Cricklade North and West Royal Wootton Lanes Farm Marlborough Royal Wootton Bassett & Road N13.7018 0 Bassett Cricklade North and West Royal Wootton Rosary House 98 High Royal Wootton Bassett & Street N14.9127 3 Bassett Cricklade North and West Royal Wootton St Ivel Factory Site, Station Royal Wootton Bassett & Road N10.1902 4 Bassett Cricklade North and West Royal Wootton The Royal Inn 51 High Royal Wootton Bassett & Street N14.7458 4 Bassett Cricklade North and West Royal Wootton Royal Wootton Bassett & Wootton Hall, High Street N14.0011 2 Bassett Cricklade North and West Royal Wootton Wootton Meadows Farm, Royal Wootton Bassett & Marlborough Road N12.4041 0 Bassett Cricklade North and West

Royal Wootton Bassett - total Small site units outstanding 24 of which 21 considered developable in the plan period. Royal Wootton Bassett & 18 Dianmer Close, Hook N12.4130 1 Remainder Cricklade North and West Royal Wootton Bassett & 22 Station Road N13.0507 5 Remainder Cricklade North and West Royal Wootton Bassett & 35A THE HYDE N13.1656 1 Remainder Cricklade North and West Royal Wootton Bassett & 97 Chippenham Road N12.4005 8 Remainder Cricklade North and West Royal Wootton Bradenstoke Village Shop, Bassett & 63 Bradenstoke N14.8758 2 Remainder Cricklade North and West

Dwellings Application outstanding Site Address Number at April 2015 Town CA HMA Royal Wootton Bassett & Candle Tree, Bath Road N12.0565 1 Remainder Cricklade North and West Royal Wootton Bassett & Coombfield, 6 Restrop Road N14.6914 0 Remainder Cricklade North and West Royal Wootton Hatchetts Farm, Abingdon Bassett & Court Lane N14.6836 1 Remainder Cricklade North and West Royal Wootton Holloway, 53 & 53A Bassett & Bradenstoke N12.1618 0 Remainder Cricklade North and West Royal Wootton Bassett & Horsey Down, Common Hill N11.1782 3 Remainder Cricklade North and West Royal Wootton Bassett & Ivy Cottage, The Forty N11.1073 1 Remainder Cricklade North and West Royal Wootton Kempsters Court, 2 High Bassett & Street N14.4774 1 Remainder Cricklade North and West LAND ADJACENT TO Royal Wootton BROADLEAZE FARM, Bassett & BROADLEAZE, N11.3491 1 Remainder Cricklade North and West Royal Wootton Land adjoining 11 Pear Tree Bassett & Close, Widham N14.6789 1 Remainder Cricklade North and West Royal Wootton Land at 67 Chapel Lane Bassett & Broad Town N14.2194 0 Remainder Cricklade North and West Royal Wootton Land at 67 Chapel Lane, Bassett & Broad Town N14.12128 1 Remainder Cricklade North and West Royal Wootton Land at and Adjacent to 17 Bassett & Thornhill N14.9073 1 Remainder Cricklade North and West Royal Wootton Land at Lydiard Millicent, Bassett & The Street N14.4465 1 Remainder Cricklade North and West Land North of B4042, Royal Wootton Malmesbury Road, Nr Bassett & Ballards Ash N08.0025 1 Remainder Cricklade North and West Royal Wootton Bassett & Land off Calcutt Street N10.4595 1 Remainder Cricklade North and West Royal Wootton Land South of 3 Common Bassett & Platt N14.11425 1 Remainder Cricklade North and West Royal Wootton LONGCROFT, STATION Bassett & ROAD N12.1479 1 Remainder Cricklade North and West Royal Wootton Bassett & Manor Farm N12.3814 1 Remainder Cricklade North and West Royal Wootton Bassett & Manor Farm, Church Street N14.6026 1 Remainder Cricklade North and West

Dwellings Application outstanding Site Address Number at April 2015 Town CA HMA Royal Wootton Bassett & Mardrea, The Hyde N11.2978 4 Remainder Cricklade North and West Royal Wootton Bassett & Mardrea, The Hyde N14.10132 0 Remainder Cricklade North and West Royal Wootton No Parish Bungalow Bassett & Braydon N14.10400 0 Remainder Cricklade North and West Royal Wootton Parsonage Farm, Clyffe Bassett & Pypard, Swindon N13.5814 -1 Remainder Cricklade North and West Royal Wootton Seven Bridges Farm Bassett & Water Eaton N14.7079 2 Remainder Cricklade North and West Royal Wootton Shepherds House, Cricklade Bassett & Road N12.1074 1 Remainder Cricklade North and West Royal Wootton Storage Barn at Restrop Bassett & Farm N14.8689 1 Remainder Cricklade North and West Royal Wootton The Old Bakehouse, 21 The Bassett & Street N14.11460 1 Remainder Cricklade North and West Royal Wootton The White Lion Inn, 50 High Bassett & Street N14.5850 0 Remainder Cricklade North and West Royal Wootton Western Villa, 38 Station Bassett & Road N14.7664 2 Remainder Cricklade North and West Royal Wootton Windmill House, Common Bassett & Hill N14.11656 5 Remainder Cricklade North and West Royal Wootton Bassett & Cricklade CA remainder - total Small site units outstanding 50 of which 43 considered developable in the plan period. 1 Islington W12.1828 1 Trowbridge Trowbridge North and West 1 To 5 Manvers Street And W13.2508 65 Fore Street 3 Trowbridge Trowbridge North and West 10 - 12 Trowle W14.7525 1 Trowbridge Trowbridge North and West 11A Westmead Crescent W14.8525 1 Trowbridge Trowbridge North and West 17 Church Street W11.1615 1 Trowbridge Trowbridge North and West 29 Duke Street W12.1789 2 Trowbridge Trowbridge North and West 29A Newtown W11.3234 2 Trowbridge Trowbridge North and West 37 - 38 Fore Street W12.1359 4 Trowbridge Trowbridge North and West 6 Summerdown Walk W11.2014 0 Trowbridge Trowbridge North and West 6 Summerdown Walk W12.1778 1 Trowbridge Trowbridge North and West 64 Wingfield Road W14.6682 7 Trowbridge Trowbridge North and West 9 Wicker Hill W14.5282 1 Trowbridge Trowbridge North and West 9 Wicker Hill W06.2837 3 Trowbridge Trowbridge North and West Adj 36 Westfield Road W12.1553 1 Trowbridge Trowbridge North and West Garage Site Frampton Court W14.2644 2 Trowbridge Trowbridge North and West

Dwellings Application outstanding Site Address Number at April 2015 Town CA HMA Garage Site Gainsborough Rise W14.2642 1 Trowbridge Trowbridge North and West Garage Site Waterford Beck W14.2638 3 Trowbridge Trowbridge North and West Garage Site, Adjacent 21 Queens Road W14.2640 1 Trowbridge Trowbridge North and West Garages at Rutland Crescent W13.5172 3 Trowbridge Trowbridge North and West Land adj 23 Westfield Close Trowbridge W14.6311 1 Trowbridge Trowbridge North and West Land Adjacent to 31 Charles Street Trowbridge W14.6325 1 Trowbridge Trowbridge North and West Land Adjacent to 71 Wyke Road W14.0288 1 Trowbridge Trowbridge North and West Land Adjoining 45a, Union Street Union Street W14.3842 6 Trowbridge Trowbridge North and West Land at 49 Southview Road W13.5270 1 Trowbridge Trowbridge North and West Land At 60 And 60A Bradford Road W13.0186 9 Trowbridge Trowbridge North and West Land East Of 46 The Croft W12.0825 1 Trowbridge Trowbridge North and West Land rear of 110 Bradley Road W09.1975 1 Trowbridge Trowbridge North and West Land rear of 252 Frome Road W10.0104 1 Trowbridge Trowbridge North and West Land rear of 60 Wingfield Road W14.10361 1 Trowbridge Trowbridge North and West Land Rear Of 9 11 And 13 Pitman Avenue W11.1105 1 Trowbridge Trowbridge North and West Land South Of 49 Lambrok Road W13.1979 1 Trowbridge Trowbridge North and West Land to the rear of 21 West Ashton Road W14.11063 3 Trowbridge Trowbridge North and West Land West Of 40 Victoria Road W14.9777 1 Trowbridge Trowbridge North and West Land West Of 7 Kingsdown Road W14.0254 1 Trowbridge Trowbridge North and West Rear of 28 Roundstone Street W12.2161 6 Trowbridge Trowbridge North and West Rear of 32 Whiterow Park W08.2589 1 Trowbridge Trowbridge North and West Rear of Wesley Road Club, Wesley Road W13.2586 6 Trowbridge Trowbridge North and West The Halve Health Clinic The Halve Trowbridge W13.6678 6 Trowbridge Trowbridge North and West The New Testament Church Of God 14 Islington W13.1110 4 Trowbridge Trowbridge North and West Trowbridge Motor Supplies Ltd, 1A Gloucester Road W13.5434 3 Trowbridge Trowbridge North and West Trowbridge - total Small site units outstanding 94 of which 82 considered developable in the plan period.

Dwellings Application outstanding Site Address Number at April 2015 Town CA HMA 129 Yarnbrook Road W13.1062 0 Remainder Trowbridge North and West 145 Chantry Gardens Southwick W14.0096 1 Remainder Trowbridge North and West 19 Wynsome Street W14.10761 1 Remainder Trowbridge North and West 3 Drynham Lane W07.3649 1 Remainder Trowbridge North and West 79 Chantry Gardens Southwick W14.2030 1 Remainder Trowbridge North and West 9a The Rank W14.8934 0 Remainder Trowbridge North and West Brokerswood House, Wood Road, Brokerswood W14.8661 1 Remainder Trowbridge North and West Land Adjacent 4 Nursery Close Hilperton W14.2459 1 Remainder Trowbridge North and West Land Adjoining 24 Church Street W08.2175 3 Remainder Trowbridge North and West Oakstone Farm Bratton Road W14.6930 1 Remainder Trowbridge North and West Plot adjacent to `Beechwood`, Bratton Road W14.8400 1 Remainder Trowbridge North and West The Mash Tun, Woodmarsh W14.3305 0 Remainder Trowbridge North and West

Trowbridge CA remainder - total Small site units outstanding 11 of which 10 considered developable in the plan period. 106 West Street W12.0555 4 Warminster Warminster North and West 106 West Street W12.0555 4 Warminster Warminster North and West 11 & 14 The Cornmarket, Market Place W14.1825 2 Warminster Warminster North and West 121 Crockerton W14.0644 1 Warminster Warminster North and West 19 Market Place W14.10883 3 Warminster Warminster North and West 20 Market Place W14.9710 1 Warminster Warminster North and West 27 Ludlow Close W14.4270 1 Warminster Warminster North and West 3 High Street W12.2179 4 Warminster Warminster North and West 36 Victoria Road W14.10302 8 Warminster Warminster North and West 46 Boreham Road W14.10885 1 Warminster Warminster North and West 46 Boreham Road Warminster W14.5264 1 Warminster Warminster North and West 5 The Cornmarket ,Market Place W14.4319 1 Warminster Warminster North and West 51 Market Place Warminster W14.1363 4 Warminster Warminster North and West 7, 8 & 9 Fore Street W14.10816 3 Warminster Warminster North and West 7B Hillwood Lane W11.3199 2 Warminster Warminster North and West 8 Hillwood Lane W12.0578 0 Warminster Warminster North and West 91 St. Andrews Road W14.0053 1 Warminster Warminster North and West Adj. 4 Chapel Street W13.7000 1 Warminster Warminster North and West Adj. Eastway Cottage, Imber Road W13.3300 1 Warminster Warminster North and West Auto Electrics Carsons Yard W14.2782 3 Warminster Warminster North and West

Dwellings Application outstanding Site Address Number at April 2015 Town CA HMA Barrie Taylor Associates 39 Silver Street W12.1180 2 Warminster Warminster North and West Eversfield Station Road W13.5642 5 Warminster Warminster North and West Fairfield Road W09.3634 8 Warminster Warminster North and West Garage Blocks South Of 8 To 10 Epping Close W13.0451 2 Warminster Warminster North and West Hensford House, Lower Marsh Road W13.5146 1 Warminster Warminster North and West Land adj 13 Bread Sreet W12.1702 3 Warminster Warminster North and West Land adj 22 Broxburn Road W12.1805 1 Warminster Warminster North and West Land Adj 252 Imber Road W11.2488 1 Warminster Warminster North and West Land adjacent 121 Pound Street Warminster W14.1055 1 Warminster Warminster North and West Land Adjacent 15 Ludlow Close W14.12104 1 Warminster Warminster North and West Land adjacent 16 Smallbrook Road W14.4290 1 Warminster Warminster North and West Land Adjacent To 5b Ash Walk W14.3306 1 Warminster Warminster North and West Land East of Valley Farm W08.0785 0 Warminster Warminster North and West Land North West Of 10 Elm Hill W14.8790 1 Warminster Warminster North and West Land rear of 11 Westbury Road W11.0755 1 Warminster Warminster North and West Land Rear Of 12 And 12a Westbury Road W13.3824 2 Warminster Warminster North and West Land rear of 63 West Street W08.1541 1 Warminster Warminster North and West Land Rear Of 82 Market Place W13.0015 6 Warminster Warminster North and West Land rear of 93 West Street W14.2658 3 Warminster Warminster North and West Land South East Of 3 To 7, Savernake Close W13.0711 6 Warminster Warminster North and West Land South of 13 Beckford Close W13.5477 1 Warminster Warminster North and West Land To Rear Of 62 And 66 Market Place W14.0484 8 Warminster Warminster North and West Land to the rear of 2 The Downlands W13.4784 1 Warminster Warminster North and West Land to the rear of 92 Victoria Road W14.6985 2 Warminster Warminster North and West Land West Of 83 Upper Marsh Road W13.1401 1 Warminster Warminster North and West Made to Measure Ltd Carsons Yard W13.3919 1 Warminster Warminster North and West Sutton Veny Nursing Home, Bishopstrow Road W11.0741 7 Warminster Warminster North and West Warminster - total Small site units outstanding 114 of which 99 considered developable in the plan period. 101 High Street W13.0789 0 Remainder Warminster North and West

Dwellings Application outstanding Site Address Number at April 2015 Town CA HMA 121Clay Street W14.10131 1 Remainder Warminster North and West 158 High Street Chapmanslade Westbury W14.8466 0 Remainder Warminster North and West 16 High Street W13.6384 1 Remainder Warminster North and West 16 High Street W09.0583 1 Remainder Warminster North and West 82/84 High Street High Street Chapmanslade W14.4858 1 Remainder Warminster North and West Ashton Gifford Coach House , Ashton Gifford Lane, Station Road W14.3780 1 Remainder Warminster North and West Byfields, Deverill Road W11.1820 1 Remainder Warminster North and West Eastleigh Court W12.0724 1 Remainder Warminster North and West George Hotel High Street W13.3716 1 Remainder Warminster North and West Land Adjacent Little Halse Hill Road W14.8997 1 Remainder Warminster North and West Land At Farnicombe Farm W15.1139 1 Remainder Warminster North and West Land At Farnicombe Farm Upton Scudamore W14.4836 0 Remainder Warminster North and West Land East of Valley Farm W09.3218 1 Remainder Warminster North and West Land North West Of Weston Nurseries Coomb View Corton W12.1036 1 Remainder Warminster North and West Land Rear Of George Hotel High Street W13.3718 1 Remainder Warminster North and West Land rear of Little House, High Street W11.1637 1 Remainder Warminster North and West Land South East Of Temple Manor W13.0838 1 Remainder Warminster North and West Land to the rear of 53 High Street W14.11797 2 Remainder Warminster North and West Marriages Farm Hill Deverill W13.1950 1 Remainder Warminster North and West North End Farm Duck Street W14.7412 1 Remainder Warminster North and West Squires Coal Services, Lane End W13.7129 0 Remainder Warminster North and West Squires Coal Services, Lane End W14.11767 2 Remainder Warminster North and West The Corsley Centre Old School Deep Lane W14.5039 1 Remainder Warminster North and West The Croft, Potters Hill, Crockerton W14.2923 1 Remainder Warminster North and West West View Chapel Road W13.0971 1 Remainder Warminster North and West Woodruff Cottage 23 Deverill Road W14.7224 1 Remainder Warminster North and West

Warminster CA remainder - total Small site units outstanding 25 of which 22 considered developable in the plan period. 147B Westbury Leigh W10.3728 1 Westbury Westbury North and West

Dwellings Application outstanding Site Address Number at April 2015 Town CA HMA 20A Fore Street W15.1033 1 Westbury Westbury North and West Chalford House Hotel, 114 Warminster Road W14.10326 1 Westbury Westbury North and West Eastleigh Surgery West End W14.2115 9 Westbury Westbury North and West Land adj 41 Meadow Lane W12.0622 1 Westbury Westbury North and West Land Adjacent to 37 Oldfield Road W14.9024 1 Westbury Westbury North and West Land East of 66 Oldfield Park W14.11047 2 Westbury Westbury North and West Land East of Railway Inn, Station Road W11.1720 8 Westbury Westbury North and West Land North East Of 29 Oldfield Park W14.6887 2 Westbury Westbury North and West Land North East Of Fairview Farm Bratton Road W12.0528 1 Westbury Westbury North and West Land Rear Of 10 Newtown W14.5654 1 Westbury Westbury North and West Land rear of 42 & 44 Station Road W14.2370 2 Westbury Westbury North and West Land Rear of 9 Green Lane W13.5706 1 Westbury Westbury North and West Land Rear Of Fire Station Meadow Lane W13.0074 3 Westbury Westbury North and West Land rear of Pembroke House, Edward Street W06.0145 2 Westbury Westbury North and West Land South West Of Cleypiece, Old Dilton Road W13.0979 0 Westbury Westbury North and West Land South West Of Cleypiece, Old Dilton Road W13.5261 1 Westbury Westbury North and West Land to the rear of 47-49, Edward Street W14.1838 4 Westbury Westbury North and West Old Orchard 16 Wellhead Lane W14.11296 -1 Westbury Westbury North and West Pembroke House, Edward Street W08.0539 2 Westbury Westbury North and West The Garden House Hotel 26 Edward Street Westbury W14.5745 0 Westbury Westbury North and West White Horse Country Club Ltd., Coach Road W14.0874 1 Westbury Westbury North and West White Lion Market Place W12.0456 9 Westbury Westbury North and West Westbury - total Small site units outstanding 52 of which 45 considered developable in the plan period. 32 High Street W14.9904 1 Remainder Westbury North and West Clanger Farm Clanger Lane W14.5709 1 Remainder Westbury North and West Combe Farm, Combe Lane W14.7836 1 Remainder Westbury North and West Cuckoo`s Rest Fishing Lakes Fairwood Road W13.6370 0 Remainder Westbury North and West Land adj 40 Shepherds Mead W11.3301 1 Remainder Westbury North and West Land Adjacent 33 Clay Close W14.8797 1 Remainder Westbury North and West

Dwellings Application outstanding Site Address Number at April 2015 Town CA HMA Land East of Clivey Barn Farm, Clivey W09.0941 1 Remainder Westbury North and West Mobile Home 12 Hisomley W14.3339 1 Remainder Westbury North and West Rear of 2 Hawkeridge Road Heywood W13.6137 1 Remainder Westbury North and West Rigg Construction Southern Ltd W14.6869 3 Remainder Westbury North and West Tinhead Methodist Church Salisbury Hollow W12.0995 2 Remainder Westbury North and West Wayside 3 Imber Road W11.0900 0 Remainder Westbury North and West Westbury CA remainder - total Small site units outstanding 13 of which 11 considered developable in the plan period. South Wiltshire HMA Amesbury, Bulford and 1 Coronation Road S14.7642 1 Durrington Amesbury South Amesbury, 1-5 First Floor Offices, The Bulford and Arcade Earls Court Road S13.4605 5 Durrington Amesbury South Amesbury, Bulford and 17 Holders Road S13.0194 2 Durrington Amesbury South Amesbury, Bulford and 21 Edwards Road S14.9092 2 Durrington Amesbury South Amesbury, Bulford and 37 Windsor Road S14.2824 1 Durrington Amesbury South Amesbury, Bulford and 4 Antrobus Road S14.0231 1 Durrington Amesbury South Amesbury, Buildings adjacent The Red Bulford and House, High Street S11.0235 4 Durrington Amesbury South Amesbury, Land Opposite 1 Parsonage Bulford and Road S14.9448 2 Durrington Amesbury South Amesbury, Land rear of 17 Holders Bulford and Road S14.5346 4 Durrington Amesbury South Amesbury, Bulford and Lilac Cottage, Cold Harbour S14.6453 0 Durrington Amesbury South Amesbury, M And R News, The Bulford and Packway, Larkhill S14.4249 1 Durrington Amesbury South Amesbury, The Greyhound, Smithfield Bulford and Street S14.1413 6 Durrington Amesbury South

Amesbury, Bulford and Durrington - total Small site units outstanding 29 of which 25 considered developable in the plan period.

Dwellings Application outstanding Site Address Number at April 2015 Town CA HMA 1 High Street S12.1180 1 Remainder Amesbury South 10 Church Road S13.1181 1 Remainder Amesbury South 14 Newton Tony S14.12129 -1 Remainder Amesbury South 31 Wishford Road, Middle Woodford S14.9378 0 Remainder Amesbury South 9 Hilltop Close S13.3164 1 Remainder Amesbury South Brooklands S14.4101 0 Remainder Amesbury South Golden Willows, Main Road S14.12117 1 Remainder Amesbury South Land adjacent to Greenways Tidworth Road S13.0251 1 Remainder Amesbury South Land adjacent to Orchard Cottage, Over Street S14.5597 1 Remainder Amesbury South Land at Former Shrewton School, High Street S13.2101 5 Remainder Amesbury South Land At Rear Of 29 Church Road S14.5540 1 Remainder Amesbury South Manor House S14.1821 3 Remainder Amesbury South Nelridge Farm, Rollestone Crossroads S14.3802 1 Remainder Amesbury South Over The Hill Berwick St James S13.5786 0 Remainder Amesbury South Portway House, West Gomeldon S14.10188 0 Remainder Amesbury South Rissington, Pollen Lane S14.4431 0 Remainder Amesbury South Rollerhouse Barn (Opposite 1 & 2 Crabtree Cottages) S14.5728 1 Remainder Amesbury South Springbourne House, High Street S07.1600 5 Remainder Amesbury South Sundial Cottages, London Road S13.2652 1 Remainder Amesbury South Swanson, Idmiston Road, Porton S13.6824 0 Remainder Amesbury South The Long Barn at Manor Farm, Fisherton De La Mere, Warminster S11.0786 1 Remainder Amesbury South Twin Elms S15.0003 1 Remainder Amesbury South

Amesbury CA remainder - total Small site units outstanding 24 of which 21 considered developable in the plan period. Bramley House, Castle Street S12.0247 -2 Mere Mere South Bramley House, Castle Street S12.0247 2 Mere Mere South Chetcombe Farm S13.1437 1 Mere Mere South Land adj to 1 Old Hollow S12.0656 1 Mere Mere South Land adjoining Shreenwater, Wellhead S12.0395 1 Mere Mere South Newlands, Boar Street S14.2315 1 Mere Mere South Plot adjacent to Mill Brook, Edgebridge S12.0777 1 Mere Mere South

Dwellings Application outstanding Site Address Number at April 2015 Town CA HMA Site to the rear of Wyoming Woodlands Road S13.4241 1 Mere Mere South The Yard, New Cut S14.4328 4 Mere Mere South Mere - total Small site units outstanding 10 of which 9 considered developable in the plan period. Brook Cottage, Gasper Street, Gasper S13.0636 4 Remainder Mere South Copsford, The Middles S13.0089 0 Remainder Mere South Dyers Mead, Huggler's Hole S13.0441 1 Remainder Mere South Land adjacent to Haddon Wood, Milton S14.2946 1 Remainder Mere South Limpers Hill Farm House, Limpers Hill S14.7001 0 Remainder Mere South Oysters Farmhouse Gutch Common Shaftesbury S14.0458 0 Remainder Mere South The Barns Manor Farm Lower Zeals S11.0546 4 Remainder Mere South

Mere CA remainder - total Small site units outstanding 10 of which 9 considered developable in the plan period. 1 Belle Vue Road S14.1224 1 Salisbury Salisbury South 1 Fish Row S12.1728 7 Salisbury Salisbury South 1 The Close, Old Sarum S14.4986 1 Salisbury Salisbury South 12 Kelsey Road S13.0466 3 Salisbury Salisbury South 12 Middleton Road S13.1284 1 Salisbury Salisbury South 22 and 22A Winchester Street S13.0483 4 Salisbury Salisbury South 27 Tollgate Road and 1 & 2 Fowlers Hill S14.4255 -2 Salisbury Salisbury South 32 Winchester Street S11.1042 2 Salisbury Salisbury South 33 & 32 The Close S14.7925 0 Salisbury Salisbury South 37 York Road S13.0020 1 Salisbury Salisbury South 39 Castle Road S14.9180 1 Salisbury Salisbury South 39 Coldharbour Lane S14.2710 4 Salisbury Salisbury South 47 Endless Street S12.1096 4 Salisbury Salisbury South 5 Wyndham Road S13.7020 7 Salisbury Salisbury South 51 High Street S12.0802 1 Salisbury Salisbury South 53A and 53 St. Ann Street S14.4433 1 Salisbury Salisbury South 54 Milford Street S14.10563 1 Salisbury Salisbury South 63 65 Castle Street S14.11195 2 Salisbury Salisbury South 63 - 65 Fisherton Street S14.9183 1 Salisbury Salisbury South 65 Milford Street S13.4491 1 Salisbury Salisbury South 69-71 Hulse Road S11.1326 6 Salisbury Salisbury South 71 & 71a Brown Street S14.8930 -1 Salisbury Salisbury South 78 St Marks Avenue S09.1539 3 Salisbury Salisbury South 79 Wilton Road S11.1376 1 Salisbury Salisbury South

Dwellings Application outstanding Site Address Number at April 2015 Town CA HMA Adj 166 Coombe Road S08.0955 1 Salisbury Salisbury South Land adjacent to 7 Canadian Avenue S13.6595 1 Salisbury Salisbury South Land Adjoining Harnham Wood Bishops Drive, Harnham S14.6283 1 Salisbury Salisbury South Land Behind 110-114 Fisherton Street S14.10533 2 Salisbury Salisbury South Land off St Margarets Close, To the rear of 37 Fowlers Road S14.4376 1 Salisbury Salisbury South Land to rear of 12 Sussex Road, Harnham S13.3449 2 Salisbury Salisbury South Land to the rear of 187 and 189 Devizes Road S12.1825 1 Salisbury Salisbury South Lincluden, Middle Street S10.0980 1 Salisbury Salisbury South Loder House, 16 Endless Street S12.0762 1 Salisbury Salisbury South Orchard House Stratford Road Stratford Sub Castle S14.4486 4 Salisbury Salisbury South Pine View, Carrion Pond Drove S14.8306 1 Salisbury Salisbury South Rear of 70 Burford Lane S13.6103 1 Salisbury Salisbury South Second Floor, Fisher House, 84 Fisherton Street S14.5926 2 Salisbury Salisbury South Souchez Nurseries 86 Britford Lane S14.5111 6 Salisbury Salisbury South The Malmesbury Arms, 83 Wilton Road S14.3408 -2 Salisbury Salisbury South Salisbury - total Small site units outstanding 73 of which 63 considered developable in the plan period. 43 Water Ditchampton S12.1452 1 Wilton Wilton South Adjacent to The Chantry, 48 South Street S14.2287 1 Wilton Wilton South Bulbridge Farm Burcombe Lane S14.6221 9 Wilton Wilton South Land to the rear of 58 Shaftesbury Road S12.0783 1 Wilton Wilton South Wilton - total Small site units outstanding 12 of which 10 considered developable in the plan period. 2 Lovegrove Acre Dinton S14.0841 1 Remainder Wilton South Croucheston Down Farm Stables S14.8239 0 Remainder Wilton South Croucheston Farm The Cross S14.5999 2 Remainder Wilton South Faulston Barns Mill Lane / Faulston Lane S14.7382 6 Remainder Wilton South Hunts Cottage Hindon Road S13.6901 1 Remainder Wilton South Jervoise Farm, Blandford Road S10.1858 1 Remainder Wilton South

Dwellings Application outstanding Site Address Number at April 2015 Town CA HMA Land adjacent 1 Catherine Crescent S14.7855 1 Remainder Wilton South Land adjacent Orchard Cottage High Street S14.9783 1 Remainder Wilton South Land adjoining Fitz Farm Cottages The Street S14.4466 1 Remainder Wilton South Land at Paddock View, The Street S14.2238 1 Remainder Wilton South Manor Farm Ebbesbourne Hollow S13.2690 1 Remainder Wilton South The Post Office, Warminster Road S14.11119 1 Remainder Wilton South

Wilton CA remainder - total Small site units outstanding 17 of which 15 considered developable in the plan period. Southern 16 High Street, Downton S13.1112 1 Downton Wiltshire South Southern 20/20A Lode Hill S14.8652 1 Downton Wiltshire South Southern 23/25 High Street S14.8763 1 Downton Wiltshire South Southern 58 Moot Close S14.6788 2 Downton Wiltshire South Southern Kings Arms, 9 High Street S14.0549 2 Downton Wiltshire South Land adjacent to 16 Southern Downlands Close S14.3381 1 Downton Wiltshire South Pine Lodge Cottages, Mesh Southern Pond S09.1052 2 Downton Wiltshire South The Headlands Garage 2 Southern The Borough S14.9888 2 Downton Wiltshire South Downton - total Small site units outstanding 12 of which 10 considered developable in the plan period. A E P Steel Fabrications Ltd Southern Southampton Road S13.1469 8 Remainder Wiltshire South Southern Adj Ebble Cottage S13.0766 1 Remainder Wiltshire South Adj Hazel Hollow, Morgans Southern Vale Road S13.6607 2 Remainder Wiltshire South Southern Adj Westerly, The Green S12.1772 1 Remainder Wiltshire South Adj White House, Forest Southern Road, Nomansland NF08.93142 1 Remainder Wiltshire South Barn at Church Farm Southern Rectory Hill S14.7255 2 Remainder Wiltshire South Bathcroft House, Morgans Southern Vale Road S13.5216 6 Remainder Wiltshire South Southern Blue Bells Cowesfield S13.0127 0 Remainder Wiltshire South Southern Bracken, Lights Lane S13.2866 1 Remainder Wiltshire South Southern Brookmead East Grimstead S12.1502 1 Remainder Wiltshire South Southern Cherry Trees, Gunville Road S14.4298 1 Remainder Wiltshire South

Dwellings Application outstanding Site Address Number at April 2015 Town CA HMA Dairy Yard Parsonage Farm, Southern Church Road S14.5571 2 Remainder Wiltshire South Drove Farm Cottage East Southern Grimstead S13.3752 -1 Remainder Wiltshire South Former Car Workshop, Southern Southampton Road S14.9611 4 Remainder Wiltshire South Former Local Authority Southern Depot Site, Blandford Road S14.5616 4 Remainder Wiltshire South Southern Fountain Inn, The Street S12.1150 1 Remainder Wiltshire South Southern Fussells Lodge Cottage S14.2966 0 Remainder Wiltshire South Goldens Farm, Common Southern Road S12.0981 1 Remainder Wiltshire South Southern Highfield The Street, Farley S12.0706 0 Remainder Wiltshire South Land adjacent to Surgery Southern Common Road S11.1196 1 Remainder Wiltshire South Land at Homelands Southern (Silverwood), Rectory Road S14.8631 1 Remainder Wiltshire South Southern Land at Woodland Drive S12.0562 1 Remainder Wiltshire South Land to north of 3 Southern Petersfinger Cottages S12.1268 1 Remainder Wiltshire South Southern Landford Manor, Stock Lane S13.4114 1 Remainder Wiltshire South LITTLE GREEN, SOUTH Southern LANE, NOMANSLAND NF12.97727 1 Remainder Wiltshire South Southern Long Close, Clarendon Road S12.1431 1 Remainder Wiltshire South Southern Lower House The Street S13.1079 3 Remainder Wiltshire South Southern Lyvers Farm, Livers Lane S13.4200 0 Remainder Wiltshire South Southern Manor Court, Dean Road S12.0571 1 Remainder Wiltshire South Southern Middle Farm, Homington S12.1671 1 Remainder Wiltshire South Out Of The Way Southern Southampton Road S12.1170 -3 Remainder Wiltshire South Parsonage Farm, Pitton Southern Road S14.0649 3 Remainder Wiltshire South Southern Rapiers Rest, Romsey Road S14.2894 1 Remainder Wiltshire South Rear of Red House, Southern Middleton S13.0095 1 Remainder Wiltshire South Southern Ridge Side, The Ridge S14.1573 2 Remainder Wiltshire South Southern Sallys Garden Livery Road S14.1004 0 Remainder Wiltshire South Spring Meadows, Newton Southern Lane S14.8293 0 Remainder Wiltshire South Springfield, Sherfield Southern English Road S14.7292 0 Remainder Wiltshire South

Dwellings Application outstanding Site Address Number at April 2015 Town CA HMA Templemans Barn Langford Southern Lane S13.5586 1 Remainder Wiltshire South Southern The Kennels, Partridge Hill S10.1917 1 Remainder Wiltshire South The Old Dairy Farmyard, Southern Drove Lane S09.1506 1 Remainder Wiltshire South The Old Inn The Ridge Southern Woodfalls S13.4652 1 Remainder Wiltshire South The Old Vicarage, Southern Homington Road S12.1269 1 Remainder Wiltshire South The White Hart 1 Dean Southern Lane S13.2520 1 Remainder Wiltshire South Southern Village Hall, Romsey Road S13.1239 2 Remainder Wiltshire South Whiteparish Village Store Southern Ltd, The Street S10.0053 0 Remainder Wiltshire South Southern Woodside Rectory Hill S14.12014 0 Remainder Wiltshire South

Southern Wiltshire CA remainder - total Small site units outstanding 59 of which 51 considered developable in the plan period. Chicksgrove Close S14.2669 0 Tisbury Tisbury South Cleeve Hill, Vicarage Road S14.10669 1 Tisbury Tisbury South Gold Hill Hindon Lane S14.12089 1 Tisbury Tisbury South Hillstreet Farm Hindon Lane S14.10840 2 Tisbury Tisbury South Hunting House, Hindon Lane S14.3405 0 Tisbury Tisbury South Land to rear of Lenmoor, Park Road S14.7226 1 Tisbury Tisbury South Mill House S14.7810 1 Tisbury Tisbury South Pythouse Club S14.2769 1 Tisbury Tisbury South The Avenue (1 2) S13.1632 2 Tisbury Tisbury South Tisbury - total Small site units outstanding 9 of which 8 considered developable in the plan period. 1&2 Higher Farm Bungalows S14.10149 2 Remainder Tisbury South 4 Mill Meadow S14.2928 0 Remainder Tisbury South Crofters, Yule Hill S14.9444 1 Remainder Tisbury South Cross Keys House S14.5837 1 Remainder Tisbury South Elm Grove S08.1806 2 Remainder Tisbury South Elm Grove S08.1806 2 Remainder Tisbury South Herons Mead Church Lane Fovant S14.0045 0 Remainder Tisbury South Hersanmine, Scotts Hill S14.1088 0 Remainder Tisbury South Lagpond Lodge S13.3194 0 Remainder Tisbury South Lake House S14.6927 0 Remainder Tisbury South Land Adjacent to Downsway Shaftesbury Road S12.0362 2 Remainder Tisbury South

Dwellings Application outstanding Site Address Number at April 2015 Town CA HMA Little Orchard Swallowcliffe S14.4389 0 Remainder Tisbury South Little Wincombe Cottage Little Wincombe S14.6856 -1 Remainder Tisbury South Manor Farm, Church Street S14.5804 1 Remainder Tisbury South Old Stonecourt S14.2770 0 Remainder Tisbury South Part Upton Farm S12.1557 1 Remainder Tisbury South Red Cedars,Church Lane S14.1608 -1 Remainder Tisbury South Roosters, Barkers Hill S13.1175 1 Remainder Tisbury South Sheep Well, Sutton Mandeville S14.7990 1 Remainder Tisbury South

Tisbury CA remainder - total Small site units outstanding 12 of which 10 considered developable in the plan period.

Appendix 3: Detailed assessment of large sites contributing to the deliverable supply

Suitability Availability Achievability What is the average development rate rate development average the is What rate identified in the specific housing housing the specific in identified rate Does the developer have capacity to have capacity developer the Does Have Have development the maximum is What Is there interest in bringing this site non - of a have record site this Does Is the site consistent with with policy? consistent the site Is Are there viability constraints? viability there Are Are there legal or ownership Is it therefore deliverable? therefore it Is have impacted suitability? impacted have circumstances arisen that may may that arisen circumstances implementation? Is it achievabl it Is of similar sites? Planning status Planning build this site? this build Is it available?Is it Is it suitable? it Is constraints? trajectory? forward?

Site Address Site ref East Wiltshire HMA Drummond Park None None 24 Ludgershall E14.5846 Permitted Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 50 dpa Yes Yes Yes Former Katherine None None 22 McNeil Clinic Site E13.0715 Permitted Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 34 dpa Yes Yes Yes Land East of High None None 22 Street E13.6529 Permitted Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 25 dpa Yes Yes Yes

Land at Zouch None None 27 Manor E13.0397 Permitted Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 54 dpa Yes Yes Yes Land to North of Tidworth between A338 (Pennings Road) and A3026 (Ludgershall None None 132 Road) E09.1078 Permitted Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 75 dpa Yes Yes Yes

Site Address Site ref Bridge Garage, None None 10 London Road E13.5263 Permitted Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 10 dpa Yes Yes Yes Former Wiltshire Council Depot, None None 14 Salisbury Road E14.1649 Permitted Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 28 dpa Yes Yes Yes Land to Rear Of None None Wilcot Road E12.1216 Permitted Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes 9 dpa 10 dpa Yes Yes Yes Ludgershall Garden Centre Granby Gardens None None 63 25 Astor Crescent E14.6522 Resolution Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 80 dpa Yes Yes Yes None None 10 25 North Street E11.1127 Permitted Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 4dpa Yes Yes Yes None None 11 10 The Green E12.1157 Permitted Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 5 dpa Yes Yes Yes Former Builders None None 10 Yard, Park Road E10.1104 Permitted Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 10 dpa Yes Yes Yes Riverbourne None None 41 Fields E12.1447 Permitted Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 70 dpa Yes Yes Yes

Site Address Site ref

Land at Lay Wood south of Horton None None 48 Road E13.1243 Permitted Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 80 dpa Yes Yes Yes Yes but not Land east of the current Quakers Walk, off None None 45 planning London Road E11.1139 Permitted Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 0 dpa permission No No Land off Yes but not Hambleton None None 22 this Avenue E13.0978 Permitted Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 0 dpa permission No No Manor Farm Yard None None High Street E12.0147 Permitted Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes 9 dpa 15 dpa Yes Yes Yes Southfield House None None 23 Victoria Road E14.10471 Permitted Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 47 dpa Yes Yes Yes The former Jam Factory Kings None None 22 Road E12.0077 Permitted Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 9 dpa Yes Yes Yes None None 60 Drummond Park WCS/E2 Allocated Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 50 dpa Yes Yes Yes

Site Address Site ref None None 48 Salisbury Road WCS/E3 Allocated Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 60 dpa Yes Yes Yes

Bath Road Business Centre, NP/E1 (Site Proposed None None 11 Bath Road 9) Allocation Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Not known dpa 13 dpa Yes Yes No Browfort, Bath NP/E17 Proposed None None 24 Road (Site 4003) Allocation Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Not known dpa 60 dpa Yes Yes No Former Katherine NP/E14 Proposed None None 22 McNeil Clinic Site (Site 4001) Allocation Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 0 dpa Yes Yes Yes

Former St Peter's School, Bath NP/E15 Proposed None None 16 Road (Site 4002) Allocation Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 30 dpa Yes Yes Yes Former Wadsworth's Warehouse, NP/E16 Proposed None None 21 Northgate Street (Site 4004) Allocation Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 40 dpa Yes Yes Yes

Site Address Site ref

Garden Trading Estate, London NP/E13 Proposed None None 22 Road (Site 540) Allocation Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Not known dpa 38 dpa Yes Yes No Land at the end of NP/E5 (Site Proposed None None 22 Hillworth Road 532) Allocation Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 42 dpa Yes Yes Yes

Land off Elm Tree NP/E4 (Site Proposed None None 10 Gardens 1088) Allocation Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 10 dpa Yes Yes Yes

Former Dairy, NP/E9 (Site Proposed None None Not New Park Street 358) Allocation Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes 5 dpa 5 dpa Not known known No Land at Former Magistrates Court, Northgate NP/E11 Proposed None None Not Street (Site 361) Allocation Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes 8 dpa 8 dpa Not known known No

26 Northgate NP/E6 (Site Proposed None None Gardens 362) Allocation Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes 8 dpa 8 dpa Yes Yes Yes

Railway Cutting, NP/E7 (Site Proposed None None Hillworth Road 713) Allocation Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes 9 dpa 9 dpa Yes Yes Yes 60

Site Address Site ref

North Arakan NP/E8 (Site Proposed None None 18 Road 714) Allocation Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 35 dpa Yes Yes Yes

Stonebridge House, Nursteed NP/E3 (Site Proposed None None Road 15) Allocation Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes 9 dpa 14 dpa Yes Yes Yes

The Meadow, NP/E10 Proposed None None 13 Heartmoor Road (Site 367) Allocation Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Not known dpa 18 dpa Yes Yes No Marlborough Proposed None None Not 22 Not Road NP/E1 Allocation Known Yes Yes None Known Known known None Known Not known dpa 20 dpa Not known known No

Old Hospital Proposed None None Not Not Phase III NP/E2 Allocation Known Yes Yes None Known Known known None Known Not known 9 dpa 5 dpa Not known known No North and West Wiltshire HMA 23 Calne Road None None 10 Lyneham N13.2365 Permitted Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 10 dpa Yes Yes Yes 249/250 Winsley None None 10 Road W13.3987 Permitted Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 9 dpa Yes Yes Yes

Site Address Site ref None None 1 6 3 Lowbourne W13.7076 Permitted Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 16 dpa Yes Yes Yes Adcroft Villa 1a None None 10 Adcroft Drive W13.3058 Permitted Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 9 dpa Yes Yes Yes None None 11 Bell Orchard W14.12035 Permitted Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 11 dpa Yes Yes Yes None None 16 Brook Farm N13.5915 Permitted Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 30 dpa Yes Yes Yes Brynards Hill Phase 3, Bincknoll None None 22 Lane N12.4026 Permitted Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 20 dpa Yes Yes Yes None None 132 Castlemead W04.2105 Permitted Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 30 dpa Yes Yes Yes None None 63 Castlemead W14.1658 Permitted Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 66 dpa Yes Yes Yes

None None 14 Castlemead W14.3248 Permitted Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 28 dpa Yes Yes Yes None None 25 Castlemead W11.0466 Permitted Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 1 dpa Yes Yes Yes

Site Address Site ref None None 28 Castlemead W14.11125 Permitted Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 50 dpa Yes Yes Yes Cedar House Riverside None None 16 Cowbridge Mill N14.2246 Permitted Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 30 dpa Yes Yes Yes Church Farm None None 20 Church Street W11.1373 Permitted Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Not known dpa 0 dpa No No No Corsham Police Station, Priory None None 10 Street N14.10498 Permitted Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 10 dpa Yes Yes Yes None None 32 Cowbridge Mill N07.0975 Permitted Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 6 dpa Yes Yes Yes Faccenda Chicken Factory, High None None 23 Street N12.4072 Permitted Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 3 dpa Yes Yes Yes Fairview House, None None 11 Gypsy Lane W14.5980 Resolution Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 11 dpa Yes Yes Yes

Site Address Site ref Forest And Sandridge Church Of England School None None 11 Sandridge Road W13.0524 Permitted Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 11 dpa Yes Yes Yes Former Beaufort Brewery, St Ivel, None None Station Road N11.3978 Permitted Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes 9 dpa 6 dpa Yes Yes Yes Former Hygrade Factory Site, None None 26 Westmead Lane N12.1714 Permitted Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 58 dpa Yes Yes Yes George Ward None None 41 School, Shurnhold W11.2312 Permitted Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 50 dpa Yes Yes Yes Gerard Buxton Sports Ground, None None 32 Rylands Way N12.3941 Permitted Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 52 dpa Yes Yes Yes No development Hangars 18 and None None 16 interest at 20 N11.3148 Permitted Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 0 dpa present No No

Site Address Site ref No develop- Hanger 19, ment Colerne Industrial None None 15 interest at Park N13.1567 Permitted Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 0 dpa present No No None None 60 Hunters Moon N13.1747 Resolution Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 80 dpa Yes Yes Yes Kingston Mills, None None 48 Kingston Road W06.2394 Permitted Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 1 dpa Yes Yes Yes Land adjacent None None 32 Rowden Lane N12.4160 Permitted Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 51 dpa Yes Yes Yes Land at Audley None None 10 Road N12.2000 Permitted Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 10 dpa Yes Yes Yes Land at Brynards None None 30 Hill N14.3343 Permitted Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 36 dpa Yes Yes Yes Land at Brynards Hill, Bincknoll None None 27 Lane N10.2399 Permitted Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 3 dpa Yes Yes Yes Land at Brynard's Hill, Bincknoll None None 22 Lane N10.3055 Permitted Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 18 dpa Yes Yes Yes 65

Site Address Site ref Land at Copenacre, Bath None None 27 Road N12.0836 Permitted Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 52 dpa Yes Yes Yes Land At Hazelwood Farm, None None 16 Seagry Road N14.3544 Permitted Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 11 dpa Yes Yes Yes Land at Silver Street & White None None 27 Horse Way N13.6774 Permitted Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 45 dpa Yes Yes Yes Land at Slag Lane and Hawkeridge None None 43 Road W10.3406 Permitted Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 23 dpa Yes Yes Yes Land at Southview None None 41 Farm W08.0896 Permitted Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 35 dpa Yes Yes Yes Land at Station None None 11 Road W14.3371 Permitted Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 13 dpa Yes Yes Yes Land at Station None None 27 Road N11.3934 Permitted Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 39 dpa Yes Yes Yes Land At The Mead, None None 48 Trowbridge Road W14.10977 Permitted Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 45 dpa Yes Yes Yes 66

Site Address Site ref Land East Of Damask Way None None 13 Smallbrook Lane W14.3655 Permitted Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 9 dpa Yes Yes Yes Land North East of Green Lane Farm, Green Lane None None 48 (The Pastures) W11.1932 Permitted Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 50 dpa Yes Yes Yes No interest in Land North East delivering 1 of Snowberry None None 28 remaining Lane W09.0579 Permitted Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 0 dpa dwelling Yes No

Land North of None None 16 Cranesbill Road W14.0211 Permitted Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 16 dpa Yes Yes Yes Land North West Of Boreham Mill, None None 18 Bishopstrow Road W13.6782 Permitted Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 26 dpa Yes Yes Yes

Site Address Site ref Land off Lewington Close and Longford None None 11 Road W14.4399 Permitted Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 11 dpa Yes Yes Yes Land off Oxford None None 48 Road N11.3524 Permitted Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 50 dpa Yes Yes Yes Land off Silver Street and White None None 42 Horse Way N11.3628 Permitted Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 45 dpa Yes Yes Yes Land Rear Of 16 None None 12 Holbrook Lane W14.10154 Permitted Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 12 dpa Yes Yes Yes Land South of None None 32 Abberd Lane N13.2833 Permitted Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 43 dpa Yes Yes Yes Land South of None None 32 Bradford Road N13.5724 Resolution Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 20 dpa Yes Yes Yes Land South of None None 22 Cloatley Crescent N13.5400 Permitted Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 48 dpa Yes Yes Yes Land south of Devizes Road, None None 10 Hilperton W13.6879 Permitted Known No No None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 10 dpa Yes Yes Yes

Site Address Site ref Land South of None None 63 Filands N11.4126 Permitted Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 70 dpa Yes Yes Yes Land South West Of Kingston Farm Buildings, Holt None None 45 Road W13.0643 Permitted Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 45 dpa Yes Yes Yes Lawn Farm, 21 None None The Street N13.1316 Permitted Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes 9 dpa 14 dpa Yes Yes Yes None None 32 Marden Farm N14.8305 Permitted Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 40 dpa Yes Yes Yes North None None 132 100 Chippenham N12.0560 Resolution Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa dpa Yes Yes Yes Yes – conv’sion Old Glove Factory no longer Adjacent to 25 appro- None 10 Brockleaze N13.2173 Permitted priate Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 0 dpa Yes No No R&R Coaches Ltd, None None 10 Bishopstrow Road W14.0823 Permitted Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 10 dpa Yes Yes Yes Royal Arthur Park, None None 48 Westwells Road N10.4093 Permitted Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 60 dpa Yes Yes Yes 69

Site Address Site ref Royal Wootton Bassett Town Council Civic Centre, Station None None 10 Road N13.5863 Permitted Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 10 dpa Yes Yes Yes Stanton St Quintin Garage, Lower None None 11 Stanton St Quintin N12.0895 Permitted Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes Yes not known dpa 0 dpa No No No Terry's Social None None 12 Club, Hill Street W09.2934 Permitted Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 10 dpa No No No Trowbridge Rugby None None 30 Football Club W05.0821 Permitted Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 11 dpa Yes Yes Yes Warminster United Services Club 36 Imber None None 11 Road W10.2407 Permitted Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 0 dpa No No No Westbury North Junction Station None None 29 Road W10.2479 Permitted Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 40 dpa Yes Yes Yes

Site Address Site ref Westinghouse Recreation Yes - land Ground, Park None ownership None 25 Avenue N11.0134 Permitted Known Yes Yes issues Known No None Known Yes dpa 0 dpa Yes No No RAF Yatesbury Jugglers Lane None None 23 Yatesbury N14.0153 Resolution Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 28 dpa Yes Yes Yes Land at Potley None None 26 Lane N14.5686 Resolution Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 30 dpa Yes Yes Yes None None 14 Blounts Court N14.9769 Resolution Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 12 dpa Yes Yes Yes AB Carter Haulage Contractors, 14 None None 11 Not within Happy Land 2/LPA/11 Allocated Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 6 dpa 5 years Yes No

None None 10 Cedar Grove 5/LPA/43 Allocated Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Not known dpa 0 dpa No No No None None 34 Court Street 5/LPA/21 Allocated Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Not known dpa 0 dpa No No No Proposed None None 132 150 East Chippenham CH3 Allocation Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa dpa Yes Yes Yes 71

Site Address Site ref

None None 41 Foundary Lane 2/LPA/18 Allocated Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 50 dpa Yes Yes Yes Land adjacent to Westbury None None 13 Hospital 5/LPA/64 Allocated Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 30 dpa Yes Yes Yes Land at the Market Place/East None None 16 Street 5/LPA/38 Allocated Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 0 dpa No No No Land at West None None 11 Street 5/LPA/55 Allocated Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 0 dpa No No No

Land off Oldfield None None 16 Road 5/LPA/49 Allocated Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 0 dpa No No No Patterdown and Proposed None None 132 150 Rowden CH1 Allocation Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa dpa Yes Yes Yes Quemerford None None 14 House & Mill 2/LPA/14 Allocated Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 5 dpa Yes Yes Yes Proposed None None 132 150 Rawlings Green CH2 Allocation Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa dpa Yes Yes Yes

Site Address Site ref

Rear of Westbury None None 10 Road 5/LPA/58 Allocated Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 0 dpa No No No South East None None 132 250 Trowbridge WCS/NW6 Allocated Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa dpa Yes Yes Yes None None 41 100 Station Road WCS/NW9 Allocated Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa dpa Yes Yes Yes None None 16 Station Road 5/LPA/59 Allocated Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 0 dpa No No No West of None None 132 145 Warminster WCS/NW7 Allocated Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa dpa Yes Yes Yes Works, None None 29 Cocklebury Road 2/LPA/17 Allocated Known Yes Yes None Known Known No None Known Yes dpa 35 dpa Yes Yes No NP/NW1 Backridge Farm (Sites 3a & None None 48 NP allocation 15) Allocated Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 50 dpa Yes Yes Yes Burnham House None None 22 NP Allocation NP/NW3 Allocated Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 29 dpa Yes Yes Yes

Site Address Site ref NP/NW2 Burton Hill NP (Sites 6, 10 None None 22 allocation & 11) Allocated Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 50 dpa Yes Yes Yes South Wiltshire HMA None None 30 Erskine Barracks S13.4870 Permitted Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 40 dpa Yes Yes Yes Land to the East of A345 and West of Old Sarum None None 132 (Longhedge) S13.0673 Permitted Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 75 dpa Yes Yes Yes The Old Dairy, None None London Road S11.1135 Permitted Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known not known 9 dpa 10 dpa No Yes No Land immediately to the south and west of, Archers None None 60 Gate S12.0497 Permitted Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 64 dpa Yes Yes Yes Land at The Hill Brush Co Ltd Woodlands Road None None 32 Mere Warminster S14.6780 Permitted Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 40 dpa Yes Yes Yes 74

Site Address Site ref Castle Works Castle Road None None 24 Salisbury SP1 3SB S14.6650 Resolution Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 32 dpa Yes Yes Yes Land off A338 and Bourne View None None 13 Allington SP4 0AA S14.7832 Resolution Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 16 dpa Yes Yes Yes United Kingdom House, Castle None None 36 Street S14.3037 Permitted Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 40 dpa Yes Yes Yes Grove House Surgery, 18 None None Wilton Road S13.7176 Permitted Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes 9 dpa 10 dpa Yes Yes Yes Land to the west None None 43 of Archers Gate S13.6755 Permitted Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 49 dpa Yes Yes Yes Land to the south of Archers Gate (Kings Gate Phase None None 32 B) S14.6993 Permitted Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 48 dpa Yes Yes Yes Milford House 43-55 Milford None None 19 Street S14.10997 Permitted Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 23 dpa Yes Yes Yes

Site Address Site ref None None 41 100 Erskine Barracks S13.4870 Permitted Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa dpa Yes Yes Yes

15-17 Middleton None None 11 Road S14.9204 Permitted Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 11 dpa Yes Yes Yes

Area 9A/9B Old None None 22 Sarum S14.5623 Permitted Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 26 dpa Yes Yes Yes

Local Centre, Old None None 16 Sarum S12.1829 Permitted Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 23 dpa Yes Yes Yes Area 2, Castle None None 36 View, Old Sarum S07.1485 Permitted Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 1 dpa Yes Yes Yes Land off Hindon None None 30 Lane S11.0322 Permitted Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 20 dpa Yes Yes Yes Land North, West and South of None None 60 Bishopdown Farm S09.1943 Permitted Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 85 dpa Yes Yes Yes Our Lady of Heaven Church, None None 11 Philip Road S07.1863 Permitted Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 9 dpa Yes Yes Yes

Site Address Site ref Former Highbury and Fisherton Manor School None None 24 Sites S12.1282 Permitted Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 13 dpa Yes Yes Yes None None 11 37 39 High Street S12.1491 Permitted Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 11 dpa Yes Yes Yes Former National Cooperative Store, 23-29 None None 18 Salisbury Street S13.0422 Permitted Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 33 dpa Yes Yes Yes Land adjacent Hideaway Garage None None 11 London Road S13.6337 Permitted Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 11 dpa Yes Yes Yes Land adjacent to 15 Butterfield None None 10 Drive S14.12116 Permitted Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 10 dpa Yes Yes Yes Land at The Hill Brush Co Ltd Woodlands Road None None 26 Mere Warminster S14.6780 Permitted Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 30 dpa Yes Yes Yes

Site Address Site ref 50 Winterslow Road (Land to rear of Chalk None None 20 House) Porton S14.2043 Resolution Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 16 dpa Yes Yes Yes

Matrons College None None 14 Farm, Whaddon S13.2543 Resolution Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 21 dpa Yes Yes Yes Former Shrewton None None School High Street S13.2101 Permitted Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes 9 dpa 10 dpa Yes Yes Yes None None 22 Odstock Hospital 3/LPA/41 Allocated Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Not known dpa 15 dpa Not known No No None None 22 Not within Bulbridge 3/LPA/36 Allocated Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 15 dpa 5 years No No Old Manor None None 30 Hospital 3/LPA/11 Allocated Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 26 dpa Yes Yes Yes None None 16 Not within RAF Baverstock 3/LPA/38 Allocated Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 10 dpa 5 years No No

None None 48 Central Car Park WCS/S5 Allocated Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 40 dpa Yes Yes Yes

Site Address Site ref None None 132 129 Kings Gate WCS/S1 Allocated Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa dpa Yes Yes Yes None None 132 150 Fugglestone Red WCS/S3 Allocated Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa dpa Yes Yes Yes No No Yes - developer developer Churchfields & None currently None identified 132 150 interest at Engine Sheds WCS/S4 Allocated Known Yes Yes occupied Known No None Known at present dpa dpa present No No Swindon (within Wiltshire) Land at Moredon None None 48 Bridge N08.0403 Permitted Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 0 dpa Yes Yes Yes RIDGEWAY FARM, None None 132 COMMON PLATT N10.4575 Permitted Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 70 dpa Yes Yes Yes Land at Moredon Bridge, West None None 25 Swindon N11.2763 Permitted Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 26 dpa Yes Yes Yes RIDGEWAY FARM, COMMON PLATT, LYDIARD None None 48 MILLICENT N13.1615 Permitted Known Yes Yes None Known Known Yes None Known Yes dpa 70 dpa Yes Yes Yes

Appendix 4: Trajectory graphs for Wiltshire Housing Market Areas

Appendix 5 - Windfall allowance for land supply calculations

A1. The NPPF (paragraph 48) identifies that an allowance for windfall may be made where appropriate. It states: “Local planning authorities may make an allowance for windfall sites in the five-year supply if they have compelling evidence that such sites have consistently become available in the local area and will continue to provide a reliable source of supply. Any allowance should be realistic having regard to the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment, historic windfall delivery rates and expected future trends, and should not include residential gardens.”

A2. For clarification, the NPPF defines windfall development as: “Sites which have not been specifically identified as available in the Local Plan process. They normally comprise previously-developed sites that have unexpectedly become available.”

A3. For the purposes of this assessment, windfall is defined as unallocated development on previously developed land excluding residential gardens. This is considered to be a conservative approach as the NPPF definition states windfall sites are “normally” previously-developed land, but does not state that greenfield sites should be excluded. It is therefore assumed that greenfield development (other than in residential gardens) can also be counted as windfall; however it is not included in the windfall allowance for Wiltshire.

A4. This Appendix determines an appropriate windfall allowance for each of the Housing Market Areas (HMAs) within Wiltshire. It firstly analyses the trend of windfall permissions over the recent past in order to determine whether there has been consistent delivery from this source of supply. It also has regard to the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) and potential supply from windfall sites in future years.

Historic windfall delivery rates

A5. The number of new windfall permissions4 granted during the Wiltshire Core Strategy period to date (2006 to 2015) is presented in Chart 1.

4 A large number of permissions take the form of renewals, amendments or reserved matters on existing permissions. In order that a permission of a single site is not double-counted as a result of multiple applications, only the first application is included. However, if a subsequent permission increases the capacity, the net increase will be included from this new permission.

A6. Windfall has historically contributed to supply in Wiltshire, accounting for some 30% of housing delivery from 2006 to 2014. The rate at which windfall development has come forward is presented in Chart 2.

A7. Windfall sites achieving permission saw a significant decrease as the economy entered recession in 2008 down to its lowest point in 2011. Given the economic recession and limited availability of finance for development schemes and house purchases during this period, this is to be expected. Since then permissions have shown a steady rise to 2015 (allowing for a significant peak in the North & West HMA during 2013/14). The beginning of the economic recovery over this period and increased availability of credit is likely to have made potential schemes more viable, and thus more likely to seek planning permission. In addition, during this period the Government have relaxed permitted development rights for changes of use to residential uses through a new prior approval process. This could have a positive impact on applications for residential development. The steady increase in permissions provides a continuing source of windfall supply which, based on historic delivery, will provide further completions over the forthcoming 5 year period.

A8. The number of windfall completions also saw a marked decrease across the period from 2008 to 2012. However, the number of completions is showing an upward trend in the following two years up to 2014 in line with the emerging economic recovery. The number of windfall completions in 2014/15 has not yet been calculated but given the improving economy, and Government initiatives to encourage house purchases, such as Help to Buy, it is likely that windfall completions will continue to increase in line with the increased rate of overall housing delivery.

Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA)

A9. As noted in paragraph A1 above, the NPPF requires that, among other matters to be taken into consideration, a windfall allowance should be realistic having regard to the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment.

A10. The latest Wiltshire Council SHLAA was produced in 2012. The assessment included sites totalling 364 units5 that met the NPPF definition of windfall and were ‘assumed deliverable’ based on the following criteria:

- previously developed land within settlement boundaries (and therefore suitable in principle), - confirmed to be in single ownership (and therefore with no availability constraint), - viable based on the model used in the SHLAA methodology (and therefore achievable).

5 This figure was reduced to 270 units in the Wiltshire Core Strategy Inspector’s Note following publication of the July 2014 statement, due to the site at Westbury North Junction Vehicle Yard achieving permission that year and thus being included within the 5 year supply as a permission. 85

A11. In previous Housing Land Supply Statements the Council based the windfall allowance for large sites using this approach.

A12. Since the publication of the SHLAA the Council have carried out a proactive ‘Call for Sites’ as part of their emerging Housing Site Allocations DPD. As a result there have been a large number of new sites submitted to be considered in the forthcoming development plan and included in a future SHLAA, the majority of which are on Greenfield land outside settlement boundaries. However as acknowledged in previous Housing Land Supply Statements the Council does not rely on specific SHLAA sites within the 5-year supply as other non-SHLAA sites regularly come forward. To demonstrate this, the Council has carried out analysis of the contribution of SHLAA sites to windfall delivery during the Wiltshire Core Strategy period to date compared to overall windfall delivery. During the Wiltshire Core Strategy period (up to and including 2014), 401 windfall units have been delivered on sites which were originally identified in the SHLAA (including sites identified prior to the concept of a SHLAA within a predecessor Urban Capacity Study or the National Land Use Database), compared with 5581 windfall completions overall. Delivery of such sites thus represents just 7.2% of total windfall in Wiltshire. Demonstrating that SHLAA sites have historically made a very low contribution to windfall development is sufficient to meet the NPPF requirement to have regard to the SHLAA. Given the relatively low proportion of SHLAA sites submitted on brownfield land, this contribution is unlikely to change over time, whilst the overall numbers of windfall completions looks likely to increase, fed by the rising numbers of windfall permissions being granted. In summary, although it is recognised that sites in the SHLAA do come forward, it can be shown that they form a very low proportion of overall windfall delivery.

Permitted development legislation changes A13. A number of changes to the General Permitted Development Order have been introduced since May 2013 which have reduced the need to seek planning applications for certain changes of use. These concern the change of use from a number of use classes to residential under a prior approval process. The consolidated General Permitted Development Order 2015 details this, and includes the change of use from offices, shops, professional services, pay-day loan and betting shops, agricultural uses, casinos, and amusement arcades.

Since the first amendments came into effect (May 2013) until the end of the current monitoring period (March 2015) prior approval has been granted for a total of 190 residential units in Wiltshire.

Future potential supply

A14. In addition to the prevailing upward trend in windfall permissions and delivery and the effect of relaxing permitted development rights, the Government recently proposed initiatives to increase housing supply through a number of measures to be set out in the Housing Bill and detailed in the Productivity Plan. Local authorities will be required to have statutory registers of previously-developed land to help achieve a target of Local Development Orders in place on 90% of suitable brownfield sites by 2020. The Productivity Plan also sets out a commitment to deliver 200,000 “Starter Homes” by 2020 with a presumption in favour of such sites, starting with unviable or underused brownfield land. Such sites are planned to be exempt from planning obligations and CIL commitments which will improve viability for such sites. The Government have also announced that a one-off fund to assist local authorities in bringing such sites forward.

Although these measures are national initiatives they have the potential to unlock brownfield sites and increase supply of windfall within Wiltshire in the future.

Method for identifying an allowance for future windfall delivery

A15. Previous versions of the Housing Land Supply Statement have calculated a windfall allowance based on two separate components:

- For small sites (5 or fewer dwellings): historic permissions of such sites from 2009 to 2012 with a delivery rate applied,

- For large sites (more than 5 dwellings): capacity of previously developed sites within settlement boundaries (therefore assumed to be suitable) and in single ownership (therefore assumed to be available) within the 2012 SHLAA.

A16. Paragraph 158 of the NPPF requires Local Planning Authorities to ensure their local plan is based on adequate and up-to-date evidence. This should include the update of the authority’s Housing Land Supply position, and therefore the windfall allowance that forms a source of housing supply. The previous allowance for small windfall sites uses permissions from April 2009 to March 2012, and thus reflects applications during a period which is over 3 years old. In addition, as discussed in A12 above, using the capacity of ‘assumed deliverable’ SHLAA sites to establish a large site allowance significantly under- estimates the potential future supply when compared against actual historic permissions, and has also found to be difficult to understand.

A17. Since the July 2014 Housing Land Supply Statement was published the Wiltshire Core Strategy Inspector produced his Final Report confirming that the development plan passed the tests of soundness set out in the NPPF. The housing land supply was discussed in paragraphs 88-97 of the Final Report and included a discussion on the use of a windfall allowance at paragraph 97. It states

“...the Council promulgates three methods of calculating windfall allowances all of which have some credibility and which produce a county wide five year range of housing delivery between 940 and 2713 homes. The Council has elected to take a conservative estimate of likely windfalls yet the evidence is sufficiently compelling to suggest that the likely rate of housing delivery on such sites, both large and small, will be greater.”6

The Wiltshire Core Strategy was subsequently adopted by the Council in January 2015.

A18. Given the national and local policy context, the Council consider it appropriate to review and update the method for calculating windfall allowance from previous statements. The updated method is a model based purely on historic delivery as used in Method 3 portrayed in the July 2014 Housing Land Supply Statement and referenced in the Wiltshire Core Strategy Inspector’s Final Report. It uses the number of permissions across the period 2009-2015. It is considered that figures derived from this period represent a conservative estimate as it covers the low number of permissions granted during the recessionary period, with a gradual increase up to the present day (as shown in Chart 1 above), and also does not take into account windfall delivery on greenfield sites.

A19. To demonstrate the conservative nature of this method, a number of alternative methods and the allowance generated by each are set out in Table A6.

Windfall allowance calculation

A20. As identified above, recent years have shown a slight increase in the number of brownfield windfall sites achieving permission since the recession. Improving economic conditions suggest this is likely to continue in the future, however to ensure the allowance is based on a longer and more representative picture of the economic cycle, the average number of brownfield permissions across the period 2009-2015 will be assumed to be permitted each year for the following five years.

6 It is acknowledged that Methods 1 and 2 referenced in the July 2014 Statement use the capacity of Large sites in the SHLAA to calculate the large part of the allowance (as discussed in A14 above). Method 3 (which produced the largest allowance quoted in paragraph 97 above) is based exclusively on permissions during the period 2006-2012. 88

A21. The average number of new windfall permissions across this period is presented in Table A2.

Table A2: windfall delivery 2009-15 and assumed delivery 2015-20

Area Average number of new Assumed number of windfall permissions windfall permissions in per annum (2009-15) five years East Wiltshire HMA 136 680 North and West 348 1740 Wiltshire HMA South Wiltshire HMA 118 590 Wiltshire 602 3010

A22. In order to estimate how many windfall sites will actually be delivered within five years, a standard delivery rate will be applied as used in the AMR. This has been calculated using the completion date of developments from an analysis of all permissions received from 2001 to 20087. The resulting rate is presented in Table A3.

Table A3: Standard delivery rate

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 12.2% 31.4% 19.9% 9.3% 4.7% 1.1% 7.4% 0.6%

A23. It is evident that for permission granted in year 1, only 77.5% will reach completion in the five year period. Indeed, only 86.6% will reach completion at all, providing an allowance for non-delivery.

A24. This delivery rate has been applied to the assumed number of new windfall sites using the following matrix (Table A4). The example presented is for East Wiltshire HMA.

7 This uses the same number of dwellings permitted as in previous Housing Land Supply Statements, however the data used to determine the delivery rate has been refreshed to include completions up to 2014. This will result in a revised rate for each year, and thus for the overall 5-year period. 89

Table A4: Delivery matrix of newly arising windfall sites

Built in Built in Built in Built in Built in year 1 year 2 year 3 year 4 year 5 136 permitted 136 x 136 x 136 x 136 x 136 x in year 1 12.2% = 31.4% = 19.9% = 9.3% = 4.7% = 16.6 42.7 27.1 12.7 6.4 136 permitted 136 x 136 x 136 x 136 x in year 2 12.2% = 31.4% = 19.9% = 9.3% = 16.6 42.7 27.1 12.7 136 permitted 136 x 136 x 136 x in year 3 12.2% = 31.4% = 19.9% = 16.6 42.7 27.1 136 permitted 136 x 136 x in year 4 12.2% = 31.4% = 16.6 42.7 136 permitted 136 x in year 5 12.2% = 16.6 Sum 16.6 59.3 86.4 99.1 105.5

A25. The allowance for windfall sites is conservative. Of the 680 dwellings forecast to be permitted within 5 years on sites in East Wiltshire, only 366 are assumed to be deliverable.

A26. The resulting allowance for all permitted windfall sites is presented in Table A5.

Table A5: Summary of windfall allowance

Area Windfall allowance for 2015-20 East Wiltshire HMA 366 North and West Wiltshire HMA 939 South Wiltshire HMA 317 Wiltshire 1622

A27. This allowance, as described throughout this section, has set out to be a realistic estimate based on prevailing and anticipated economic conditions. To demonstrate this Table A6 shows the proposed method described above (Method A) and two alternative calculations (Methods B and C) using permissions granted during other time periods thus reflecting a different mix of economic conditions. Each method is described briefly in footnotes 8 and 9.

Table A6: Comparison of methods for calculating windfall allowance

Area Method A Method B8 Method C9 (as above) East Wiltshire HMA 366 572 275 North and West Wiltshire 939 1390 750 HMA South Wiltshire HMA 317 432 199 Wiltshire 1622 2394 1224

8 Method B is the same as Method A, with the exception that it assumes that the average number of new windfall permissions over the whole of the Wiltshire Core Strategy period to date (2006-2015) will be permitted for the next five years, as opposed to the average for the most recent six years (2009-2015) and will be delivered at the standard development rate.

This could be perceived to be a more robust assessment of future windfall delivery as it covers a longer period of time and thus takes into account both peaks and troughs of the economic cycle. However given the nature of the recent economic recession, permissions achieved in the early years of this period are considered to have been driven by an unsustainable financial model, and therefore not representative of realistic future activity.

9 Method C is the same as method A, with the exception that it assumes that the average number of new windfall permissions during the period 2009-2012 will be permitted for the next five years and will be delivered at the standard development rate.

This period of time was used for the Small windfall allowance in previous Housing Land Supply Statements. As can be seen from Chart 2 in this chapter it represents the recent lowest points in the economic cycle. There has been an upward trend since this date and for reasons explained earlier this is likely to continue. As such this method is not considered to be a realistic projection for future years.

Appendix 6 – Summary assessment of supply and remaining housing to be identified (by Community Area sub-area)

Housing already provided for

Indicative Developable Indicative requirement Completions commitments remaining Area 2006-2026 2006-2015 2015-202610 requirement Devizes 2,010 1,368 681 0 Devizes CA remainder 490 243 54 193 Devizes CA 2,500 1,611 735 193 Marlborough 680 340 305 35 Marlborough CA remainder 240 128 31 81 Marlborough CA 920 468 336 116 Pewsey CA 600 357 189 54 Tidworth and Ludgershall 1,750 456 1,173 121 Tidworth CA remainder 170 84 2 84 Tidworth CA 1,920 540 1,175 205 EAST WILTSHIRE HMA 5,940 2,976 2,434 569 Bradford on Avon 595 341 189 64 Bradford on Avon CA remainder11 185 105 23 57 Bradford on Avon CA11 780 446 212 121 Calne 1,440 868 669 0 Calne CA remainder 165 88 90 0 Calne CA 1,605 956 759 0 Chippenham 4,510 1,015 4,006 0 Chippenham CA remainder 580 329 68 183 Chippenham CA 5,090 1,344 4,073 183 Corsham 1,220 570 424 226 Corsham CA remainder 175 153 104 0 Corsham CA 1,395 723 527 226 Malmesbury 885 492 521 0 Malmesbury CA remainder 510 299 95 116 Malmesbury CA 1,395 791 616 116 Melksham and Bowerhill 2,240 1,262 362 616 Melksham CA remainder 130 77 4 49 Melksham CA 2,370 1,339 367 664

10 Figures in the Developable commitments column represent committed sites only and does not include a windfall allowance. The summary for each sub-area shows the total number of units assumed to be developable based on historic delivery rates (rounded to the nearest whole unit) and for large sites information from developers, site representatives and officers.

11 Bradford on Avon CA remainder and Bradford on Avon CA exclude any development at Staverton Marina which is classified as Trowbridge Principle Settlement. 92

Royal Wootton Bassett 1,070 779 330 0 Royal Wootton Bassett and Cricklade CA remainder12 385 269 53 63 Royal Wootton Bassett and Cricklade CA12 1,455 1,048 383 63 Trowbridge 6,810 2,526 2,649 1,635 Trowbridge CA remainder 165 240 10 0 Trowbridge CA 6,975 2,766 2,643 1,635 Warminster 1,920 530 1,072 318 Warminster CA remainder 140 76 22 42 Warminster CA 2,060 606 1,094 360 Westbury 1,500 746 724 30 Westbury CA remainder 115 56 11 48 Westbury CA 1,615 802 735 78 NORTH AND WEST WILTSHIRE HMA 24,740 10,821 11,425 3,447 Amesbury, Bulford and Durrington 2,440 1,101 1,184 155 Amesbury CA remainder 345 154 53 138 Amesbury CA 2,785 1,255 1,237 293 Mere 235 122 145 0 Mere CA remainder 50 33 9 8 Mere CA 285 155 153 8 Salisbury 1,838 3,813 6,060 0 Wilton 109 367 Wilton CA remainder 255 105 45 105 Salisbury and Wilton CAs 6,315 2,052 4,226 105 Downton 190 65 10 115 Southern Wiltshire CA remainder13 425 342 79 4 Southern Wiltshire CA13 615 407 90 118 Tisbury 200 146 28 26 Tisbury CA remainder 220 56 10 154 Tisbury CA 420 202 38 180 SOUTH WILTSHIRE HMA 10,420 4,071 5,744 705 SWINDON (WITHIN WILTSHIRE) 900 335 615 0 WILTSHIRE 42,000 18,203 20,218 4,721

12 Royal Wootton Bassett & Cricklade CA remainder and Royal Wootton Bassett & Cricklade CA exclude any development at the West of Swindon.

13 Southern Wiltshire CA remainder and Southern Wiltshire CA exclude any development at Old Sarum or extensions to Salisbury Principle Settlement into this Community Area, as these are classified as Salisbury. 93

Wiltshire Council Housing Land Supply Appendix 2

WC Housing Land Supply Proof of Evidence

Appeal Decision Inquiry opened on 20 January 2015 Site visit made on 28 January 2015 by David Prentis BA BPl MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Decision date: 27 May 2015

Appeal Ref: APP/Y3940/A/14/2222641 Land North of Bath Road, Corsham, Wiltshire SN13 0QL  The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant outline planning permission.  The appeal is made by Gladman Developments Ltd against the decision of Wiltshire Council.  The application Ref 13/05188/OUT, dated 18 October 2013, was refused by notice dated 30 May 2014.  The development proposed is erection of up to 150 dwellings, up to 1,394 sqm B1 offices, access, parking, public open space with play facilities and landscaping.

Decision

1. The appeal is allowed and outline planning permission is granted for erection of up to 150 dwellings, up to 1,394 sqm B1 offices, access, parking, public open space with play facilities and landscaping at Land North of Bath Road, Corsham, Wiltshire SN13 0QL in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 13/05188/OUT, dated 18 October 2013, and the plans submitted with it subject to the conditions set out in the attached schedule.

Application for costs

2. At the Inquiry an application for costs was made by Wiltshire Council against Gladman Developments Ltd. This application is the subject of a separate decision.

Preliminary matters

3. The Inquiry sat for 7 days from 20 to 23 January, on 27 January and on 12 and 13 March 2015. There was an accompanied site visit on 28 January 2015 and I carried out various unaccompanied visits to the locality of the appeal site prior to and during the course of the Inquiry.

4. The Wiltshire Core Strategy (CS) was adopted by the Council on 20 January 2015, the opening day of the Inquiry. As a result various policies of the North Wiltshire Local Plan referred to in the Council’s decision notice have now been superseded by the policies of the CS.

5. On 27 January 2015 the Council and the appellant made a joint request for an adjournment to allow for additional work to be done in relation to the

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Appeal Decision APP/Y3940/A/14/2222641

requirements of the Habitats Regulations1. This included discussions between the Council and the appellant, the preparation of a further draft appropriate assessment and consultation with Natural England. Natural England responded to this additional work in a letter to the Council dated 2 March 20152. I comment further on these matters below in the section dealing with ecology and designated sites.

6. The application was submitted in outline with all matters reserved except for access. Illustrative drawings were submitted with the application. These included a development framework, a landscape framework and a masterplan.

7. A revised version of the masterplan (5468-L-03 rev L) was submitted with the appellant’s proofs of evidence. This revision introduced a landscape corridor along the eastern site boundary which was intended to mitigate ecological impacts of the proposed development. Proposed houses close to the boundary were shown facing a private drive alongside the buffer whereas before they were shown backing onto the boundary. The Council objected to this plan being considered on the basis that it would determine the orientation of dwellings in the vicinity of the boundary. It was suggested that this could be prejudicial to the interests of adjoining residents who may not have expected this form of layout to be promoted.

8. However, I did not regard this as an amendment to the appeal scheme because the application was made in outline. Revision L of the masterplan was accepted on the basis that it would be a further illustrative plan which would sit alongside any other illustrative plans before the Inquiry. I did not consider that any party would be prejudiced because, if outline planning permission were to be granted, the Council would have control over the layout at the reserved matters stage.

9. During the adjournment the appellant submitted an Ecological Parameters Plan and illustrative landscape cross sections. These plans showed proposed ecological mitigation measures and were relied on in relation to the draft appropriate assessment referred to above. The Council carried out some neighbour consultations on these plans. In closing, the Pickwick Association stated that a wider consultation should have been carried out. However, I do not think that these plans were an amendment to the outline application. Like revision L of the masterplan, they were submitted as illustrative plans during the course of a properly publicised Inquiry. There was no requirement for the Council to carry out consultation at all so there can be no criticism that the consultation it did was not wide enough. That said, the Council submitted copies of the consultation responses received and I have taken these into account.

10. The appellants sought a screening opinion from the Council in relation to the need for Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). The proposed development fell within the category of ‘urban development projects’ where the area of works exceeds 0.5ha3. On 28 October 2013 the Council confirmed that EIA would not be required. At the Inquiry the Council asked to be provided with documents relating to the EIA screening carried out in relation to the appeal on

1 Regulation 61 of The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 2 Document GLD/LPA/07 3 Schedule 2, paragraph 10(b) of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 as it then was. The threshold was increased by the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact) (Amendment) Regulations 2015 on 12 March 2015. www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 2 Appeal Decision APP/Y3940/A/14/2222641

behalf of the Secretary of State. This information was duly provided4. In closing the Council confirmed that it was satisfied that there had been no error of law in this regard. I have kept this matter under review and have found no reason to differ from the Council’s screening opinion.

11. An Agreement under s106 of the Town and Country Planning Act was submitted at the Inquiry. The Agreement would secure the delivery of 30% of the dwellings as affordable housing. It would also make provision for highway works, for approval by the Council of details of open spaces and play areas and for the subsequent management of these areas. In addition there would be financial contributions to sport and recreation, cemeteries and secondary education. This Agreement resolved the matters referred to in the Council’s 5th reason for refusal.

12. The transitional period relating to Regulation 123 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations ended after the close of the Inquiry. Accordingly, I sought further comments from the parties in relation to the five obligation limit referred to in Regulation 123. The Council and the appellant agree that the circumstances of this case are such that Regulation 123 is complied with. Moreover, the Agreement anticipates the adoption of the Council’s Community Infrastructure Levy charging schedule and contains provisions which would avoid any double payment of infrastructure contributions.

13. I consider that the obligations contained in the Agreement would be necessary and reasonable. They would accord with the relevant statutory provisions5 and with the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and I have taken them into account accordingly. I comment further below on the individual obligations.

14. After the close of the Inquiry there was a revision to Planning Practice Guidance (the Guidance) relating to updating evidence on the supply of housing sites. In addition, my attention was drawn to recent appeal decisions at Cricklade and Oaksey dealing with housing land supply in Wiltshire6 and to two planning permissions for housing which have been granted in or near Corsham7. The parties were invited to make further comments in the light of these matters and I have taken account of the responses received.

Main issues

15. I consider that the main issues in this case are:

 whether the Council can demonstrate that there is a 5 year housing land supply,  the effect of the proposal on ecology, including any effects on designated sites and protected species,  the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area,  the effect of the proposal on heritage assets,  whether allowing the appeal would be prejudicial to a plan-led planning process, and  whether the proposal would amount to a sustainable form of development.

4 Document GLD/20 5 Regulations 122 and 123 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 6 Cricklade – APP/Y3940/A/14/2223354; Oaksey – APP/Y3940/A/14/2225214 7 Email from Derek Burt of 8 April 2015 www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 3 Appeal Decision APP/Y3940/A/14/2222641

Reasons

The policy context

16. The CS comprises the development plan for the purposes of the appeal. Core Policy 1 sets out the settlement strategy which identifies four tiers of settlements. Principal settlements are to be the primary focus for development with market towns also having the potential for significant development and local service centres seen as providing for more modest levels of growth. Corsham is identified as a market town. Core Policy 1 states:

Market Towns have the potential for significant development that will increase the jobs and homes in each town in order to help sustain and where necessary enhance their services and facilities and promote better levels of self containment and viable sustainable communities.

17. The delivery strategy for the CS is contained in Core Policy 2. It seeks to deliver at least 42,000 homes in Wiltshire between 2006 and 2026. Three housing market areas (HMA) are identified. Corsham is in the North and West Wiltshire HMA (NWWHMA) where the minimum housing requirement is 24,740. Table 1 in the CS sets out indicative housing requirements for settlements and community areas, the indicative requirement for Corsham Town being 1,220. However, this disaggregation to community areas is not intended to be so prescriptive as to be inflexible in terms of delivering the housing requirement for each HMA. Table 1 is intended to provide a strategic context for the preparation of a Housing Sites Allocation DPD and in order to plan for infrastructure provision. Core Policy 11 sets out the spatial strategy for the Corsham Community Area. Consistent with Table 1, it states that approximately 1,395 homes will be provided of which about 1,220 will be at Corsham. The CS notes that new growth at Corsham will be balanced, with housing delivery alongside employment.

18. Core Policy 2 also states that development outside the defined limits to development will not be permitted except in specific circumstances which do not apply to the housing element of the appeal scheme. As the appeal site is outside the defined limits the proposal is contrary to Core Policy 2.

19. Core Policy 34 is generally supportive of proposals for employment development within the principal settlements, market towns and local service centres. Where proposals are outside these settlements the policy sets out criteria which will be applied. Core Policy 50 states that development proposals must demonstrate how they protect features of nature conservation value as part of the design rationale. Measures to avoid and reduce disturbance of sensitive wildlife species are to be incorporated and all development should seek opportunities to enhance biodiversity.

20. Core Policy 51 seeks to protect, conserve and where possible enhance landscape character. The aspects of landscape character to be taken into account include landscape features of cultural, historic and heritage value. Core Policy 58 seeks to protect the historic environment, including the settings of designated heritage assets such as conservation areas. Core Policy 61 states that new development should be located and designed to reduce the need to travel particularly by private car and to encourage the use of sustainable transport alternatives.

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 4 Appeal Decision APP/Y3940/A/14/2222641

Housing land supply

21. The Council and the appellant agreed that the relevant assessment period for both the housing requirement and the supply is 1 April 2014 to 31 March 2019. It was also agreed that the CS provides the housing requirement against which supply should be assessed and that the area to be assessed should be the NWWHMA. The Council and the appellant did not agree about the housing requirement or about some elements of supply.

22. The Inspector who conducted the examination of the CS (the CS Inspector) concluded that the Council could demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply (HLS)8. Planning Practice Guidance (the Guidance) states that:

The examination of Local Plans is intended to ensure that up-to-date housing requirements and the deliverability of sites to meet a 5 year supply will have been thoroughly considered and examined prior to adoption, in a way that cannot be replicated in the course of determining individual applications and appeals where only the applicant’s/appellant’s evidence is likely to be presented to contest an authority’s position9.

In this case I consider that the CS Inspector’s report and the CS evidence base form an important part of the evidence before me on HLS. However, the Guidance does not preclude a decision maker considering a planning appeal such as this from taking account of evidence which emerges subsequent to the consideration of HLS in a development plan examination.

The housing requirement and the supply needed

23. The Council’s figure for the housing requirement in the NWWHMA is 24,740 in accordance with Core Policy 2. Allowing for completions in the period 2006 – 2014, the 5 year supply needed would be 6,160. In accordance with paragraph 47 of the Framework, it was agreed that a buffer of 5% would be appropriate10. On this basis the supply needed to accord with the Framework would be 6,468. The appellant argued that the requirement should be increased to take account of an allowance for 900 dwellings west of Swindon (the Swindon allowance).

24. The Swindon allowance relates to an existing commitment for 900 dwellings to the west of Swindon. Although located within Wiltshire, these dwellings are regarded as meeting the needs of Swindon. At paragraph 4.29 the CS states that ‘As part of the planned early review of the CS, the Council will clarify that its housing requirement will be met without relying upon the delivery of homes to the west of Swindon’. These words were added by way of a modification recommended by the CS Inspector. He did not think that the housing requirement within Wiltshire should be partially met by relying on delivery west of Swindon. However, he concluded that ‘This matter can be dealt with most expeditiously through the planned early review of the CS which will include the new joint SHMA, without prejudice to the overall soundness of the CS’11.

25. The appellant argued that the CS Inspector’s finding of soundness in relation to the CS as a whole was predicated on a commitment to a planned early review. However, the Council’s Local Development Scheme 2015 (LDS), which was

8 See paragraph 96 of the report at CD11 9 Reference ID: 3-033-20150327 10 See Statement of Common Ground on housing supply matters – document GLD/LPA/08 11 See paragraph 87 of the CS Inspector’s report. The SHMA referred to is a joint Strategic Housing Market Assessment to be carried out by Wiltshire Council and Swindon Borough Council. www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 5 Appeal Decision APP/Y3940/A/14/2222641

adopted on the same day as the CS, makes no such commitment. Furthermore, the LDS only states that the new joint SHMA will ‘inform the need for a further review of Core Strategy policies’12. The appellant considers that the Council has reneged on its commitment to a planned early review. In these circumstances, it was suggested that the full housing requirement for Wiltshire will not be delivered in a timely way unless the Swindon allowance is added to the requirements for the 3 HMAs. On this approach the 900 units would be distributed proportionately, adding 225 to the requirement for the NWWHMA.

26. I agree with the appellant to the extent that the LDS is not consistent with paragraph 4.29 of the CS or with paragraph 87 of the CS Inspector’s report. Bearing in mind the statutory nature of the document13 this is not a minor matter. On the other hand, the CS Inspector has recently considered how the Swindon allowance should be dealt with. In particular, he considered whether the Swindon allowance ought to be added to the requirements for the HMAs. That is not what he recommended. Instead, he concluded that this matter ought to be dealt with through a planned early review of the CS. His modification includes the commitment to an early review within the wording of the CS itself.

27. On balance, having regard to all the circumstances, I do not think that the lack of reference to the review in the LDS amounts to a sufficient change in circumstances to warrant adopting a housing requirement for the NWWHMA other than that set out in the CS. For the purposes of this appeal I agree with the Council’s position which is that the supply needed in the NWWHMA to accord with the Framework is 6,468 dwellings.

The supply of housing sites

28. The respective positions of the Council and the appellant in relation to the supply of housing sites are summarised in the updated Statement of Common Ground (SoCG) on housing supply matters. The SoCG records changes made by the Council and the appellant during the course of the Inquiry. References to the Council’s figures in the following sections of this report are references to the position as set out in the updated SoCG. I turn next to those sites where the contribution to HLS was in dispute at the end of the Inquiry. Some of these were discussed at an Inquiry which took place in April 2014 relating to proposed residential development at Park Road, Malmesbury14. I have taken account of the findings of the Inspector in that case15 (the Park Road Inspector) together with the other evidence before me on HLS matters.

Westinghouse Recreation Ground

29. The site has planning permission for 74 houses. Based on a telephone conversation, the appellant argued that the developer is considering a change to the design which would result in a reduction of 10 units. The Framework states that sites with planning permission should be considered deliverable unless there is clear evidence that they will not be delivered within 5 years. There was no suggestion that this site is not deliverable. In my view there is

12 See paragraph 2.10 of the LDS 13 Section 15, Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 14 APP/Y3940/A/13/2200503 15 This was a case where the Secretary of State did not agree with the Inspector’s recommendation. However, the Secretary of State accepted the Inspector’s findings in relation to HLS. www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 6 Appeal Decision APP/Y3940/A/14/2222641

insufficient evidence to warrant adopting a figure lower than the extant permission. I accept the Council’s figure for this site.

Hunters Moon

30. The Council resolved to grant outline planning permission for up to 450 dwellings in January 2014 subject to the completion of a s106 agreement. The developer’s trajectory envisaged first delivery of dwellings 18 months after the grant of planning permission. The Council adopted the findings of the Park Road Inspector. He considered that delivery in 2014/15 was unlikely but that, thereafter, the site could produce at the rate assumed by the Council. This conclusion was based on the absence of a planning permission at the time of the Park Road Inquiry. The position at this Inquiry was that the outline planning permission had still not been issued. Consequently, it now seems unlikely that there will be delivery in 2015/16. I therefore agree with the appellant’s position which is a reduction of the Council’s figure by 56 units.

Westbury North Junction

31. The site has full permission for 102 dwellings granted in October 2013. It is a former quarry, in-filled with waste materials, subsequently used for HGV parking and now vacant. The appellant queried the delivery trajectory on the basis that there has been no discharge of pre-commencement conditions. In particular, it was suggested that a condition relating to contaminated land was onerous and would be time-consuming to deal with. However, whilst the wording of the condition in question is quite detailed, in substance it is little different to many such conditions. I consider that the Council’s trajectory allows a reasonable period for the discharge of conditions and see no reason to make any adjustment for this site.

Foundry Lane

32. The site is an industrial estate which has been identified for regeneration for some time. A mixed use redevelopment is being promoted which would include up to 115 residential units. There was a resolution to grant outline planning permission in December 2013 subject to the completion of a s106 agreement although as yet no permission has been issued. The Park Road Inspector found that an allowance of 75 completions within the 5 year period was reasonable, having been informed that the agreement was in the process of being finalised. In August 2014 the Council indicated that 4 years should be allowed for site remediation prior to commencement16. Even if that figure is unduly cautious, given the complexity of the site and the continued absence of a planning permission, delivery within the 5 year period now seems unlikely. I agree with the appellant that 25 units should be deducted from the Council’s figure.

Burton Hill

33. The site is allocated in the draft Malmesbury Neighbourhood Plan (MNP) for approximately 50 dwellings. The MNP was subject to examination in September 2014 and there was a referendum in December 2014. At the time of the Inquiry the Council was in the process of drafting the document which would complete the process of making the plan. The MNP is therefore at an advanced stage and significant weight may be given to it. The appellant argued that an earlier strategic housing land assessment suggested that delivery from this site

16 Email from Neil Tiley dated 26 August 2014 at Appendix 11 of Ms Mulliner’s proof of evidence www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 7 Appeal Decision APP/Y3940/A/14/2222641

would be outside the 5 year period because of the need to co-ordinate separate land ownerships. Moreover, it was said that there was no evidence of a forthcoming planning application and that any assessment by the MNP examiner of deliverability would not have needed to consider the 5 year period.

34. In my view matters have moved on since the strategic housing land assessment. It is important to note the site has been considered recently in the context of the MNP examination process. Had the examiner found that there were significant obstacles to delivery no doubt he would have said so. As to delivery within 5 years, I accept the Council’s evidence that an application is being worked up by a delivery task group with the involvement of the landowners. The evidence supports the Council’s delivery trajectory and no adjustment is required for this site.

Backbridge Farm

35. The site is allocated in the MNP for 170 dwellings. The appellant argued that the MNP requires the provision of pedestrian and cycle routes which would involve the use of 3rd party land. In the absence of a formal agreement with the owners concerned there was effectively a ransom strip. In response, the Council commented that the access problems had been overstated. One of the 3rd party owners concerned was the Council and one of the routes would be within an extension to a primary school site. A delivery task group had been established including representatives of the developer, the school and the education authority to bring forward proposals for the site.

36. As with the previous site, it is important to note that this site has recently been considered in the context of the examination of the MNP. The report of the MNP examiner emphasises the importance of the pedestrian and cycle links. It also records that representatives of the school attended the examination. The examiner concludes that ‘From the evidence given on these matters I am satisfied that there is every possibility that the required pedestrian and cycle links would be secured through development’17. The Guidance states that where potential ownership problems, such as ransom strips, are identified an assessment will have to be made as to how and when they can realistically be overcome18. In making that assessment I attach significant weight to the MNP examiner’s report. I conclude that there is a realistic prospect that housing will be delivered at this site within the 5 year period. No adjustment to the Council’s figure is needed.

North Chippenham

37. The Council resolved to grant outline planning permission for up to 750 dwellings together with employment uses and a local centre in April 2014, subject to a s106 Agreement. Permission has yet to be issued. The developer provided a revised trajectory in March 2014 indicating delivery of 360 units within the 5 year period. This figure was accepted by the Park Road Inspector and is relied on by the Council. The developer’s trajectory assumed that the outline planning permission would be in place by April 2015. Consequently, the absence of such permission at the time of the Inquiry was not evidence of slippage and no adjustment to the Council’s figure is needed.

17 Paragraph 3.34 of the examiner’s report at Appendix 13 of Ms Mulliner’s proof of evidence 18 Reference ID: 3-020-20140306 www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 8 Appeal Decision APP/Y3940/A/14/2222641

Patterdown and Rowden (South West Chippenham)

38. The site had previously been identified in the draft CS as a strategic allocation for 800 dwellings plus employment uses. The adopted version of the CS does not include strategic allocations at Chippenham. Instead, the Council intends to bring forward a Chippenham Sites Development Plan Document19. The Council’s trajectory for this site includes delivery in 2016/17. As an outline application for 1000 houses was only submitted in December 2014 the appellant suggested that it was unlikely that there would be delivery before 2017/18.

39. The Park Road Inspector accepted the Council’s trajectory which assumed a two year period between submission of an outline application and delivery. On that basis, given that the application was only actually made in December 2014, the site would start to produce completed units in the 4th quarter of 2016/17. Making a proportionate allowance for that quarter, and assuming that delivery would thereafter follow the Council’s trajectory (slipped by one year), it is reasonable to allow for 190 units within the 5 year period20. This is a reduction of 85 from the Council’s figure.

Ashton Park, Trowbridge

40. The site is a strategic allocation in the CS for 2,600 homes together with employment land. Much of the site is controlled by Persimmon Homes, currently the developer of a nearby site at Castle Mead producing around 100 units per year. The Council and the appellant agreed that the site should produce completed dwellings from 2017/18. However, the appellant argued that Persimmon is unlikely to develop significant numbers of houses at Ashton Park until it has completed Castle Mead. Consequently the appellant suggested that only a few houses would be delivered in 2017/18 and that the build up in delivery thereafter would be slower than in the Council’s trajectory.

41. A Statement of Common Ground between the Council and Persimmon Homes produced in May 2013 noted that there would be at least 4 outlets at Ashton Park, plus affordable housing. Although there would be limited overlap with Castle Mead competition between the two sites was not seen as a major issue. The Park Road Inspector noted that there had been some slippage in the submission of an outline application and reduced the projected delivery within the 5 year period from 600 to 350 accordingly. This is the figure now relied on by the Council. I consider that the scale of Ashton Park is such that it is likely there would be multiple outlets, as stated in the Statement of Common Ground. In my opinion there is insufficient evidence to support the appellant’s suggestion that the build rates should be reduced. No adjustment to the Council’s figure is therefore justified.

West of Warminster

42. The site is a strategic allocation in the CS for 900 dwellings together with employment land. The Council’s trajectory assumes delivery from 2016/17. Given that no application has yet been submitted this now seems unlikely. The appellant suggests that the Council’s trajectory should slip by one year. I agree. This results in a reduction of 140 from the Council’s figure.

19 The Statement of Common Ground records that the CS Inspector found that the Sustainability Appraisal did not support the strategic allocations at Chippenham. 20 The calculation is 15 units in the 4th quarter of 2016/17, 75 units in 2017/18 and 100 units in 2018/19. www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 9 Appeal Decision APP/Y3940/A/14/2222641

Station Road, Westbury

43. The site was previously allocated in the West Wiltshire Local Plan and is now a strategic allocation for 250 dwellings in the CS. The Council adopts the developer’s trajectory which shows 50 units in 2018/19. There would be a need for a link road to cross a railway line as part of the development. The appellant argued that no planning application has been submitted and questioned the viability of the site.

44. I understand that the site has been allocated for some time without development being brought forward. However, it has recently been reviewed in the context of the CS examination. The CS Inspector’s report addressed the issue of viability, noting that the evidence presents ‘a degree of ambivalence as to the viability of the site’. Even so, the Inspector went on to say that the Council’s revised viability evidence led to a reduction in affordable housing aspirations which will enhance the likelihood of viable delivery. He concluded that ‘the Station Road site is justified as a strategic allocation’. I attach significant weight to the CS Inspector’s findings and conclude that there is a realistic prospect of delivery at this site. In terms of timing, the Council’s trajectory indicates delivery in the final year of the 5 year period. This allows sufficient time for an application to be submitted and determined. No adjustment to the Council’s figure is required.

Victoria Road, Warminster

45. The site has planning permission for 18 dwellings. However, a further planning application has been submitted for 8 dwellings and 3 retail units. On balance it seems more likely that this site will deliver 8 houses and it is therefore appropriate to make a reduction of 10 units from the Council’s figure.

Conclusions on housing land supply

46. The supply needed in the NWWHMA, derived from the CS, is 6,468. This figure includes a 5% buffer in accordance with the Framework. The Council’s figure for supply is 6,530. For the reasons given above I consider that this figure should be reduced by 316. The resulting figure is 6,214 which is below the supply needed to accord with the Framework. I acknowledge that the shortfall is not great. Indeed, the available supply exceeds the 6,160 that would be needed if it were not necessary to add a buffer. However, the Framework makes clear at paragraph 47 that a buffer should be added to ensure choice and competition in the housing market.

47. It follows that, in the NWWHMA, the Council cannot demonstrate a 5 year supply of deliverable housing sites with the buffer required by the Framework. In these circumstances the Framework states that relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date.

48. The Council did not dispute that, insofar as Core Policy 2 seeks to restrict housing outside the limits of development, it is a relevant policy for the supply of housing which would be deemed to be out-of-date if there were found not to be a 5 year HLS. The appeal scheme also includes B1 office development. Core Policy 34 of the CS deals with employment land and is not a relevant policy for the supply of housing. I return to the application of development plan policy to the B1 element of the scheme later in this decision.

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 10 Appeal Decision APP/Y3940/A/14/2222641

49. Paragraph 14 of the Framework states that where relevant policies are out-of – date planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits or where specific policies in the Framework indicate that development should be restricted. This is a case where paragraph 14 is not engaged, for reasons discussed in the concluding section of this decision.

50. I have referred above to two recent appeal decisions relating to sites at Oaksey and Cricklade which were drawn to my attention after the close of the Inquiry. Both sites are within the NWWHMA and in each case the Inspector accepted the conclusion of the CS Inspector in relation to the existence of a 5 year HLS. It can be seen from the Oaksey decision that the appellant in that case did not contest the CS Inspector’s conclusion on HLS. Whilst there was some discussion of the allowance for windfall sites, it appears that the delivery trajectories for individual HLS sites were not discussed at the hearing.

51. It can be seen from the Cricklade decision that both the housing requirement and the HLS were disputed. I agree with the Cricklade Inspector that the CS requirement, disaggregated to the 3 HMA, provides the correct basis for establishing the requirement. The Inspector does not comment on individual supply sites and I do not know what detailed information was before him on this matter. It is clear that he attached very significant weight to the findings of the CS Inspector.

52. In common with the Cricklade Inspector I have afforded substantial weight to the report and conclusions of the CS Inspector. However, at the Inquiry evidence was put before me which demonstrates that, for some sites, the position now is materially different to the evidence that was before him. Neither the Framework nor PPG suggest that such evidence should be disregarded. Case law stresses the importance of an evidence based approach to the consideration of HLS21. On the basis of that evidence I have reached a different conclusion to the Oaksey and Cricklade Inspectors.

53. Finally, I note that since the Inquiry the Council has permitted housing development on two sites at or near Corsham, amounting to 152 dwellings. However, it would not be appropriate simply to add that figure to the supply – that would be tantamount to changing the base date of the HLS exercise. Moreover, some of these units are already accounted for in the HLS figures. The Council and the appellant have agreed that the correct base date for this appeal is 1 April 2014. If any later base date were used it would be necessary to review all the elements of the HLS exercise.

Effect on ecology, including designated sites and protected species

54. The appeal site comprises an arable field, within which there are some free- standing trees, and an area of grassland. There are corridors of trees and vegetation adjoining the northern and eastern site boundaries. These are associated with the grounds of Guyers House and open farmland to the north and with the back gardens of houses in Academy Drive to the east. The site is bounded by Bath Road to the south, beyond which is the urban area of Corsham. To the west it is bounded by Guyers Lane, beyond which there is a

21 Wainhomes v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2013] EWHC 597 (Admin) – see for example paragraph 35 of the judgement www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 11 Appeal Decision APP/Y3940/A/14/2222641

group of houses fronting Bath Road and open farmland. In the south west part of the site there is an airshaft leading to a disused underground quarry.

55. The site is not subject to any nature conservation designations. However, it is used by protected species, notably bats. All UK bats are protected species. An ecological appraisal and a bat survey were submitted with the application in 2013. This work identified several species of bats using the site. In response to matters raised by the Council and Natural England (NE) further bat surveys were undertaken during 2014.

Designated sites

56. The ecological appraisal identified one Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and 3 Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) in the area around the appeal site together with some non-statutory wildlife sites. The Box Mine SSSI is about 1.6km to the south west of the appeal site. This SSSI also forms part of the Bath and Bradford on Avon Bats SAC. The SAC is made up of various separate areas, the next nearest being respectively 7.5km and 9.6km from the site. The ecological appraisal did not identify any significant impacts on designated sites other than the Box Mine component of the SAC. This conclusion was not disputed by the Council and I see no reason to disagree.

57. The SAC is a European site and Regulation 61 of the Habitats Regulations therefore applies. The Council and the appellant agreed that the application is likely to have a significant effect on the SAC. Consequently, in accordance with Regulation 61, an appropriate assessment of the implications for that site must be made. To assist the Inquiry a draft appropriate assessment was prepared and agreed between the Council and the appellant22. The draft appropriate assessment concluded that the project was not likely to affect the integrity of the SAC, either alone or in combination with other plans and projects. NE was consulted and advised that it concurred with the assessment conclusions, provided that all mitigation measures are appropriately secured in any permission given23. I have taken account of the draft appropriate assessment, together with the views of NE and all other evidence before the Inquiry in order to make my own appropriate assessment.

58. The interest features of the SAC are greater horseshoe bat (GHB), Bechstein’s bat (Bechstein’s) and lesser horseshoe bat (LHB). There are relatively large populations of GHB and LHB and a small population of Bechstein’s which is estimated to be just 20 individuals. Unless bats are trapped or identified in the hand Bechstein’s cannot be distinguished from other bats of the Myotis family. Due to the rarity of Bechstein’s considerable survey effort is needed to confirm their presence or absence in circumstances where Myotis bats are detected.

59. Box Mine is the most important roosting, hibernation and swarming site for the qualifying species in the locality although other underground sites are used. The conservation objectives for Box Mine include avoiding the disturbance of the qualifying species, ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained and that the site makes a full contribution to achieving favourable conservation status for each of the qualifying features.

60. Box Mine is not understood to be physically connected with the underground quarry at the appeal site by any underground route. To confirm whether or not

22 GLD/LPA/06 23 NE letter of 2 March 2015 – GLD/LPA/07 www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 12 Appeal Decision APP/Y3940/A/14/2222641

the qualifying species are hibernating below ground, bat trapping was undertaken at the airshaft in March/April 2014. Natterer’s and Daubenton’s bats were trapped but no Bechstein’s, GHB or LHB. The airshaft is used by Myotis bats as a swarming site in late summer. The difficulty of confirming the presence or absence of Bechstein’s had been an outstanding matter of concern to the Council. However, following the 2014 surveys both the Council and NE are now satisfied with the level of survey work and agree that the airshaft is not used significantly by Bechstein’s or by the other qualifying species.

61. Bat activity surveys identified modest numbers of GHB and LHB using the northern boundary of the site as a commuting route. Myotis bats, which could include Bechstein’s, were also recorded using the northern and eastern boundaries for much of the summer with large increases in activity during September. Foraging activity was also recorded.

62. The survey evidence shows that the 3 qualifying species are not using the underground quarry or the trees within the site as roosts. However, the commuting routes may well be used to reach foraging areas and roosts in the locality so the proposed development may have indirect effects. It is likely to require external lighting associated with roads, footpaths and buildings. As the qualifying species are known to be light sensitive, increased lighting close to the commuting routes is likely to disturb bats, potentially impacting on the conservation objectives for the SAC.

63. Mitigation measures have been proposed to avoid or reduce the potential impacts. The key features, as shown on the ecological parameters plan, would be landscape buffers of at least 15m width containing species-rich grassland and tree/shrub planting along the western, northern and eastern boundaries. These buffers would be designed and managed to protect the commuting routes. In addition there would be a 10m offset to the closest elevation of any buildings. To my mind the key issues to be addressed are whether this mitigation would be effective and whether it could be adequately secured, bearing in mind the outline nature of the appeal scheme.

64. The indicative design of the buffers is shown on the illustrative landscape cross sections. These show that the buffers would be of sufficient width to include hedgerow and tree planting on either side of a central grassland strip. A close boarded fence would be contained within the planting closest to the proposed development in order to cut down light spill into the buffer zone. A lighting report has been submitted which includes modelled lighting levels across the site. This shows that light levels within the buffers could be kept below 1.0 lux, the level which is generally regarded as the threshold for bat disturbance. The survey information has identified how the site is used by commuting and foraging bats and I consider that there is sufficient knowledge about the behaviour of the qualifying species to be confident that the mitigation measures would be effective in protecting the commuting routes.

65. The Council and the appellant suggested a condition which would require the submission of reserved matters to accord with the ecological parameters plan including the dimensions and lighting levels referred to above. Further conditions could be imposed requiring the approval of a Landscape and Ecological Management Plan, to ensure that the future maintenance of the buffers was appropriate to their mitigation function, and the approval of an external lighting scheme. I am satisfied that these conditions would secure the

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 13 Appeal Decision APP/Y3940/A/14/2222641

implementation of the proposed mitigation measures without prejudicing the Council’s ability to consider the planning merits of any reserved matters submissions.

66. In conclusion, my assessment is that the commuting routes could be adequately protected from the proposed development subject to the imposition of appropriate planning conditions. On this basis the project would not be likely to affect the integrity of the SAC either alone or in combination with other plans or projects. For the same reasons, the project would not be likely to harm the Box Mine SSSI.

Protected species - bats

67. The surveys have identified several bat species at the site, including the 3 referred to above. Insofar as these species are using the site for commuting and foraging the mitigation measures described above would be of value to all of the bat species. The Council’s main concern was the effect of the proposal on the use of the airshaft and underground quarry by bats. The surveys show that it is likely that Natterer’s bats and Daubenton’s bats are using the quarry for hibernating. In addition, swarming activity has been observed at the airshaft in the late summer and autumn. The surveys indicated a maximum of 10 bats swarming at any one time. The ecological function of swarming is closely related to breeding which normally takes place underground. Studies have shown that individual bats travel from a wide area to reach swarming sites. Such sites are comparatively rare and the Council is aware of only 3 in Wiltshire.

68. Mitigation proposals are shown on the ecological parameters plan. A buffer zone would be formed around the airshaft with a minimum of 15m between the shaft and the office development to the south west and a minimum of 25m between the shaft and the residential development to the north east. The buffer zone would have trees towards the edge and an open area for swarming around the shaft. Wildlife corridors, similar to the landscape corridors described above, would link this area to the western and southern boundaries.

69. The Council’s concern was that the introduction of urban development in proximity to the airshaft would result in the deterioration of a breeding site of a European protected species, potentially in breach of Article 12 of the Habitats Directive. The Council considers that there is an unacceptable degree of uncertainty with regard to both the significance of the swarming site and the nature and significance of the impacts of development on the swarming arena. Moreover, it was argued that the effectiveness of the proposed mitigation cannot be sufficiently understood because there is no precedent for developing close to a swarming site. For all these reasons the Council considered that it was unlikely that NE would be able to provide the necessary licence for the scheme and planning permission should therefore be refused.

70. The appellant agreed that that a licence from NE would be sought. However, it was argued that the existing habitat is sub-optimal for bats because it is open and exposed arable land. Natterer’s and Daubenton’s are woodland bats adapted to cluttered woodland environments. The mitigation would provide optimal habitat around the airshaft and connectivity with the wider area.

71. The EC Guidance on the application of Article 12 states that:

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 14 Appeal Decision APP/Y3940/A/14/2222641

‘Breeding sites and resting places are to be strictly protected because they are crucial to the life cycle of animals and are vital parts of a species’ entire habitat. Article 12(1)(d) should therefore be understood as aiming to safeguard the continued ecological functionality of such sites and places, ensuring that they continue to provide all the elements needed by a specific animal to rest or to breed successfully. The protection applies all year round if these sites are used on a regular basis.’24

72. The emphasis in the EC Guidance is on the continued ecological functionality of the breeding or resting site. The evidence before me indicates that the key aspects of functionality here are the underground quarry, where breeding is thought to take place, the swarming arena and the connectivity to the wider area.

73. I accept the evidence of the appellant’s bat expert that there has been sufficient survey work. The species using the airshaft have been identified, the maximum numbers using it for swarming at any one time have been established and there have been direct observations of swarming activity on a number of occasions. The Council argued that the total numbers of bats using the site over a season is not known. Whilst that may be so, I am satisfied that there is sufficient information to properly understand the significance of the swarming site and to inform the design of the mitigation measures.

74. It is important to bear in mind that the swarming site is not in a remote rural location. It is around 50m from the busy A4 which has tall lighting columns. It is also close to urban development to the south of the A4. No survey information has been provided regarding current light levels at the airshaft. However, the appellant’s bat expert suggested that these are likely to be above the 1.0 lux level which is the threshold for affecting the behaviour of bats25. Having viewed the site at night I share that view. I agree with the appellant that the current conditions are sub-optimal for bats.

75. The appellant submitted information about other swarming sites in the Corsham area and also in Derbyshire and Yorkshire. This evidence shows that sheltered and relatively cluttered woodland environments provide suitable habitat for Natterer’s and Daubenton’s bats. Consequently there is no reason to think that planting trees around the perimeter of the buffer zone, leaving the area around the shaft clear, would create conditions unsuited to these species.

76. The numbers of bats observed swarming were relatively low, with a maximum of 10 on one occasion and generally fewer than 5. The majority of the swarming activity observed was above the airshaft. Whilst there was an instance of swarming behaviour to the south of the airshaft this was just 2 individuals on a single occasion. The lighting conditions which could be achieved in the buffer zone, and the corridors connecting it to the southern and western boundaries, have been modelled in some detail. The modelling showed that light levels could be maintained below the 1.0 lux threshold. For much of the buffer zone levels would be below 0.1 lux. This would certainly be no worse than existing conditions and may well be a material improvement.

24 Page 45 of the Guidance Document on the Strict Protection of Animal Species of Community Interest under the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC, included at Appendix I to GLD/23. 25 Mr Goodman, in answer to my questions www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 15 Appeal Decision APP/Y3940/A/14/2222641

77. Taking the survey data together with the information about other swarming sites and the modelled lighting conditions, I consider that there can be a high degree of confidence that the ecological functionality of the airshaft breeding site would be adequately protected by the proposed mitigation.

78. It is also necessary to consider potential physical impacts on underground breeding sites by construction works and potential disturbance to hibernating bats from noise and vibration. The extent of the underground quarry linked to the airshaft has been surveyed. The appellant’s engineering consultants have submitted a technical note which states that the likelihood of piled foundations being needed on this site is negligible. There remains a possibility of unmapped shallow workings which might potentially be used by bats. This potential risk could be addressed by way of a condition requiring a land stability risk assessment to be submitted for approval alongside the submission of reserved matters. The possible need for any seasonal restrictions on building works in parts of the site, to avoid disturbance during hibernation, could be addressed within a Construction Method Statement. Such statements are commonly secured by planning conditions to mitigate impacts during construction.

79. In conclusion, I consider that the impact of the proposal on bats is not a matter which weighs against the grant of planning permission. In these circumstances case law indicates that:

If a proposed development is found acceptable when judged on its planning merits, planning permission for it should normally be granted unless in the planning authority’s view the proposed development would be likely to offend article 12(1) and unlikely to be licensed under the derogation powers26.

80. My conclusion is that, with the proposed mitigation, the proposed development would be unlikely to result in the deterioration of a breeding site of a European protected species. On that basis a licence may not be required. However, it is not for me to determine whether or not a licence would be required as that would be the duty of NE. Moreover, in this case it is common ground that a licence would be applied for27. Questioned on this point, the appellant’s bat expert stated that a licence would be applied for to ensure that the developer would be protected against any potential offence28.

81. If such an application were made NE would have regard to the 3 licensing tests set out in Regulation 53 of the Habitats Regulations. The need for housing is capable of amounting to an imperative reason of overriding public importance, particularly in circumstances such as these where the supply of housing sites falls short of that required by the Framework. The shortfall in housing supply also indicates a lack of satisfactory alternative sites.

82. The Council suggested that there could be an alternative layout, perhaps omitting the proposed roundabout junction in the vicinity of the airshaft. There was little specific evidence before me on potential alternative layouts. However, I saw that opportunities for forming satisfactory vehicular accesses to the A4 Bath Road are constrained by existing buildings and the need to take account of the existing junction with the B3109 Bradford Road. From what I saw on site

26 Paragraph 96, R (on the application of Christopher Prideaux) and Buckinghamshire County Council and FCC Environment UK Ltd [2013] EWHC 1054 (Admin) 27 Paragraph 3.7, Statement of Common Ground on Bats – GLD/LPA/11 28 Mr Goodman, during cross-examination by Mr Richards www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 16 Appeal Decision APP/Y3940/A/14/2222641

it seems unlikely that there would be a satisfactory alternative to forming a roundabout junction at this point.

83. For the reasons given above, I do not consider that the proposal would be detrimental to the maintenance of the population of the species in question at a favourable conservation status. Consequently, the evidence before me does not indicate that that this is a case where NE would be unlikely to grant a licence.

Other protected species

84. There is no aquatic habitat for great crested newt or common toad on the site although there is some terrestrial habitat for both species. Any impacts on terrestrial habitat would be outweighed by habitat created within the scheme. The Council and appellant agreed that impacts on great crested newt, common toad, badger and birds would be low and could be mitigated by standard approaches secured through conditions29.

Loss of parkland habitat

85. The Council and the appellant did not agree on the value that should be attached to the existing habitat. The Council argued that, as parkland, the appeal site represents a priority habitat whereas the appellant characterised it as being dominated by arable land with low ecological value overall. These differences narrowed somewhat during the Inquiry with the parties agreeing that the site does not meet the criteria for a parkland County Wildlife Site because it has only 2 veteran trees rather than the required 3. On the other hand it was agreed that the site does meet the UKBAP criteria for parkland habitat30. It is therefore a site ‘of value’ in the terms of the CS.

86. Whilst the site meets the criteria for parkland habitat there are a number of factors which bear on my assessment of its ecological value. First, the Council accepted that arable farming over an extended period will have reduced the value of the habitat normally associated with parkland. There are only 2 veteran trees and one of these had collapsed at the time of my site visit. As it stands, the remaining veteran tree is not part of a mosaic of parkland habitats. The surveys of invertebrates, bryophytes and lichen which have been carried out identified the presence of common and widespread species. Consequently, whilst the site is a priority habitat in a technical sense, the evidence before me indicates that its actual ecological value is relatively low.

87. The Council suggested that there is potential for some restoration of the ecological value of the site. Whilst that may be so, there was little evidence before the Inquiry that this is a likely prospect.

88. The illustrative layouts and the ecological parameters plan show how the remaining veteran tree, and other free-standing mature trees, would be retained within the proposed development. Dry stone walls contribute to the range of habitats within the site. Although around half of the total length of such walls would be removed, this would be replaced by an equivalent length of new dry stone wall. The illustrative landscape proposals include features designed to enhance biodiversity, including new grassland, extensive tree and hedge planting, swales and ponds. There would be 2.8ha of terrestrial habitat suitable for great created newt and common toad. Full details of all these

29 Ecology Statement of Common Ground – Parkland and veteran trees – GLD/LPA/03 30 Ecology Statement of Common Ground – Parkland and veteran trees – GLD/LPA/03 www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 17 Appeal Decision APP/Y3940/A/14/2222641

measures could be secured at reserved matters stage and by the imposition of conditions.

Conclusions on ecology

89. Core Policy 50 of the CS states that development proposals must demonstrate how they protect features of nature conservation value. Where such features cannot be retained, removal shall only be acceptable where the ecological impacts have been mitigated as far as possible and compensatory measures have been secured to ensure that there is no net loss of the local biodiversity resource. All proposals should avoid and reduce disturbance of sensitive wildlife species and seek opportunities to enhance biodiversity.

90. The most important features of the appeal site are the airshaft, which is a breeding site for bats, and the commuting routes used by several bat species including those associated with the SAC. These features would be retained and protected by the proposed mitigation measures. Other features, including mature trees and dry stone walls, would be retained as far as practicable and compensatory features would be provided. I have concluded that the project would not be likely to affect the integrity of the SAC and that it would not result in the deterioration of the breeding site.

91. There would be a loss of parkland habitat which is regarded as being ‘of value’ in the CS. However, the actual ecological value of the site is relatively low. Specific features associated with parkland would be retained and in my view any loss of value would be outweighed by the extensive biodiversity enhancement measures incorporated in the scheme. I consider that, overall, there would be no net loss of the local biodiversity resource and that the scheme as a whole would accord with Core Policy 50.

Effect on the character and appearance of the area

92. The relationship between the appeal site, the adjoining countryside and the urban area of Corsham has been described at the beginning of the preceding section. The Wiltshire Landscape Character Assessment identifies the site as being within the Malmesbury – Corsham Limestone Lowland character area. The characteristics of this area are said to include gently undulating lowland farmland, a pattern of large geometric fields and dry stone walls marking field boundaries. I consider that the appeal site shares these characteristics.

93. The site is crossed by a public footpath leading from Bath Road. The path passes through the grounds of Guyers House and then leads north towards the Cotswolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). The edge of the AONB is around 650m from the appeal site.

Landscape and visual effects

94. The application was accompanied by a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA). The LVIA assessed the landscape of the appeal site as having low/medium susceptibility to change. The effect on the landscape of the site and immediate context was assessed as minor adverse. The main visual impacts identified were moderate adverse effects on a relatively small number of residential receptors and on users of the public footpath and minor adverse effects on users of Bath Road and Guyers Lane.

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 18 Appeal Decision APP/Y3940/A/14/2222641

95. The Council and the Pickwick Association argued that the LVIA had generally understated both the susceptibility of the site to change and the degree of the landscape impacts. It was suggested that the proposals would be harmful to the landscape setting of Corsham, in that the site forms a green gateway into the town, and that Bath Road has formed a distinct boundary to the northern extent of the town.

96. With regard to the susceptibility of the site to change, it is relevant to note that its existing character is subject to urban influences. The busy Bath Road bounds the southern side of the site and houses are visible to the east and south. Whilst the site is identified as parkland for the purposes of the ecological assessment, its visual character is essentially that of an agricultural field. It does have dry stone walls, which are a feature of parkland, and there are some free-standing trees. However, there is no sense of a coherent or consciously designed landscape structure.

97. The site is adjacent to part of the Pickwick Conservation Area. I will return to its contribution to the setting of the conservation area in the following section. The key point to note here is that there is limited inter-visibility between the appeal site and the conservation area. I do not consider that the proximity of the conservation area materially increases the landscape sensitivity of the appeal site. In summary, I agree with the findings of the LVIA that this is a site with low/medium susceptibility to change.

98. There would be an adverse change in the character of the site itself in that an open arable landscape, characteristic of the locality, would be replaced by urban development. I consider that this would be a harmful impact of the proposed development, although the degree of harm would be tempered by the low/medium susceptibility of the landscape. Layout and design is a reserved matter. However, the illustrative masterplan shows how mitigation could be embedded in the design and layout of the scheme. This could be achieved by creating a central public open space, related to the line of the footpath, and by setting new development within a strong landscape structure. These features of the illustrative layout could be secured at the reserved matters stage.

99. The Council and the Pickwick Association agreed with the appellant in relation to the general extent of visual effects. These would not be widespread due to the effects of landform and vegetation. They would be confined, in the main, to views from Bath Road, Guyers Lane, nearby houses and the public footpath.

100. Turning to the landscape setting of Corsham, I note that the open nature of the site is readily apparent from the approach to the town along Bath Road. However, I do not consider that the site has a gateway function. The approach to Corsham from the west is characterised by a mix of urban development and open countryside. The southern side of the road is fairly consistently developed. The northern side is less so but there is extensive development at the Copenacre site31 and there are houses at Traveller’s Rest, Guyers Cottages and Academy Drive. As seen on a map or aerial photograph Bath Road does indeed define the northern edge of part of the urban area of Corsham. However, as seen on the ground there is no strong visual edge at this point.

101. The greatest visual effects would be on nearby residential occupiers and on users of the footpath. In both cases the illustrative layout offers a degree of

31 A vacant MoD site which is to be redeveloped for housing www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 19 Appeal Decision APP/Y3940/A/14/2222641

mitigation. Substantial landscape buffers are proposed around the site boundaries. At present the footpath passes through an open field, albeit with views of housing nearby. It would become part of an urban extension. However, the illustrative masterplan shows that it need not be closely confined by housing, passing instead through a broad public open space for about half its length and then along a green corridor. In conclusion, I accept the assessment of the LVIA that these would be moderate adverse visual effects.

Effects on designated landscapes

102. The Council and the Pickwick Association accepted that there is no inter- visibility between the site and the AONB. No party identified viewpoints within the AONB from which the proposed development would be seen. On my site visits I saw that the character of the footpath changes to the north of Guyers House. Urban influences are much reduced and there are views northwards to higher ground within the AONB. The nearest boundary of the AONB is on the other side of a low ridge and from this point there are no views southwards towards Corsham and the appeal site.

103. Nevertheless, it was argued by the Council that the experience of approaching the AONB via the footpath would be adversely affected by the appeal scheme. Whilst that may be so, as noted above any impact on users of the path would be no more than moderate adverse. Moreover, any such effect would be confined to that section of the path which is within the appeal site. In any event, this would not be an impact on the landscape of the AONB itself.

104. I conclude that the evidence before me does not identify any material impact on the landscape of the AONB. In relation to national policy32, the landscape and scenic beauty of the AONB would be conserved.

105. The Council’s reasons for refusal include reference to the Corsham Special Landscape Area. This was a local landscape designation found in previous local plans. It was not carried forward into the CS. At the Inquiry, the Council did not seek to argue that it should be regarded as a significant factor in this appeal.

Conclusions on character and appearance

106. The loss of a greenfield site would result in some harm to the character and appearance of the area. There would be adverse visual effects, particularly for nearby residents and users of the public footpath. To this extent the appeal scheme would not accord with Core Policy 51 which seeks to protect and conserve landscape character. On the other hand the negative impacts would be mitigated as far as possible, as required by the policy, through the inclusion of structural landscape features which could be secured at the reserved matters stage. The extent of visual impacts would not be widespread and there would be only limited harm to the landscape setting of Corsham. There would be no harm to the landscape and scenic beauty of the AONB.

Effect on heritage assets

107. There are no designated heritage assets within the appeal site. This section of my decision discusses effects on the settings of designated heritage assets, the adequacy of survey information in relation to archaeology and whether

32 Paragraph 115 of the Framework www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 20 Appeal Decision APP/Y3940/A/14/2222641

there are any non-designated heritage assets which merit consideration in the context of this appeal. The Built Heritage Assessment submitted with the application identified a number of listed buildings in the locality. However, at the Inquiry the designated heritage assets of concern to the Council and the Pickwick Association were the Pickwick Conservation Area and Guyers House, a Grade II listed building. I agree that the other listed buildings identified in the assessment are either too far from the appeal site, or have an insufficiently direct relationship with it, for there to be any material impact on their settings or their significance.

Effect on the setting of the Pickwick Conservation Area

108. Pickwick developed as a separate village which became linked to Corsham by 20th century development. There was no conservation area appraisal or character statement before the Inquiry. There was however a brief description of the conservation area which notes that Pickwick was a staging post on the London coach route, referred to by Charles Dickens in Pickwick Papers. The village has developed in a linear fashion along Bath Road. The fabric is substantially stone, which results in a high degree of unity in the street scene. At the western end of the conservation area there are two large houses set in grounds, enclosed with high stone walls, at Pickwick Manor and Beechfield House. In my view all of these features contribute to the character and appearance of the conservation area and to its significance as a designated heritage asset.

109. The Framework defines setting as the surroundings in which a heritage asset is experienced. The Pickwick Conservation Area is primarily experienced from viewpoints within the designated area. No external viewpoints which are of importance to understanding or experiencing the conservation area have been identified in the evidence. There is limited inter-visibility between the conservation area and the appeal site although there is some, for example views to and from houses in Academy Drive.

110. The properties at Academy Drive, which are within the conservation area, back on to the appeal site. These houses are within the grounds of Beechfield House. They are part of a modern residential development which replaced previous development within the grounds. The Academy Drive development has been attractively designed and is sympathetic to its sensitive location within the landscaped grounds of Beechfield House. However, the relationship of these modern houses to the conservation area would not be materially affected by development behind them, at the appeal site. No doubt there would be views of new housing, partially screened by the proposed landscape buffer, from the back of the Academy Drive houses. That would not however have any material impact on the significance of the conservation area as a designated heritage asset.

111. There are views eastwards along Bath Road which encompass the appeal site together with elements of the conservation area. These views are dominated by highway infrastructure and predominantly modern development. There are also glimpses of buildings, such as No 51 Bath Road, which make a positive contribution to the conservation area. However, to my mind any such views cannot be characterised as important in the sense of contributing to an experience or understanding of the conservation area.

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 21 Appeal Decision APP/Y3940/A/14/2222641

112. The appeal site forms part of the setting of the conservation area. However, setting is not a heritage designation in its own right. Whilst the proposed development would change the character of the appeal site it does not follow that this would harm the significance of the conservation area. Although there would be changes to views into and out of the conservation area, these changes would not affect important views. There would be no harm to the character and appearance of the conservation area. Nor would there be harm to its significance as a designated heritage asset.

Effect on the setting of Guyers House

113. Guyers House is a Grade II listed building set in landscaped grounds adjoining the northern boundary of the appeal site. The house is approached by a tree-lined drive from Guyers Lane which passes alongside the appeal site boundary. The list description notes that the house dates from the 17th century with 19th century additions. It has both historic and architectural interest due to its age and the quality of its architecture. The principal elevation faces south east onto a lawn, pond and landscaped grounds. There are substantial planting belts to the south and east of the grounds. From first floor windows it is possible to gain some filtered views, through the boundary planting, over parts of the appeal site to Bath Road.

114. Guyers House was formerly a farmhouse and is now a hotel. From 1921 the appeal site was farmed, together with other land, by the occupiers of Guyers House. The family planted two beech trees within the appeal site as a memorial to a son who was killed in World War II. The appeal site was sold away from the house in the 1950s. The present owners acquired the property in 1989. They restored the house and grounds and began planting trees and hedges on the boundary to screen the effects of street lighting along Bath Road33.

115. In assessing the importance of the appeal site to the significance of Guyers House as a designated heritage asset I take account of visual, functional and historic connections. The visual links are now very limited due to the planting along the drive and the southern and eastern edges of the grounds. The house is barely visible in winter views from the appeal site and Bath Road. Views out are restricted, as described above. Moreover there is no evidence that this is a recent or transient change – the ordnance survey map of 1886 shows planting belts to the south and east of the house. It appears that the planting that has taken place since 1989 has reinforced a landscape structure established in the 19th century.

116. Guyers House was a farmhouse and, whilst there is only direct evidence relating to the period from 1921, it seems likely that the appeal site was farmland associated with the house long before that time. Consequently there was a functional link which came to an end in the 1950s.

117. The issue of parkland has been discussed above in relation to ecology and landscape. In terms of the historic environment, the tithe map of 1838 shows Guyers House surrounded by fields. There is no evidence of parkland at this stage. The ordnance survey map of 1886 shows the drive to the house on an alignment to the north of the present drive. There are free-standing trees and clumps within the appeal site, suggestive of a parkland character. However,

33 Mr Hungerford, one of the owners of Guyers House, gave this information in his written statement and in answer to my questions www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 22 Appeal Decision APP/Y3940/A/14/2222641

there is no evidence of any designed landscape linking the house to the appeal site. On the contrary, as noted above, planting belts to the south and east of the site were already in place.

118. Having regard to all the above factors, I consider that the appeal site should be regarded as part of the setting of Guyers House notwithstanding the limited visual connectivity between the two. The functional link has gone and there is no link resulting from a designed landscape. The continued presence of farmland does however contribute something to the understanding of Guyers House as a former farmhouse. In my view the contribution that the appeal site makes to the overall significance of Guyers House is a small one.

119. The effect of the appeal scheme would be to bring urban development much closer to the southern edge of the grounds of Guyers House. There would be little impact on views to and from the house because the existing planting at Guyers House would be supplemented by extensive new planting along the landscape corridors within the appeal site. Given the predominantly residential nature of the appeal scheme there is no reason to think that there would be significant harm from noise and disturbance. On the other hand there would be an erosion of the rural setting of the farmhouse which would result in some harm to the significance of the designated heritage asset.

120. In the terms of the Framework34, I consider that the degree of harm would be less than substantial. Moreover, for the reasons given above I would characterise it as minor. In these circumstances the Framework requires any harm to be balanced against the public benefits of the proposal. I return to that balance in the conclusions to my decision. Having regard to the relevant statutory duty,35 I conclude that the setting of Guyers House would not be preserved.

Archaeology

121. The application was supported by an Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment. This concluded that there are no known archaeological heritage assets within the site and that there is a low potential for the presence of unknown buried heritage assets. The Pickwick Association argued that a field evaluation ought to be carried out before any planning permission is granted. However, the County Archaeologist was satisfied that appropriate site investigations, including trial trenching, could be secured by a condition. I share that view.

Non-designated heritage assets

122. The Pickwick Association suggested that Guyers Cottages, which front Bath Road and back onto the appeal site, should be regarded as non-designated heritage assets. However there is no evidence that these cottages have been identified by the local planning authority as heritage assets, whether in a local list or in any other document. In my view they do not fall within the definition of a heritage asset as set out in the Framework. The cottages should of course be taken into consideration as part of the existing townscape. That is something that the Council would no doubt take into account at the reserved matters stage.

34 Paragraph 134 35 Section 66 – Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 23 Appeal Decision APP/Y3940/A/14/2222641

Conclusions on heritage assets

123. In conclusion, I have not identified any harm in relation to the setting of the Pickwick Conservation Area, archaeology or non-designated heritage assets. In these respects the appeal proposals would accord with Core Policy 58. I have concluded that there would be minor harm to the significance of Guyers House, a matter I comment on further below.

Whether there would be prejudice to a plan-led planning process

124. The central role of development plans in the planning system is made clear in primary legislation and the Framework. The Framework states that local plans should as far as possible reflect a collective vision and a set of agreed priorities for the sustainable development of the area. However, both the legislation and the Framework require other material considerations to be taken into account. In relation to housing, the Framework states that relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date in cases, such as this, where there is not a 5 year HLS with the required buffer. Even so, it is appropriate to consider the implications of allowing the appeal scheme for the planning process in Wiltshire as part of the overall balance of planning considerations.

125. The Core Strategy was adopted in January 2015. Whilst it includes some strategic allocations it is not intended to include all of the allocations that will be needed to deliver the housing requirement for Wiltshire. The CS is to be followed by site allocation Development Plan Documents (DPD) and Neighbourhood Plans (NP). Allocations in Corsham are expected to be made through the Corsham NP but could also be made through a site allocation DPD.

126. Work is in progress on the issues and options stage of the NP. The position at the close of the Inquiry was that the consultation period on the application to designate the area for the NP was due to end on 18 March 2015. The NP steering group anticipates that consultation on a draft plan would take place in January/March 2016. The Council’s Local Development Scheme indicates that the examination of the Wiltshire Housing Site Allocations DPD will begin in late 2015 with adoption in 2016. Both plans are at an early stage of preparation and have yet to emerge even as draft documents.

127. It is important to recall that Core Policy 1 identifies Corsham as a Market Town with the potential for significant development. At the Inquiry the Council accepted36 that the scale of development proposed in the appeal scheme would not be inconsistent with the settlement strategy set out in Core Policy 1. I therefore conclude that allowing the appeal would not prejudice the overall spatial strategy of the adopted CS. I turn next to the effect on the planning process at the level of the Corsham community area.

128. Core Policy 11 states that approximately 1,220 houses will be provided at the town of Corsham during the plan period. The CS Inspector agreed with the Council that it was not necessary to make a strategic allocation at Corsham. There have been significant numbers of completions and permitted sites, such that the CS states that sites for only another 330 houses are needed. Community representatives drew attention to further recent permissions and current applications which would do much to meet this total. The appellants did

36 Ms Gibson, in cross examination by Mr Tucker www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 24 Appeal Decision APP/Y3940/A/14/2222641

not disagree that it seems likely that 330 will be exceeded, perhaps well before the end of the plan period.

129. If the appeal were dismissed the merits of the appeal site could then be considered alongside other candidate sites through either the NP or the DPD process. The Council argued that, having participated in the CS process, the expectation of the community is that is what should happen. Evidence was produced to show that there are a number of potential development sites, generally to the south west of Corsham. On the other hand, the figures set out in Core Policy 11 are not maxima so allowing the appeal would not prevent the merits of other sites being considered through those processes.

130. Turning to the employment element of the scheme, Core Policy 34 sets out 4 criteria for employment development outside the development limits of market towns. Criterion (i) is that the site is adjacent to the settlement and seeks to retain businesses currently within it and criterion (iv) is that the development is essential to the wider strategic interests of the economic development of Wiltshire37. Whilst the proposed B1 office units would be available to existing businesses in Corsham there is no evidence of any need or demand for the units from such businesses. Nor is there any evidence that the development is essential for wider strategic interests. Consequently, it has not been shown that the criteria have been met and the proposed B1 units would conflict with Core Policy 34.

131. In conclusion, allowing the appeal would not prejudice the broad spatial strategy of the adopted CS. Nevertheless, there would be some prejudice to a plan-led planning process within the Corsham community area. There would also be a conflict with the CS in relation to the employment element.

Whether the proposal would amount to a sustainable form of development

132. The settlement strategy of the CS, together with the delivery strategy, seeks to define where development will be most sustainable across Wiltshire’s settlements. As noted above, Corsham is identified as a market town and the scale of development proposed is consistent with the settlement strategy.

133. Corsham contains community facilities including schools, primary healthcare, pharmacies, supermarkets and a range of shops and leisure facilities. The transport assessment submitted with the application states that these facilities are generally within both walking and cycling distance of the appeal site. There are bus services within Corsham and there are also services to Bath and Chippenham. The assessment concluded that the site is well located to allow for travel by sustainable modes. That conclusion was not disputed by the Council and I see no reason to take a different view. The s106 Agreement would secure the provision of bus stops and a pedestrian crossing island on Bath Road. I consider that the proposal would therefore accord with Core Policy 61 which states that new development should be located and designed to reduce the need to travel, particularly by private car, and to encourage the use of sustainable transport alternatives.

134. As noted above, the employment element of the scheme would not accord with Core Policy 34. However, the CS states that new growth in Corsham will be balanced with housing delivery alongside employment. This does not mean

37 Criteria (ii) and (iii) are not relevant to this case www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 25 Appeal Decision APP/Y3940/A/14/2222641

that it will be appropriate for every housing site to include employment uses. However, to my mind the scale of the appeal scheme is such that the inclusion of an employment element in a housing-led development would be consistent with the aim of achieving balanced growth.

135. The Framework sets out three dimensions to sustainable development – the economic role, the social role and the environmental role. The definition of sustainable development includes all of the policies in paragraphs 18 to 219 of the Framework38. In this part of my appeal decision I describe the main factors that inform my judgement as to whether the proposal would be a sustainable form of development. In reaching that view I take account of all the matters referred to in this decision, including the ‘other matters’ referred to below.

The economic role

136. The appeal proposal would bring a number of economic benefits. The B1 element of the scheme could accommodate additional jobs. In addition, the scheme would generate employment during construction and spending by the new households would support jobs and services in the local economy.

137. The Framework states that the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile (BMV) agricultural land are to be taken into account. In this case around 80% of the site is categorised as BMV land. However, the officer’s report noted that there was no probable economic disadvantage to any agricultural operation. The Council did not argue that loss of BMV land ought to be regarded as a key issue in this appeal. Even so it is a disadvantage of the scheme to which some weight should be attached.

138. A matter raised by the owner of Guyers House was a concern that the appeal scheme would undermine the economic viability of the hotel business, thereby threatening employment. In fact there was very little evidence in support of this suggestion. The hotel is, and would remain, an attractive historic building set in landscaped grounds close to the AONB. I attach little weight to this factor.

The social role

139. The Council and the appellant agreed that the appeal site would make a positive contribution to the supply and delivery of housing and that the scheme would be substantially completed within the current 5 year period. This is an important matter, having regard to the objective of the Framework to boost the supply of housing. Moreover, it is of particular importance given the HLS position referred to above.

140. In addition, 30% of the units would be delivered as affordable housing. Delivery would be secured through the s106 Agreement. This would help to meet housing needs in the locality and contribute to reducing the shortfall in affordable housing.

The environmental role

141. The site is well located to allow for travel by sustainable modes. The needs of walking, cycling and public transport have been taken into account through

38 Paragraph 6 of the Framework www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 26 Appeal Decision APP/Y3940/A/14/2222641

the layout and the terms of the s106 Agreement. This contributes to the environmental role.

142. Whilst there would be some landscape harm, the extent of visual impacts would not be widespread and there would be only limited harm to the landscape setting of Corsham. There would be no harm to the AONB. Significant mitigation for landscape impacts would be embedded in the design of the scheme.

143. There would be no harm to any designated nature conservation site or to the conservation status of any protected species. Whilst there would be some loss of parkland, the ecological value of the appeal site is low. Significant biodiversity enhancement is proposed and there would be no net loss of the local biodiversity resource.

144. In relation to the historic environment, I have identified minor harm to the significance of Guyers House, as a result of development within its setting.

Conclusion on sustainable development

145. Taking all the above factors into account, I conclude that on balance the appeal scheme would be a sustainable form of development.

Other matters

146. The s106 Agreement would secure the highway works needed to provide vehicular access to the site and to take account of other transport modes. It would provide for approval by the Council of details of open spaces and play areas and for the subsequent management of these areas. These provisions would be needed to meet the requirements for open space generated by the scheme. In addition, there would be financial contributions to sport and recreation, cemeteries and secondary education. The Council provided evidence about how these sums had been calculated and how they would be used in ways which would be properly related to the appeal scheme. I consider that the obligations contained within the s106 Agreement would mitigate impacts resulting from the proposal. They are therefore neutral factors in the overall balance of planning considerations.

147. The Council’s 4th reason for refusal related to potential harm to the living conditions of future occupiers from noise and vibration resulting from underground mineral workings beneath the site39. Additional technical information was produced during the Inquiry and it was ultimately agreed by the Council and the appellant that this matter could be addressed by conditions40. The conditions would require a foundation investigation plan to be submitted for the approval of the Council, having regard to the results of vibration tests. A further condition would establish criteria for noise and vibration. The Pickwick Association expressed doubts that these measures would be effective. However, the suggested conditions reflect technical advice about foundation isolation systems which has been accepted by the respective noise experts for the Council and the appellant. In my view the conditions would be effective in protecting the living conditions of future occupiers. In addition they would address a concern, expressed by some parties, that the scheme could have the effect of sterilising minerals under the site.

39 There are currently no active workings but there is an extant permission 40 Statement of common ground on noise and vibration – GLD/LPA/09 www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 27 Appeal Decision APP/Y3940/A/14/2222641

148. Some local residents are concerned about traffic conditions in the locality, particularly in relation to Bath Road. The application was accompanied by a transport assessment which included modelling of the relevant junctions. The Council agreed that the proposed junctions would be acceptable in terms of layout and visibility and that there would be no detriment to the local road network or to highway safety. I agree.

149. I conclude that these other matters do not add significantly either to the case in favour of the appeal or to the case against it.

Conclusions

150. The Council cannot demonstrate that it has the supply of housing sites needed to accord with the Framework. Consequently, the Framework states that relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to- date. However, this is a case where it is common ground between the Council and the appellant that appropriate assessment under the Habitats Regulations is required. I agree and have carried out such an assessment. Paragraph 119 of the Framework states that the presumption in favour of sustainable development (paragraph 14) does not apply where development requiring appropriate assessment under the Habitats Regulations is being determined. Accordingly, I have considered the balance of issues without any such presumption.

151. With regard to effects on ecology, I have concluded that the proposal would not be likely to affect the integrity of the SAC and that it would not result in the deterioration of the breeding site for bats. Although there would be a loss of parkland habitat the actual ecological value of the site is relatively low. Any loss of value would be outweighed by the extensive biodiversity enhancement measures incorporated in the scheme. Overall, I consider that there would be no net loss of the local biodiversity resource. Consequently ecology is not a matter which weighs significantly in the planning balance.

152. I have concluded that there would be some harm to the significance of Guyers House, a designated heritage asset. The harm would be ‘less than substantial’, in the terms of the Framework, and I consider that it would be minor. Paragraph 134 requires this harm to be balanced against the public benefits of the proposal. In this case I have identified economic and social benefits which are described above. I consider that these benefits are sufficient to outweigh the harm to the significance of the heritage asset. I therefore find that the appeal scheme would not conflict with policies of the Framework relating to the historic environment.

153. Notwithstanding my conclusion that the harm to significance would be minor, I have found that the setting of Guyers House (a Grade II listed building) would not be preserved. Mindful of s66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 that is a matter to which I must have special regard.

154. I turn to the factors weighing in favour of the appeal. It would make a significant contribution to the delivery of housing. This is an important factor given the general imperative to boost the supply of housing set out in the Framework. It is of particular importance here due to the HLS position in the NWWHMA. Moreover, the scheme would deliver a significant number of affordable houses. It would also bring economic benefits. All of these social and

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 28 Appeal Decision APP/Y3940/A/14/2222641

economic benefits would be realised in the context of a sustainable form of development in a location which is consistent with the broad spatial strategy of the CS. I note that the amount of the shortfall in HLS is not great. Nevertheless, having regard to the overall objectives of the CS and the Framework to deliver housing in sustainable locations I attach substantial weight to these factors.

155. The factors weighing against are conflicts with the CS in relation to defined limits of development, effects on landscape and the historic environment, loss of BMV agricultural land and potential prejudice to a plan-led planning process. Core Policy 2, insofar as it restricts housing development outside settlement boundaries, is deemed to be not up-to-date due to the HLS position. I therefore attach limited weight to this conflict. The employment element of the scheme would not accord with Core Policy 34. That said, I have concluded that the scale of the proposal is such that the inclusion of an employment element in a housing-led development would be consistent with the CS aim of achieving balanced growth at Corsham. Given that the housing element is needed, I consider that the inclusion of some employment supports the general intentions of the CS as a whole.

156. There would be some harm to the character and appearance of the area. However, the impacts would be mitigated as far as possible through the inclusion of structural landscape features which could be secured at the reserved matters stage. The extent of visual impacts would not be widespread and there would be no harm to the landscape of the AONB.

157. I have not identified any harm in relation to the setting of the Pickwick Conservation Area, archaeology or non-designated heritage assets. I have concluded that there would be minor harm to the significance of Guyers House, the setting of which would not be preserved. Although the harm would be minor, this is nevertheless a matter to which I attach considerable importance and weight.

158. As discussed above, loss of BMV agricultural land is a disadvantage of the scheme to which some weight should be attached but is not a key issue in this case.

159. Allowing the appeal would result in some prejudice to a plan-led planning process within the Corsham community area because the merits of the site could not be considered alongside other candidates in the context of the NP or site allocation DPD. On the other hand, the housing figures for Corsham set out in Core Policy 11 are not maxima so allowing the appeal would not prevent the merits of other sites being considered through those processes. Moreover, it is important to note that both the NP and DPD processes are at a very early stage of preparation. This limits the amount of weight to be attached to this factor.

160. My overall assessment is that the factors weighing against the appeal are not sufficient to outweigh the factors weighing in favour. The appeal should therefore be allowed.

Conditions

161. The Council and the appellant suggested conditions which were discussed at the Inquiry. There was no significant dispute between the Council and the appellant in relation to the substance of the conditions. I have considered the

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 29 Appeal Decision APP/Y3940/A/14/2222641

suggested conditions in the light of advice set out in the Guidance. In some cases I have combined conditions and/or adjusted detailed wording for clarity and to avoid duplication.

162. Conditions 1-3 are standard conditions for outline planning permissions setting timescales for the submission of reserved matters and commencement. However, I have reduced the standard time limits because the ability of the site to deliver housing within the 5 year period is an important consideration in this case.

163. Condition 4 requires the reserved matters to accord with the Ecological Parameters Plan and condition 5 requires the submission of a Landscape and Ecology Management Plan. Condition 7 requires a Land Stability Risk Assessment to be carried out to mitigate the risk of damage to underground workings which may be used by bats. These conditions are needed to secure the ecological mitigation relied on in the appropriate assessment and, more generally, to protect wildlife and secure enhancements to biodiversity.

164. Condition 6 deals with phasing and is needed to ensure that affordable housing and public open space are brought forward at appropriate stages of the development. Conditions 8, 10, 11 and 12 deal with implementation of the site access works, highway and footway works in the vicinity of the site and the stopping up of an existing access. These conditions are needed to ensure that there would be satisfactory pedestrian and vehicular access to the site, in the interests of highway safety and to avoid any detriment to the local highway network.

165. Condition 9 provides for a Travel Plan to encourage the use of sustainable modes of transport. Conditions 13 and 14 require details of foul and surface water drainage in the interests of managing risks of flooding and pollution.

166. Condition 15 is needed to protect the archaeological potential of the site. Condition 16 requires details of hard and soft landscaping and condition 17 deals with replanting of any trees which fail. These conditions are needed to protect the character and appearance of the area. I have not included details of play equipment in condition 16 because this matter is covered in the s106 Agreement.

167. Condition 18 provides for a Construction Method Statement in the interests of highway safety and the living conditions of nearby residents during the construction phase. Any restrictions on construction work to avoid disturbance to hibernating bats would also be covered by this condition.

168. Condition 19 requires investigation and, if necessary, remediation works in respect of potential contamination of land in the interests of managing risks of pollution. Condition 20 required a scheme of external lighting. This forms one element of the ecological mitigation measures and is also needed in the interests of the character and appearance of the area. Condition 21, which deals with public art, supports the design quality of the scheme.

169. Condition 22 requires the submission of a Foundation Investigation Plan and condition 23 sets the noise and vibration criteria that the design of foundations would have to achieve. These conditions are needed to protect the living conditions of future residents of the appeal site in the event that an extant

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 30 Appeal Decision APP/Y3940/A/14/2222641

consent for underground mineral working were to be implemented in the future.

David Prentis

Inspector

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 31 Appeal Decision APP/Y3940/A/14/2222641

APPEARANCES

FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY:

Hugh Richards of Counsel, instructed by the Head of Legal Services for Wiltshire Council He called Carolyn Gibson Spatial Planning Team Leader, Wiltshire Council BA(Hons) Mark Henderson Interim Manager, Monitoring and Evidence Team, BSc(Hons) MA MRTPI Wiltshire Council John Burgess Director, Swan Paul Partnership Ltd BA(Hons) DipLA CMLI Chris Marsh Senior Planning Officer, Wiltshire Council BA(Hons) MPlan MRTPI Jon Taylor Landscape and Design Team Manager, Wiltshire MCIEEM MSc PgDip BSc Council

FOR THE APPELLANT:

Paul Tucker Queen’s Counsel, instructed by Tim Dean of Gladman Developments Ltd He called Jacqueline Mulliner Director, Terence O’Rouke Ltd BA(Hons) BTP(Dist) MRTPI Tim Dean Planning Director, Gladman Developments Ltd BA(Hons) DipTP MRTPI David Beardmore Director, Beardmore Associates MSc MA DipLD(Dist) DipLArch(Dist) DipUD Dip Bldg Cons FRTPI CMLI IHBC Timothy Jackson Director, FPCR Environment and Design Ltd BA(Hons) DipLA CMLI Robert Barnes Director, Planning Prospects Ltd MA BA(Hons) MRTPI Kate Hollins Director, FPCR Environment and Design Ltd BA MSc CMIEEM CEnv Kurt Goodman Associate Director, FPCR Environment and MSc BSc(Hons) MCIEEM Design Ltd

FOR THE PICKWICK ASSOCIATION:

Jane McDermott Chairman of the Pickwick Association and BArch PGDipUD member of Corsham Town Council’s Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group Angela Bence-Wilkins Landscape Architect CMLI Peter Cox Director, AC Archaeology Ltd Cert Archaeology MCIA

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 32 Appeal Decision APP/Y3940/A/14/2222641

David Taylor On behalf of the Pickwick Association

INTERESTED PERSONS:

Cllr Philip Whalley Member of Wiltshire Council and Corsham Town Council Cllr Peter Pearson Vice Chairman of Corsham Town Council and Chairman of the Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group Guy Hungerford Guyers House Hotel Tony Clark Trustee of the Beechfield Trust Derek Burt Local resident

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED DURING THE INQUIRY

Submitted by the appellant GLD/07 List of appearances GLD/08 Extract from the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations GLD/09 Proof of evidence of Mr Goodman GLD/10 Judgement in the Gregory case [2013] EWHC 63 (Admin) GLD/11 Extract from Planning Policy Guidance ID ref 4-031-20140306 GLD/12 Opening submissions GLD/13 Wiltshire Local Development Scheme January 2015 GLD/14 Appendices to proof of evidence of Mr Beardmore GLD/15 Table submitted by Mr Jackson GLD/16 Table submitted by Ms Mulliner GLD/17 Exchange of emails between Natural England and the Planning Inspectorate GLD/18 Document list GLD/19 Draft s106 Agreement GLD/20 Bundle relating to EIA screening on behalf of the Secretary of State GLD/21 Tree Lower Plant Survey - FPCR GLD/22 Ecological parameters plan and illustrative landscape cross sections GLD/23 Additional inquiry documents from FPCR – February 2015 GLD/24 Letter from Stirling Maynard dated 17 February 2015 with associated highways plans GLD/25 Corsham Community Plan GLD/26 Contested HLS trajectory positions GLD/27 Judgement in Stroud District Council case [2015] EWHC 488 (Admin) GLD/28 Additional inquiry documents from FPCR – March 2015 GLD/29 Updated list of suggested conditions GLD/30 Counsel’s opinion on appeal decision at Ashflats Lane, Stafford GLD/31 Closing submissions GLD/32 Annex to closing submissions – housing land supply GLD/33 Response to costs application GLD/34 Closing submissions – clean copy41 GLD/35 Annex to closing submissions – housing land supply – clean copy

41 The versions of GLD/31 and GLD/32 handed in at the Inquiry had some missing text due to printing problems. Clean copies were provided shortly after the Inquiry – there was no change to the content. www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 33 Appeal Decision APP/Y3940/A/14/2222641

Submitted by the Council LPA/01 Plan of Special Area for Conservation LPA/02 Opening submissions LPA/03 Revised Plan of Special Area for Conservation LPA/04 Invertebrates and ecological assessment – Colin Plant Associates LPA/05 Surveying terrestrial and freshwater invertebrates for conservation evaluation – Natural England research report LPA/06 Consultation responses to ecological parameters plan and illustrative landscape cross sections LPA/07 Judgement in Crane case [2015] EWHC 425 (Admin) LPA/08 Judgement in Prideaux case [2013] EWHC 1054 (Admin) LPA/09 Note identifying superseded sections of Mr Taylor’s proof of evidence LPA/10 Additional conditions suggested by Mr Marsh LPA/11 Closing submissions LPA/12 Costs application

Agreed between the appellant and the Council GLD/LPA/01 Statement of Common Ground (SoCG) – Housing supply matters GLD/LPA/02 Ecology – joint position statement GLD/LPA/03 SoCG – Parkland and veteran trees GLD/LPA/04 Suggested phasing condition GLD/LPA/05 SoCG – Noise (unsigned) GLD/LPA/06 Draft Appropriate Assessment regarding Bath and Bradford Bats SAC GLD/LPA/07 Letter from Natural England to the Council dated 2 March 2015 GLD/LPA/08 Updated SoCG – Housing supply matters GLD/LPA/09 SoCG – Amenity (noise and vibration) GLD/LPA/10 Letter from TVS dated 4 February 2015 GLD/LPA/11 SoCG – Bats GLD/LPA/12 S106 Agreement dated 12 March 2015

Submitted by the Pickwick Association PA/01 Summary by Ms McDermott PA/02 Summary by Mr Cox PA/03 Summary by Ms Bence-Wilkins PA/04 Closing submissions by Mr Taylor PA/05 Judgement in Gerber case [2015] EWHC 524 (Admin)

Statements submitted by other parties Cllr Whalley Cllr Pearson Tony Clark Guy Hungerford Derek Burt

Inspector’s documents IN/01 Draft conditions relating to ecological mitigation IN/02 Letter from Natural England of 27 January 2015

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 34 Appeal Decision APP/Y3940/A/14/2222641

Schedule of conditions 1) Details of the appearance, landscaping, layout, and scale, (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before any development begins and the development shall be carried out as approved. 2) Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the local planning authority not later than one year from the date of this permission. 3) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than two years from the date of this permission or one year from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved, whichever is the later. 4) The reserved matters submitted pursuant to Condition 1 shall accord with the principles for the development of the site as shown on the Ecological Parameters Plan 5468-E-08 revision H. In particular the reserved matters shall include the provision of: i) a landscape/ecological corridor at least 15m in width to the west, north and east boundaries of the site plus a further offset of at least 10m to the closest elevation of any buildings, in accordance with the principles shown on the Ecological Parameters Plan ii) a buffer zone around the airshaft in the south west corner of the site in accordance with the principles shown on the Ecological Parameters Plan iii) measures to provide dark areas within the landscape/ecological corridors to the west, north and east boundaries of the site which shall have an illuminance of no more than 1.0 lux measured at 2.5m above ground level within an area to be agreed in writing by the local planning authority iv) measures to provide dark areas within the buffer zone around the airshaft in the south west corner of the site which shall have an illuminance of no more than 0.1 lux measured at 2.5m above ground level within an area to be agreed in writing by the local planning authority 5) No development shall take place until a Landscape and Ecological Management Plan (LEMP) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The LEMP shall include long term design objectives, management arrangements and maintenance schedules for all landscape and open space areas. The LEMP shall include measures to provide and maintain a suitable habitat for bats and other wildlife species and shall be generally in accordance with the recommendations set out in section 4 of the Ecological Appraisal by FPCR dated 14 October 2013. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved LEMP and shall thereafter be permanently retained as such. 6) No development shall take place until details of the phasing of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The details shall include the phasing of market and affordable housing units, public open spaces and equipped play areas. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved phasing details. www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 35 Appeal Decision APP/Y3940/A/14/2222641

7) The reserved matters submitted pursuant to Condition 1 shall be accompanied by a Land Stability Risk Assessment which shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The Land Stability Risk Assessment shall include details of intrusive site investigations, an assessment of land stability risks and mitigation measures to protect any underground workings from damage during the construction and operational phases of the development hereby approved. 8) No building hereby approved shall be occupied before the access arrangements shown on drawing No 4746/01/01 hereby approved have been implemented in accordance with that drawing and in accordance with further details of surface treatment, lighting and drainage which shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. 9) No building hereby approved shall be occupied before a travel plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The travel plan shall be generally in accordance with the framework travel plan (Stirling Maynard July 2013). The travel plan shall be implemented as approved and permanently maintained in operation thereafter. 10) No building hereby approved shall be occupied before a minor improvement scheme for the Hare and Hounds roundabout has been implemented in accordance with details which shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall include adjustments to road markings and traffic islands. 11) No building hereby approved shall be occupied before a scheme for the widening to 2m of the southern footway of the A4 Bath Road between No 5 Bath Road and the Bath Road/Academy Drive roundabout has been implemented in accordance with details which shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall make provision for the relocation of any lighting columns and electricity or telephone poles within the footway. 12) No building hereby approved shall be occupied before the field gate access to the site from Guyers Lane has been permanently stopped up in accordance with details which shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. 13) No building hereby approved shall be occupied before works for the disposal of sewage from the development have been carried out in accordance with details which shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. 14) No building hereby approved shall be occupied before surface water drainage works have been implemented in accordance with details which shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Before these details are submitted an assessment shall be carried out of the potential for disposing of surface water by means of a sustainable drainage system and the results of the assessment shall be provided to the local planning authority. Where a sustainable drainage system is to be provided, the submitted details shall:

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 36 Appeal Decision APP/Y3940/A/14/2222641

i) provide information about the design storm period and intensity, the method employed to delay and control the surface water discharged from the site and the measures taken to prevent pollution of receiving groundwater and/or surface waters; ii) include a timetable for implementation; and iii) provide a management and maintenance plan for the lifetime of the development which shall include the arrangements for adoption by any public authority or statutory undertaker and any other arrangements to secure the operation of the scheme throughout its lifetime. 15) No development shall take place until a written programme of archaeological investigation has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The programme shall include onsite work and off-site work such as the analysis, publishing and archiving of the results. The programme shall be implemented as approved before the commencement of the development. 16) No development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft landscape works, including a programme for implementation, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. These details shall include proposed finished levels or contours, means of enclosure, car parking layouts, other vehicle and pedestrian access and circulation areas, hard surfacing materials and minor artefacts and structures such as street furniture, refuse or other storage units. The details shall also include the location, size and condition of existing trees and hedgerows, shall identify those to be retained together with measures for their protection during construction and shall show details of new planting areas, tree and plant species, numbers and planting sizes. The works shall be carried out as approved in accordance with the approved programme. 17) If within a period of 5 years from the date of the planting of any tree that tree, or any tree planted in replacement for it, is removed, dies, or becomes seriously damaged or defective, another tree of the same species and size as that originally planted shall be planted at the same place within the next planting season unless the local planning authority gives its written approval to any variation. 18) No development shall take place, including any works of demolition, 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 throughout the construction period. The Statement shall provide for: i) the parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors ii) loading and unloading of plant and materials iii) storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development iv) the erection and maintenance of security hoarding including decorative displays and facilities for public viewing, where appropriate v) wheel washing facilities

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 37 Appeal Decision APP/Y3940/A/14/2222641

vi) measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction vii) a scheme for recycling/disposing of waste resulting from demolition and construction works viii) measures to avoid the risk of noise and vibration impacting upon bats roosting within underground workings 19) No development shall take place until an investigation of the history and current condition of the site to determine the likelihood of the existence of contamination arising from previous uses has been carried out and all of the following steps have been complied with: i) A written report has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority which shall include details of the previous uses of the site and any adjacent sites for at least the last 100 years and a description of the current condition of the site with regard to any activities that may have caused contamination. The report shall confirm whether or not it is likely that contamination may be present on the site and the potential impact of any adjacent sites. ii) If the above report indicates that contamination may be present on, under or potentially affecting the site from adjacent land a more detailed site investigation and risk assessment shall be carried out in accordance with DEFRA and the Environment Agency’s ‘Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination CLR11’. A report detailing the site investigation shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. iii) If the report submitted pursuant to step (i) or (ii) indicates that remedial works are required, full details must be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The remedial works shall be carried out as approved prior to the commencement of development or in accordance with a timetable that has been agreed in writing by the local planning authority. On completion of the remedial works the applicant shall provide written confirmation to the local planning authority that the works have been completed in accordance with the approved details. 20) No development shall take place until an external lighting scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall include lighting columns, light fittings, measures to reduce light spill and illuminance plots. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and thereafter permanently retained as such. 21) No development shall take place until details of public art to be incorporated within the scheme have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 22) No development shall take place until a Foundation Investigation Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The Foundation Investigation Plan shall include:

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 38 Appeal Decision APP/Y3940/A/14/2222641

i) A foundation zoning plan which will identify the type and depth of foundations across the site. ii) Vibration testing which shall take place during a trial mining test at appropriate locations to replicate both a typical case and a worst case of future mining both within the mine and at foundation level and bedrock level. The results of the test are then to be used by the foundation design engineer to ensure that noise and vibration levels of the foundations are at or below the criteria specified in condition 23. The vibration testing shall be carried out in accordance with a method statement which shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. iii) The results of the vibration testing shall be provided to the local planning authority and shall be used to design vibration and sound isolation measures (where required) at each dwelling and noise sensitive building. The foundation design for each dwelling and noise sensitive building shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Foundation Investigation Plan. 23) The foundations shall be designed to ensure that noise and vibration from underground mining activity shall not give rise to a noise level within any dwelling or noise sensitive building in excess of that equivalent to Noise Rating Curve 25 and vibration levels shall not exceed 0.1 to 0.2 ms-1.75 in accordance with the methodology in BS 6472-1-2008.

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 39

Wiltshire Council Housing Land Supply Appendix 3

WC Housing Land Supply Proof of Evidence

Mr Des Dunlop Our Ref: APP/Y3940/A/13/2200503 D2 Planning Ltd Your Ref: 019/13 Westbury Court Church Road Westbury-on-Trym 8 September 2014 Bristol BS9 3EF

Dear Sir,

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 – SECTION 78 APPEAL BY WHITE LION LAND LLP LAND OFF PARK ROAD, MALMESBURY, WILTSHIRE

1. I am directed by the Secretary of State to say that consideration has been given to the report of the Inspector, John Wilde CEng MICE, who held a public local inquiry between 1 and 3 April 2014 into your clients’ appeal against the refusal by Wiltshire Council (“the Council”) to grant outline planning permission for a residential development (77 dwellings), a community building, public open space, and associated works including construction of a new access, in accordance with application Ref N/12/03464/OUT, dated 18 June 2013. 2. The appeal was recovered for the Secretary of State’s determination on 10 January 2014, in pursuance of section 79 of, and paragraph 3 of Schedule 6 to, the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 because the appeal involves proposals which raise important or novel issues of development control and/or legal difficulties.

Inspector’s recommendation and summary of the decision 3. The Inspector recommended that the appeal be allowed, and planning permission granted. For the reasons given below, the Secretary of State disagrees with the Inspector’s recommendation. He dismisses the appeal and refuses planning permission. A copy of the Inspector’s report (IR) is enclosed. All references to paragraph numbers, unless otherwise stated, are to that report.

Procedural matters 4. The application for costs (IR1.1) made by your clients at the Inquiry is the subject of a decision letter being issued separately by the Secretary of State.

Jean Nowak, Decision Officer Tel 0303 444 1626 Planning Casework Division Email [email protected] Department for Communities and Local Government 3rd Floor, Fry Building 2 Marsham Street London, SW1P 4DF

Matters arising after the close of the inquiry 5. On 15 July 2014, the Council wrote to the Planning Inspectorate referring to the Court of Appeal decision in respect of an Inspector’s determination of the planning appeal at Filands1, Malmesbury, which had the effect of confirming the grant of planning permission for 180 dwellings on that site. The Secretary of State has taken account of this as a matter of fact, and so has not considered it necessary to refer back to the parties to this appeal on the matter. However, copies of the email from the Council may be obtained from the address at the bottom of the first page of this letter. Policy considerations 6. In deciding this appeal, the Secretary of State has had regard to section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 which requires that proposals be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this case, the development plan consists of the saved policies of the North Wiltshire Local Plan, adopted in May 2006 (IR8). 7. Matters which the Secretary of State has taken into account as material considerations include the advanced state of the new Core Strategy (CS) (IR9) and, as it has passed the examination stage, he gives this significant weight (see paragraph 12 below). He has also given significant weight as a material consideration to the version of the Malmesbury Neighbourhood Plan (MNP) (IR10) which has now been submitted to the Council for examination and, in that context, the Written Ministerial Statement on Neighbourhood Planning published on 10 July 2014. The relative weights attributed to the CS and the MNP are considered further in paragraphs 10-18 below. 8. Other material considerations which the Secretary of State has taken into account include the National Planning Policy Framework (The Framework) and the subsequent planning guidance; as well as the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations 2010 as amended. Main issues 9. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector (IR103) that, following the submission of a satisfactory section 106 Agreement (see paragraph 20 below), the main issues to be considered are the location of the appeal site outside the settlement boundary and the prejudicial impact on the emerging MNP. Housing supply and settlement boundary 10. The Secretary of State has carefully considered the Inspector’s arguments and conclusions on the five year housing land supply (IR104-129) and, bearing in mind the uncertainties which the Inspector identifies, the Secretary of State agrees with his conclusion at IR129 that, on the basis of the evidence available to him at the time of the Inquiry, the Council have only a 4.1 year supply of housing so that their policies for the supply of housing cannot be considered to be up-to-date and therefore paragraph

1On 10 July 2014, the Court of Appeal found against the Secretary of State in the relation to the issuing of a decision on an appeal, where the Inspector’s decision, granting planning permission for 180 homes at Filands, Malmesbury, had been issued due to an administrative error - just after the then Minister had decided to recover the case for Ministerial decision.

49 of the Framework is invoked. The Secretary of State considers that this is an important consideration to be taken into account in the overall planning balance. 11. With regard to settlement boundaries (IR130-132), the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector (IR130) that, while the settlement boundary policy in the LP (Policy H4) seeks to protect the countryside, it is nonetheless a policy that relates to the supply of housing and so, in view of the shortfall identified paragraph 10 above, should not be regarded as being in accordance with paragraph 49 of the Framework. 12. However, since the appeal inquiry Inspector submitted his Report, further progress has been made towards adopting the emerging CS (IR133). In particular, the Council’s published Schedule of Proposed Modifications in response to the 10th Procedural Letter from the CS Inspector has acknowledged their intention to review the settlement boundaries as part of the Wiltshire Housing Site Allocations and Chippenham Site Allocations Development Plan Documents (DPDs), as set out in the Council’s Local Development Scheme, in order to ensure they are up to date and can adequately reflect changes which have happened since they were first established (IR134). The potential output from this in relation to future housing land supply is also an important material consideration to be taken into account in the overall balance. 13. The Secretary of State further considers it appropriate to take account of the impact of the recent Filands judgment (see paragraph 5 above) on the housing land supply position in Malmesbury. This provides for an additional 180 dwellings over and above those on which the CS calculations are based and so the Secretary of State considers that it provides some breathing space for the Council to complete the intended DPDs referred to in the previous paragraph. Neighbourhood Plan 14. The Secretary of State has also taken account of the fact that, since the appeal Inspector wrote his Report, further progress has been made in respect of the emerging MNP, for which an independent examiner has now been appointed who will hold a hearing on 18 September 2014. Therefore, although the MNP has yet to complete its assessment by the independent examiner and, if approved, be put to public referendum, the terms of the Framework and the guidance mean that it can now be given significant weight. The appeal Inspector points out (IR135) that 25 potential housing sites were assessed in the MNP area during the consultation period and the appeal site came towards the bottom of the list. He also highlights (IR136) the reasoning behind the views of the promoters of the MNP on the numbers and location of future housing in Malmesbury. 15. Clearly, and as your clients have pointed out (IR137), it would be inappropriate for the Secretary of State to prejudge the outcome of the MNP examination or the eventual outcome of the CS/DPD process, with which the MNP will need to be in conformity. Nevertheless, the Secretary of State considers it appropriate (as stated in the Written Ministerial Statement of 10 July 2014 - referred to in paragraph 7 above) to give local people an opportunity to ensure they get the right types of development for their community while also planning positively to support strategic development needs. The Secretary of State has therefore given significant weight to the fact that the emerging MNP has identified housing allocations elsewhere within the MNP area and that the Council has yet to complete an up-to-date objectively assessed housing land supply analysis against which to measure the overall MNP proposals. In the light of these, he

considers it appropriate, as things currently stand, to tip the planning balance in favour of the emerging MNP proposals, while accepting that these may need to be revisited in due course. Planning balance 16. Overall, therefore, the Secretary of State considers this to be a finely balanced case. On the one hand, as identified at paragraphs 10 and 12 above, the Council cannot at this stage demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply, so that the terms of the Framework require that planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefit. As the Inspector points out at IR143, no such site specific objections on sustainability grounds have been identified by the Council. 17. On the other hand, however, the Secretary of State also gives significant weight to the opportunity which the neighbourhood plan process gives local people to ensure they get the right types of development for their community (as described in paragraph 15 above) while also planning positively to support strategic development needs. He acknowledges that the Council have now accepted the need to do further work on identifying more housing land across their area, including through a review of the settlement boundaries in the CS (as described in paragraph 12 above), and that that needs time to go through the proper consultative and statutory processes; and he has also taken account of the fact that the release of land for 180 dwellings at Filands has reduced the urgency of the need to identify further additional housing land in Malmesbury. 18. Therefore, taking account of all these factors, the Secretary of State takes the view that releasing the appeal site for housing now could result in a significant and demonstrable adverse impact on the outcomes of both the CS and the MNP and that, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole, that could run the risk of outweighing any immediate benefits provided by the appeal scheme.

Conditions 19. The Secretary of State has considered the proposed conditions set out at Annex 1 to the IR and the Inspector’s comments on them at IR93-99. However, while he is satisfied that those conditions would be reasonable and necessary if he were intending to grant planning permission and that they would meet the tests of the Framework and the guidance, he does not consider that these provisions are sufficient to overcome his concerns with the proposed scheme as identified in this decision letter.

Obligation 20. The Secretary of State has considered the terms of the planning obligation submitted at the Inquiry and considered by the Inspector at IR100-102; and he agrees with the Inspector at IR102 that these meet the Framework tests and comply with the CIL Regulations. However, for the reasons set out above, he does not consider that these provisions are sufficient to overcome his wider concerns as identified in this decision letter.

Overall Conclusions 21. The Secretary of State has had regard, on the one hand, to the fact that the Council cannot at this stage demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply, so that the terms of the Framework require that planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefit; and on the other hand to the opportunity which the neighbourhood plan process gives local people to ensure they get the right types of development for their community while also planning positively to support strategic development needs. He regards these factors as being finely balanced in this case and, having regard to the particular context of this appeal (referred to in paragraphs 16-18 above), he concludes that the immediate benefits of releasing the appeal site as a contribution to meeting overall housing demand in the wider area are insufficient to justify the release of this site so soon before the examination of the NP proposals is complete and there has been an opportunity to test them by means of the referendum.

Formal Decision 22. Accordingly, for the reasons given above, the Secretary of State disagrees with the Inspector’s recommendations. He hereby dismisses your clients’ appeal and refuses planning permission for a residential development (77 dwellings), a community building, public open space, and associated works including construction of a new access, in accordance with application Ref N/12/03464/OUT, dated 18 June 2013.

Right to challenge the decision 23. A separate note is attached setting out the circumstances in which the validity of the Secretary of State’s decision may be challenged by making an application to the High Court within six weeks from the date of this letter. 24. A copy of this letter has been sent to the Council. A notification e-mail / letter has been sent to all other parties who asked to be informed of the decision. Yours faithfully

JEAN NOWAK Authorised by Secretary of State to sign in that behalf

Report to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government by John Wilde C.Eng M.I.C.E. an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Date: 14 July 2014

Town and Country Planning Act 1990

Wiltshire Council

Appeal by White Lion Land LLP

Against the decision to refuse outline planning permission for residential development (77 dwellings); a community building (class D1); public open space; and associated works including construction of a new access.

Land off Park Road, Malmesbury, Wiltshire, SN16 0QW

Inquiry held on 1/2/3 April 2014

Land off Park Road Malmesbury

File Ref: APP/Y3940/A/13/2200503

Report /Y3940/A/13/2200503

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Procedural Matters 1

The Site and Surroundings 1

Planning Policy 2

Planning History 2

The Proposals 2

Other agreed facts 2

The case for the Council 3

The case for the appellants 10

The case for objectors appearing at the inquiry 15

Written Representations 18

Conditions 18

Obligations 19

Conclusions 21

Recommendation 29

Appearances 30

Documents 31

Annex 1 – Schedule of Conditions 35

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 2 Report /Y3940/A/13/2200503

File Ref:APP/Y3940/A/13/2200503 Land off Park Road Malmesbury • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant outline planning permission. • The appeal is made by White Lion Land LLP against the decision of Wiltshire Council. • The application Ref N/12/03464/OUT, dated 2 October 2012, was refused by notice dated 18 June 2013. • The development proposed is residential development (77 dwellings); a community building (class D1); public open space; and associated works including construction of a new access. Summary of Recommendation: That the appeal be allowed.

Procedural Matters

1. At the Inquiry an application for costs was made by White Lion Land LLP against Wiltshire Council. This application is the subject of a separate Report.

2. The Inquiry sat for three days on 1-3 April 2014 at the Wiltshire Council offices in Chippenham. I conducted an unaccompanied site visit on Monday 31 March and an accompanied site visit on 1 April.

3. The application that now forms the subject of the appeal was submitted in outline with details of access to be determined as part of the application. Details of layout, scale, appearance and landscaping are reserved for later determination.

4. The application was refused for three reasons1. In brief, these dealt with the following issues: 1) Whether or not there are material considerations that outweigh the conflict with development plan policy in relation to the countryside location of the proposed development. 2) Whether or not allowing the appeal would be prejudicial to the plan-led approach to development. 3) Whether or not the proposed development should make provision for on site affordable housing and a range of financial contributions to mitigate the effects of the development, and if so, whether arrangements for these provisions have been made.

The Site and Surroundings

5. The appeal site is an agricultural field, generally enclosed by hedgerows and mature trees, and located about 1.2km from the centre of Malmesbury. The site is accessed from Park Road which forms the north-east boundary. Park Lane forms the north-west boundary. Houses of the White Lion Estate abut the south- west boundary/corner of the site. To the south-east of the site is a small undeveloped parcel of land that was formerly allotments, and beyond this are residential properties in Park Road. The site generally slopes down from the south-west to north-east.

6. Park road is about 5.5m-6m in width at the site access point. It benefits from street lighting and a footway in the direction of Malmesbury starts about 90m

1 See paragraph 2.5 of the Statement of Common Ground (SoCG) for the reasons for refusal in full. www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 1

Report /Y3940/A/13/2200503

south-east of the site. The site is within reasonable walking distance of Malmesbury town centre and other facilities including schools, shops, a supermarket and leisure facilities.

7. To the north-east of the site, beyond Park Road, is a branch of the River Avon and open countryside. The area north and west of the Park Lane is also open countryside which is designated as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The site is located in Flood Zone 1 as determined by the Environment Agency, although the area to the north of, and partially including Park Road, is within Flood Zone 3.

Planning Policy

8. The North Wiltshire Local Plan (LP) was adopted in 2006 and had an end date of 2011. The policies referred to by the Council in their reasons for refusal have all been saved by direction of the Secretary of State.

9. In addition to the LP the Council are also in the process of preparing a new Core Strategy (CS). This CS is proposed to cover the period 2006-2026. It has been the subject of an Examination into outstanding objections, after which proposed modifications were consulted on between 27 August and 9 October 2013. These were submitted to the Examining Inspector during October 2013. Correspondence has subsequently been ongoing between the Inspector and the Council. This correspondence will be highlighted in the following sections.

10. A Neighbourhood Plan is also being prepared for Malmesbury. Following an initial informal consultation process it was submitted to Wiltshire Council in December 2013. Wiltshire Council commenced consultation on the draft plan on 20 January 2014.

Planning History

11. The appeal site was the subject of an appeal for a similar development which was dismissed on 15 March 20122.

The Proposals

12. The proposed development would be up to 77 dwellings with a community building, public open space and associated works with access derived from Park Road. Due to the possibility of flooding to Park Road there would also be a secondary/emergency access off Park Lane to the west of the site.

Other Agreed Facts

13. These are set out in detail in the SoCG at section six. In brief it is agreed between the main parties that the appeal proposals do not constitute EIA development, that the site (apart from the main access) lies in Flood Zone 1 where the principal of residential development is acceptable. It is also agreed that the development complies with all requirements for foul and surface water drainage and that it would not have an adverse visual impact on the surrounding landscape and Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. It is also accepted that the appeal site is within easy walking distance of a range of public services, public

2 APP/Y3940/A/11/2159115 App 7 Dunlop POE or Core Doc 30 www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 2 Report /Y3940/A/13/2200503

transport and the cycle network, including both primary and secondary schools. Furthermore, it is accepted that the proposed development would not give rise to any adverse environmental conditions and that the proposed density of housing would be appropriate and in keeping with the development plan.

14. During the Inquiry further discussions were held between the main parties on the subject of housing land supply and a summary of these discussions is contained in the paper entitled Clarification of 5 year housing land supply matters3. The paper confirms that there is agreement between the two main parties that the Wiltshire housing requirement for 2006-2026 is 42,000 homes and that this, when disaggregated, gives a figure of 24,700 homes required for the Housing Market Area (HMA) that includes Malmesbury (the north and west HMA). This in turn gives an annual requirement of 1,237 homes in the north and west HMA.

15. It is further agreed between the parties that over the eight years of the plan to date 9,896 homes have been required and that, up until April 2013 8,189 have been completed. The parties also agree that using a base date of April 2013 the Council do not have a 5 year supply of housing, and that even when using their April 2014 base data the Council cannot demonstrate a 5 year supply of homes with a 20% buffer in relation to either the Sedgefield or Liverpool methods of distributing the backlog.

The Case for Wiltshire Council

The main points are:

16. The emerging Wiltshire CS is at an advanced stage of preparation with hearings to examine the plan following submission of the plan to the Secretary of State closing on 18 July 2013. Recent correspondence from the Inspector appointed to examine the plan suggests that his report will be available by summer 20144. The emerging CS is highly consistent and in conformity with policies within the Framework which makes clear that the presumption in favour of sustainable development works through, not against plans5. Significant weight should therefore be afforded to the policies within the emerging CS6.

17. Sustainable growth is not just about considering whether a development is sustainable in its own right. It is also about considering the proposal in the context of the wider area and in light of the objectives of the development plan to deliver an overall sustainable spatial vision and strategy7.

18. The Councils approach to sustainable development within the core strategy responds positively to the Framework’s requirements in paragraphs 18 to 219 which, when taken as a whole define sustainable development. Specifically the Framework encourages succinct local and neighbourhood plans setting out a positive vision for the future of their area and encourages local authorities to take

3 Inquiry Document 13 known hereafter as the Clarification 4 POE Gibson 2.4 5 Poe Gibson 2.6 6 POE Gibson 2.7 7 POE Gibson 2.10 www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 3 Report /Y3940/A/13/2200503

account of different roles and character of different areas. The sustainable strategy for Wiltshire embodied in core policies 1 and 2 does exactly this8.

19. The vision for Wiltshire as a whole states that Wiltshire will have stronger more resilient communities based on a sustainable pattern of development, while the strategy for Malmesbury states that given Malmesbury's rural location and the characteristics of the town, it is not realistic to plan for significant growth9.

20. Within this sustainable development strategy Malmesbury is identified as a market town, therefore some growth is acceptable. In line with this the Malmesbury Neighbourhood Plan (MNP) already seeks to bring forward 270 homes in a holistic rather than incremental way. Unplanned growth over and above that already identified would depart from the spatial vision and strategy for the area that has evolved in consultation with the local community10.

21. The Inspector at the recent Widham Farm appeal11 supported the Council's position stating whether or not a proposal constitutes a "sustainable" form of development is not simply to do with matters of transportation, but includes an assessment of its impact upon existing infrastructure, and the extent to which it accords with the spatial vision for the area12. Furthermore, the Inspector at the last Park Road appeal concluded that the proposal would nevertheless conflict with the housing objectives and spatial vision for the area13.

22. It is the Council’s position therefore that the sustainable strategy for Malmesbury is continuing the long term planning for the town consistent with the strategy and that development that is contrary to the policies of the plan is not consistent with the Framework.

23. The proposed development would be outside of the settlement boundary for Malmesbury. Settlement boundaries are necessary to provide a decision making tool to ensure encroachment into the countryside is actively managed: they are necessary to ensure that the Plan delivers growth sustainably in Wiltshire. The boundary for Malmesbury is identified in the LP by policy H3. Within this boundary appropriate housing development is permitted; outside this boundary is considered to be countryside where housing development is limited to that essential for rural businesses or as a replacement for an existing dwelling (policy H4). The proposed development is clearly contrary to these policies in terms of its location14.

24. Policy H4 is a saved policy that will be retained in the CS. It will therefore continue to be part of the development plan once the CS is adopted, as there have been no objections to its retention, and the policy is consistent with the Framework objective of protecting the countryside for its own intrinsic value15.

8 POE Gibson 6.3 9 POE Gibson 6.5 10 POE Gibson 6.6 11 APP/Y3940/A/11/2165449 12 POE Gibson 6.4 13 POE Gibson 6.7 14 POE Gibson 6.9 15 Council final submissions 1 www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 4 Report /Y3940/A/13/2200503

25. It is acknowledged that the Inspector examining the emerging CS identifies in his tenth procedural letter16 that it cannot be argued with great strength that the settlement boundaries proposed in the Core Strategy are up to date. However, he continues to support the approach to define where sustainable development is appropriate through settlement boundaries. In other words, the principle of Policy H4 is still very much supported17, and nothing in his letter suggests that he considers the retention of policy H4 as inappropriate18.

26. Paragraph 215 of the Framework requires that policies in older development plans should be given due weight – i.e. the closer they are to the policies in the Framework the greater weight they should have. A policy which seeks to restrict development in the countryside is consistent with the core planning principle in paragraph 17 of the Framework of recognising the intrinsic character of the countryside. Subject only to the position where there is no five year housing land supply, such a policy is not inconsistent with any part of the Framework, and therefore should be given significant weight19.

27. The application of paragraph 49 of the Framework adds very little. If it means that the settlement boundary is out of date the question as to whether the shortfall has to be brought forward through a planning permission or through the Neighbourhood Development Plan Process falls under paragraph 14 of the Framework i.e. planning permission should be granted unless adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the Framework taken as a whole. Planning Practice Guidance indicates that prejudice to the Neighbourhood Development Plan process can amount to such a significant and demonstrable adverse impact20.

28. In the case of Malmesbury, the possibility of amending the settlement boundary has very recently been considered through the Neighbourhood Planning process. This has demonstrated that, with the allocations proposed through the MNP, the settlement boundary has been reviewed and is up to date and appropriate. In these circumstances the conclusions of previous Inspectors at Widham Farm, Purton and Fairdown Avenue21, Westbury, that policy H4 carries considerable weight remain valid22.

29. In considering the issue of settlement boundaries and the relevancy of policy H4 for the appeal into land at Widham Farm, Purton, the Inspector concluded: The Local Plan presumption against development outside of settlement framework boundaries remains a relevant policy consideration (paragraph 65). This confirms that the approach to define where sustainable development is appropriate though settlement boundaries as per policy H4 remains a relevant and up to date part of the statutory development plan23.

16 Core Doc 46 17 POE Gibson 6.11 18 Council final submissions 3 19 Council final submissions 2 20 Councils final submissions 7 21 APP/Y3940/A/13/2196510 Core Doc 45 22 POE Gibson 6.12 23 POE Gibson 6.14/15 www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 5 Report /Y3940/A/13/2200503

30. Core Policy 2 (as amended) makes clear that outside development limits development will only be permitted where it has been identified through the Wiltshire Housing Site Allocations DPD or a community-led planning policy document. This point was made in paragraph 49 of the previous appeal decision regarding this site24. The Inspector in this case also made the point that: it is material to note that ensuring local communities have an increased ability to shape the development of their areas, through mechanisms such as Neighbourhood Plans, is a key plank of the government's Localism Agenda. (this consideration needs to be balanced with the importance the government attaches to the role of the planning system in promoting growth).

31. The proposed development is premature in relation to the CS, particularly in relation to core policies 1 and 2. It would pre-judge the location of development in Malmesbury over the plan period and prejudice the proper planning of sustainable development in the town that takes into account the wider planning policy considerations being developed as set out in paragraph 5.70 of the emerging CS; in particular ensuring housing development provides for the delivery of new primary school places in the town. The CS is now at an advanced stage of development. It is the Council's position that this document should be given significant weight25.

32. Significant progress has been made on the MNP. The plan allocates 'non- strategic' development sites and develops a locally specific policy framework to complement those set out in the CS. Consultation on the submitted plan is to take place on 12 March 2014. The Housing Site Assessment Task Group of the Malmesbuy Neighbourhood Steering Group has identified housing sites for the town. This task group has developed a robust and evidence based site selection methodology for the identification of housing sites that provides a full and transparent assessment of all potential sites for housing in and adjoining the framework boundary of the town. The methodology, scoring system and outcomes of the application for the methodology to all site options were all subject to public consultation in the full community engagement event held by the steering group in September 201226.

33. In total, 270 new dwellings are proposed in the Neighbourhood Plan. The Park Road site is not one of the proposed allocations in the neighbourhood plan but was considered as part of the site selection process. It is clear, therefore, that a great deal of work has gone into producing the present plan, including: 1. Community Engagement (September/November 2012) 2. Neighbourhood Survey of residents of the Town and the two Parishes 3. Consultation with Planning Aid 4. Workshops with the Prince's Foundation 5. Consultation with the Design Council — CABE 6. Extensive consultation with Wiltshire Council throughout

24 APP/Y3940/A/11/2159115 Core Doc 30 25 POE Gibson 6.22 26 POE Gibson 6.24/25 www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 6 Report /Y3940/A/13/2200503

7. Informal 6 week public consultation on a draft plan (March/April 2013)27

34. The above demonstrates the amount of hard work and commitment the Steering Group have undertaken in good faith to ensure the proper, sustainable and holistic planning of Malmesbury as advocated by the Government's Localism Agenda. The proposal of 77 dwellings represents a significant unplanned site in Malmesbury which would be in addition to the 270 homes proposed through the neighbourhood plan28.

35. If required, any further adjustment of the settlement boundary to accommodate the new assessment of housing needs arising from the Examining Inspector’s 10th procedural letter can be addressed through the plan led process without significant delay29.

36. Allowing this development to come forward now would prejudice the location of development in the town and undermine the ability for the town to be planned for as part of a holistic plan led process. This achieves the core planning principles described in para 17 of the Framework. It also allows the local community to take the opportunity that has been given to them, and embraced through the MNP, to identify sites for development within their area30.

37. This is precisely the situation referred to in General Principles which states it may be appropriate to refuse planning permission on the basis of prematurity where the proposed development is so substantial .... That granting planning permission could prejudice the DPD by predetermining decisions about the scale, location and phasing of development. Although the MNP is not a development plan document, it is part of the development plan and the same principles must apply31.

38. In commenting on the issues of prematurity in relation to the emerging Core Strategy, it is noted that the Inspector for the previous Park Road appeal stated: It nevertheless remains the case that by pre-determining the location of some 29% of the minimum housing requirement for Malmesbury Town for the plan period 2006/2026, granting permission for this development would seriously compromise the ability of the local community to determine where future housing growth should take place, and so would conflict with the evolving spatial vision and housing objectives for the area. This is a material consideration that weighs against the proposal32. Since that time both the CS and the MNP have advanced significantly and can therefore be afforded more weight33.

39. Growth needs to strike an appropriate balance between demand for housing and environmental and service capacity and this is reflected in the community area strategy for Malmesbury in the CS and the MNP.

27 POE Gibson 6.27 28 POE Gibson 6.28/29 29 Council’s final submissions 6 30 POE Gibson 6.28 31 POE Gibson 6.30 32 POE Gibson 6.32 33 POE Gibson 6.32/33 www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 7 Report /Y3940/A/13/2200503

40. The MNP is already planning for some of this growth, taking account of local circumstances. This reflects the Framework at paragraph 10 which states that plans and decisions need to take local circumstances into account so that they respond to the different opportunities for achieving sustainable development in different areas. The growth catered for in the MNP will contribute towards stimulating the economy and providing much needed homes, whilst taking into account the local circumstances of Malmesbury. By allowing this growth to be planned through the MNP, it also means that it is genuinely plan-led, empowering people to shape their surroundings, with succinct local and neighbourhood plans setting out a possible vision for the future of the area34.

41. Allowing the appeal would pre-empt and pre-judge the decisions of the promoters of the MNP. It would mean that the location of a substantial element of the outstanding housing provision for Malmesbury would have been determined through this appeal rather through the community led neighbourhood planning process. This would undermine the idea that the community are to be entrusted with shaping their own surroundings and would damage confidence in the neighbourhood planning process. This would be clear prejudice and the presumption in paragraph 14 of the Framework would be outweighed35.

42. In respect of the five year housing supply the buffer should be 5% and not 20%. The purpose of the buffer is to allow for a past failure to deliver to be compensated for by allowing a larger amount of choice in housing land to be available. This implies that the failure to deliver has been caused by a persistent inadequacy in the available land supply. This is not the case in this part of Wiltshire. The delivery has been broadly in accordance with the planning requirement. It is only when compared against the CS requirement, back dated to 2006, that delivery has fallen below the requirement over a continuing period.

43. This under delivery has not been caused by any inadequacy in the land supply but through the backdating of the increased housing requirement figure that was only suggested last December. Delivery is responsive to the policy context at the time, and it would be unreasonable to assess historic delivery against development plan documents that were not adopted or published during this period. Delivery should be compared to the extant development plan at the time – the Wiltshire and Swindon Structure Plan36. No other Inspector has found that a 20% buffer is required and there is no reason to find such a requirement now37.

44. Much the same argument applies to the use of the Sedgefield method. There is nothing in the circumstances in Wiltshire to suggest that it is required to meet needs not met in previous years. The Council consider the Liverpool approach to be the only sensible approach and note that it has been applied in recent appeal decisions including one in Barwell Leicestershire38. This is re-enforced by the Examining Inspectors 10th procedural letter which estimates the housing land supply arising from an increased housing requirement39. Furthermore, it would

34 POE Gibson 6.40/41 35 Councils closing submissions 20/21 36 POE Henderson 3.2 37 Council’s closing submissions 8 38 APP/K2420/A/12/2088915 (May 2013) App 15 POE Henderson 39 POE Henderson 4.3/4.4 www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 8 Report /Y3940/A/13/2200503

be wrong to use the Sedgefield method and a 20% buffer because this would be using the same alleged shortfall to justify two increases in the required supply40.

45. There is nothing underhand in using an estimated April 2014 base date for the calculation of housing supply. It would be more artificial to use figures that, by the time the decision is issued, will be over a year old. The assessment relies on a robust yet conservative estimate of the number of completions achieved in 2013/14, based on information gained through consultation with site representatives in December 201341. The Council contacted all developers of large sites and applied an assumption for small sites based on an assessment of historic completions of such sites42.

46. In respect of the supply figures it should be borne in mind that footnote 11 to paragraph 49 of the Framework does not require certainty of delivery. It does not endorse the suggestion that every possible difficulty that might arise should rule a site out of the supply. The test is whether there is a realistic prospect of delivery and where there is a planning permission (or resolution to grant) the question is whether there is clear evidence that the scheme will not be implemented within the suggested timescale43. For a site to be discounted on achievability grounds there must be no realistic prospect of delivery44.

47. The appellants have made several references to the Council’s decision not to defend a recent appeal at Marden Farm. It should be made clear that the Council’s silence on the issues brought up at that appeal in no way indicates agreement with the way in which the Marden Farm appellants have interpreted policy. The decision not to defend the appeal was taken because the Council had not completed its responses to the CS Examining Inspector’s concerns and its re- assessment of the housing requirement and supply and was not, at that time, in a position to demonstrate that it had a five year supply. That is no longer the case45.

48. With regard to the use of the April 2014 base date for calculating the housing land supply, this was confirmed by the Council to the appellant on 17 February 2014. The estimated completions for 2013/14 were provided to the appellant as part of the housing trajectory and a standard rate of loss through expiry of planning permissions for small sites and known expiry of permissions for large sites was fully considered for the updated housing land supply trajectory. The updated housing land supply statement submitted to the CS examining Inspector, and which forms the basis for the Council’s evidence in this appeal differs from that presented in the Deddington appeal46 in that it is comprehensive and takes into account all components of supply47 (except for the 220 dwellings at Mead, Westbury that were given permission following the Council’s assessment).

40 Council’s closing submissions 11/12 41 Council’s closing submissions 13 42 POE Henderson 1.3 43 Council’s closing submissions 16 44 POE Henderson 5.3 45 Rebuttal, Henderson 2.1-2.3 46 APP/C3105/A/13/2201339 (Dunlop original appendix 27 appendix 9) 47 Rebuttal, Henderson 2.4-2.8 www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 9 Report /Y3940/A/13/2200503

49. It is acknowledged that the National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPG) states that local planning authorities should aim to deal with any undersupply within the first five years of the plan period where possible. However, there is no shortfall when housing supply is measured against the requirements of the Wiltshire and Swindon Structure Plan 2016. The Council maintains therefore that the Liverpool approach is the most appropriate in relation to this appeal. To apply the housing requirement of the CS to the delivery of homes that precede examination of the CS would be perverse, as the Council could not respond to requirements that were either not known or could be attributed very little weight at the time. As there is no historic under delivery against housing requirements the buffer to be applied should be 5% and not 20%48.

50. The remaining areas of disagreement between the parties can be summarised as follows.

• The appellant considers that a base date of April 2013 should be used to determine the housing land supply position whereas the Council consider that an April 2014 base date should be used.

• The parties disagree on whether there has been persistent under delivery against housing requirements.

• The appellant uses the LP requirements which are based on the Structure Plan 2011 housing requirements, whereas the Council refers to the most up to date housing requirements applicable at relevant times.

• The parties disagree on whether the Sedgefield or Liverpool approaches to address any shortfall should be applied and how the Sedgefield approach should be calculated.

• The parties disagree on the land supply trajectory on all of the contested sites and the allowance to be included for windfall development.

The Case for the appellants

The main points are:

51. The development plan consists solely of the LP. This was adopted in 2006 to deliver the development requirements in the Swindon & Wiltshire Structure Plan to 2011, now revoked. Policy H4 is a settlement boundary policy which restricts housing development outside the settlement boundary. It was drawn to reflect the needs for development as judged in 2006 for the period 2006-2011. The settlement boundaries on the 2006 Proposals Map do not purport to provide sufficient land for development needs post 2014, nor at the scale now judged to be necessary49.

52. The emerging CS is under examination. Following adverse comment by the examining Inspector in his 10th Procedural Letter, the LPA is proposing Main Modifications, the most pertinent of which are:-

• An increase in overall housing requirement 2006-2026 to 42,000 dwellings;

48 Rebuttal, Henderson 2.11-2.17 49 Appellant’s closing submissions 4 www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 10 Report /Y3940/A/13/2200503

• A new disaggregated figure to the North and West Wiltshire HMA of 24,740 dwellings;

• An increased allocation to Malmesbury from 760 to 885 dwellings; and

• The de-allocation of the Chippenham sites with the emerging CS, these now to be considered in a separate Chippenham Allocations DPD. .

For the purposes of this appeal, it has been assumed that these Modifications will find favour with the examining Inspector50.

53. Other than the Chippenham sites, allocations are to be determined through a separate Allocations DPD, or through Neighbourhood Plans. There is no draft emerging Chippenham DPD; there is no draft Allocations DPD; there is a draft Malmesbury Neighbourhood Plan, but one to which there is significant outstanding objections51 and one which was formulated to deliver the previous CS allocation of 760, not the increased allocation of 885. Its weight falls to be considered against its conformity both with the Framework and the CS in the version currently before us52.

54. Weight to be given to policies must be judged against the Framework. Policies relating to the delivery of housing, which it is accepted H4 is, are subject to the application of paragraph 49 of the Framework. All extant policies, including housing policies are subject to paragraph 215 of the Framework; all emerging policies are subject to paragraph 216. Where the development plan is 'absent, silent or relevant policies are out of date', the decision to grant or refuse permission turns on the tests in the second bullet of the second half of paragraph 14 of the Framework. It is agreed, here, that the second dagger point does not apply, so it is the test in the first dagger which is determinative: that permission should be granted unless the adverse impacts of doing so significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. Here, as noted above, there are no adverse planning impacts alleged; all that is alleged is a prejudice to an emerging Neighbourhood Plan which (whatever the debatable merits of its current draft allocations) does not allocate the land it needs to allocate if it is to be in conformity with the CS53.

55. Para 215 requires weight to be accorded to extant policies to the extent that they accord with the Framework. That embraces the soundness tests in paragraph 182, which include both (1st bullet) the meeting of development needs and (last bullet) conformity with the Framework; both therefore also embrace the requirement of paragraph 17 3rd bullet to meet development needs, reflected also in paragraph 14 first half and (specifically for housing) paragraph 47; but in addition, the injunction in paragraph 17 1st bullet of a plan-led system includes the requirement that plans be kept up to date. A plan, or a spatial policy within a plan, which does not provide for today's objectively judged development needs is not one which accords with the Framework and not one which is up to date54.

50 Appellant’s closing submissions 5 51 Dunlop POE App 2 52 Appellant’s closing submissions 6/7 53 Appellant’s closing submissions 8 54 Appellant’s closing submissions 9 www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 11 Report /Y3940/A/13/2200503

56. While it is accepted that the principle of settlement boundaries does not conflict with the Framework, the line drawn on the 2006-2011 Proposals Map is out of date and fails to provide for the currently judged development needs 2006-2026. This was recognised by the CS examining Inspector in his 10th procedural letter. As such, the settlement boundary at Malmesbury underpinning H4 is out of date and we are therefore in paragraph 14 of the Framework55.

57. Further, as is accepted, H4 is a policy relevant to the supply of housing. It is caught by paragraph 49 if the Council cannot demonstrate a 5 year housing supply and is therefore deemed out of date by the effect of that paragraph alone56.

58. This is a case where the Council cannot demonstrate a 5 year supply. The Council accepts that if the base date is April 2013, it cannot demonstrate a 5 year supply. This was agreed to be the conventional base date as it is the date for which the Council has completion figures. It is the base date for the August 2013 HLS document. It remained the Council's chosen base date as recently as 30th January 2014, or perhaps, even, as recently as 11th February 201457.

59. By the middle of February, however, it had become apparent that the Council could not demonstrate a 5 year requirement if it continued to use an April 2013 base date and, so, in the HLS document dated 28th February 2014 it moved the base date a year forward to April 2014. This enabled it to 'capture' an extra year of delivery from certain large sites and so 'up' its apparent supply. But it also brought the conundrum of not having any completion figures for the year 2013/2014 - part of which had yet to run. The February 2014 HLS document accepts that there is no completion data and so the 1049 'completions' are an 'estimate'58.

60. Three controversies are therefore encapsulated in Table 5 of the Clarification Note:

• whether it is permissible to artificially move the base date from a date of known completion data to one of unknown completions to be 'estimated':

• whether the approach to the shortfall developed within the plan is to roll it into the five years (Sedgefield) or spread it over the whole plan period (Liverpool); and

• whether the Framework para 47 requires a +5% or a +20% buffer59.

61. There is a short answer to each of these: on the Council's 'best' case of an April 2014 base date, with +5% and Liverpool, it has a vaunted 443 surplus, if it can take account of supply from Chippenham sites subject to an as yet unwritten DPD. On Mr Henderson's admission, the most recent and best evidence before the inquiry on North Chippenham, Rawlings Green and SW Chippenham reduces the Council's estimated supply by 150+187+200 - i.e. more than the 443

55 Appellant’s closing submissions 10/11 56 Appellant’s closing submissions 12 57 Appellant’s closing submissions 13/14 58 Appellant’s closing submissions 15 59 Appellant’s closing submissions 16 www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 12 Report /Y3940/A/13/2200503

'surplus' in Table 5. By that admission, the Council's case for a 5 year supply falls - even if it is allowed to get away with moving the base date to April 201460.

62. It is also worth observing the 'long' answers: namely that the 3 controversies are themselves resolved in the appellant's favour by Mr Henderson's own admissions: Sedgefield boosts housing supply more readily than Liverpool; the concept of requirement/delivery contained in the 2nd bullet of para 47 is the same as that arising from the exercise in the 1st bullet of para 47; and the ruse of extending the base date to a point in time beyond your completion figures is not only novel and unsupported by policy or guidance, it is dependent on a wholly unreliable set of completion estimates.

63. It is also worth noting that the Council did not challenge the evidence in the Marden Farm appeal where the appellant promoted both the Sedgefield method and a 20% buffer. Furthermore, analysis of sites that the Council considers deliverable show that they have been overtly optimistic in their assumptions of the number of houses that could be forthcoming61.

64. The only conclusion on the evidence is that the Council cannot demonstrate the required 5 year supply and paragraph 49 is engaged. That alone renders H4 out of date, as admitted by the Council in its consideration of the Marden Farm case and as found by the Inspector in that case. Accordingly, whether by paragraph 215 or by paragraph 49, the development plan policy H4 is out of date, and paragraph 14 of the Framework becomes the source for the operative test. The benefits of the proposal are many, manifest and undisputed. There are no counterveiling disbenefits alleged and permission should be granted. The Inspector's first Main Issue is answered in the affirmative62.

65. Against this, the Council allege a prematurity point in respect of the emerging MNP. The appellant points to the stage of preparation and the outstanding objections which will need to be examined and whose outcome cannot be pre-judged. As such, paragraph 216 would indicate that little weight can be accorded at present; moreover a decision now of where to place 77 dwellings cannot be taken as being `central' to a plan that seeks to accommodate 760 units. But there is an antecedent flaw in the Council's case. As framed in its evidence, its prematurely case overlooks two key circumstances63.

66. First, even if newly adopted and otherwise to be accorded full weight, the allocation policies and settlement boundary proposed in the MNP are as much 'policies relevant to housing' as old policy H4. As such, they are as much caught by paragraph 49 of the Framework as is H4. If there is no demonstrable 5 year supply (as the evidence, here, shows) they are rendered 'out of date' and paragraph 14 applies64.

67. Secondly, whatever the dubious merits of the current scoring system and the allocations that are (or are not) derived from it, the MNP was formulated (and consulted upon) when it was thought that Malmesbury's share of housing

60 Appellant’s closing submissions 17 61 POE Dunlop 8.7/8.8/8.9 62 Appellant’s closing submissions 19/20 63 Appellant’s closing submissions 21 64 Appellant’s closing submissions 22 www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 13 Report /Y3940/A/13/2200503

requirement was 760. It is now 885 and the difference - or 'headroom' thereby created is in excess of the 77 dwellings here proposed. The two consequences are that (1) the MNP must now be amended and go through further rounds of consultation and consideration before it can go to referendum and (2) the appeal site is no longer 'instead of' one of the Steering Group's preferred sites, it is 'as well as'. It does not prejudice them in any way. The only point identified by Mrs Powers (education) is agreed not to be prejudiced by the developer65.

68. In the previous appeal on the site the Inspector stated that the increased pressure the development would place on primary education infrastructure, and the possibility that it would be premature in relation to the adoption of the MNP, would not in themselves amount to reasons to refuse planning permission. Furthermore the Filands appeal Inspector concluded that prematurity was not a reason to refuse planning permission of a scheme of up to 180 dwellings66.

69. Limited weight can be attached to the MNP due to a number of factors. Firstly there are outstanding objections to the plan, secondly there are substantive issues still to be resolved in respect of the emerging CS which could impact upon the content of the MNP. Thirdly, the appeal proposals are not of a substantial nature and the cumulative effect would not be significant and lastly, the MNP has yet to be submitted for examination and this cannot take place before the adoption of the CS67.

70. The appellant’s approach has also been supported by both the Inspector and the Secretary of State in the October 2012 appeal at Stratford-upon-Avon68 for 800 houses69.

71. Consequently, whatever weight the draft MNP has at present, there is no case for suggesting that it would be prejudiced by releasing this site at this time. Add to that fact the fact that there is no site specific objection to this site (on any of the 'constraints' identified by Miss Gibson as limiting growth at Malmesbury, or at all), and there is no reason why development should not be permitted70.

72. For all of the above reasons, this is a Framework compliant scheme of much needed housing, on a sustainably located site extending a sustainable settlement, suitable for additional housing and raising no site specific objections. The settlement boundary policy is out of date and the balance to be struck in paragraph 14 of the Framework conclusively indicates that permission should be granted. The prematurity issue is a hollow one given para 216 and/or 49 and/or the change in overall numbers required at Malmesbury since the MNP was formulated71.

65 Appellant’s closing submissions 23 66 POE Dunlop 9.4/9.5 67 POE Dunlop 9.18/9.20 68 APP/J3720/A/11/2163206 Dunlop POE App 30 69 POE Dunlop 9.26 70 Appellant’s closing submissions 24 71 Appellant’s closing submissions 25 www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 14 Report /Y3940/A/13/2200503

The case for Councillor Kim Power (Malmesbury Town Council)

The main points were:

73. The proposed development is premature to the MNP and is not one of the preferred sites in the MNP. This is a well conceived plan which three parish councils have worked together on for over two years. The MNP is sustainable and deliverable and has been widely researched and consulted on. The website gives details of the work and reports, such as the Sustainability Appraisal, Equalities Impact Assessment and Habitats Regulations Assessment that have gone into the process of preparing the plan.

74. The increased CS housing requirement will be taken into account prior to Examination, which it is intended will be at the end of summer/early autumn 2014. We have worked closely with Wiltshire Council and have revised the minimum number of dwellings required as we have been advised of them. The MNP is a material consideration that should be given substantial weight, and it would undermine the viability of the plan if the appeal was allowed.

75. At the start of the MNP process a set of criteria were devised with which to assess 25 potential housing sites in the town. The criteria were developed through consultation with a variety of ecological, urban design, archaeological and other experts. Advice was also received from the Design Council and PlanningAid and public workshops were held with the Prince’s Foundation for the Building Environment. In addition to this local residents were consulted and their local knowledge was factored in. Locations for housing, business etc have all been looked at with local knowledge, referred for expert opinion and consulted on with local residents through a long process. The result is a list of housing sites in preferred order. Sites have been looked at as a whole rather than in terms of particular numbers. If more housing is required in Malmesbury then the next site on the list is looked at. To say that we have allocated insufficient numbers is therefore wrong. Throughout the process we have needed to revise the numbers for a variety of reasons and we see this as an ongoing process which will happen again as a result of the amended CS.

76. The appeal site is towards the bottom end of the list after other more preferable and sustainable sites. Based on our assessment process there are several opportunities to allocate land before the appeal site. This is because our allocation far exceeds the requirement for new housing.

77. The housing requirement for Malmesbury between 2006 and 2026 is 885. Of these 496 have already been completed and 291 are committed. This leaves an outstanding figure of 97. However, there is also an outstanding planning permission at Cowbridge with no specific housing number which has been counted as nil in our process. A specific planning application has now been submitted for 30 apartments with 17 more dwellings to follow. The shortfall in Malmesbury is therefore only 50, although this is not really a shortfall as the next site on the list can come forward.

78. Having said that it should be pointed out that we do not view the volume of housing relating to individual sites in this way. Our approach has always been holistic, looking at an area as a whole, not only in terms of environment, heritage etc, but being close to local businesses, providing smaller assisted living apartments for the elderly to downsize to in the town where friends and relatives

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 15 Report /Y3940/A/13/2200503

can support them, this in turn releasing larger and under occupied houses onto the market for family accommodation.

79. This approach allows us to bring along the right type of housing such as assisted living provision, affordable part buy-part rent housing to suit first time buyers, education provision, a new supermarket and business. In essence we have ensured that there is sufficient infrastructure to support growth and also the right amount of development growth to bring forward infrastructure. It should also be borne in mind that it is likely that all of the housing required in Malmesbury in the period 2006-2026 will have been provided by 2016, half way through the plan period.

80. The school provision solution is an important issue. By bringing together local head teachers, governors, education consultants and Wiltshire Council this issue has resulted in plans for a practical school extension. The delivery of this primary school extension depends on the cooperation of different landowners which is now only happening because of the neighbourhood planning process. In fact the school extension could not go ahead without the availability of the land in this location as part of the housing development in the MNP. Ironically this solution has meant that this issue is no longer cited as a reason for refusal by the Council.

81. The next site on our preferred list is at Cowbridge Farm and this is another example of our holistic approach. Children from any development on this site would be likely to attend a primary school in the neighbouring village of Lea. This already has extra capacity to accommodate more children. The appeal site, whilst available, would have a detrimental effect on the MNP and the policies within it, such as school provision which cannot come forward with only the financial contribution alone.

82. The Government’s Localism Bill gained Royal Assent on 15 November 2011. at the time the Secretary of State commented that today marks the beginning of an historic shift of power from Whitehall to every community to take back control of their lives…..residents have a real power over decisions like planning. If the appeal is allowed then the fundamental principle of localism will be denied to the people of the Malmesbury area, that being the right for our community to have a say over the place where we live, especially as we have progressed so far over two years of work.

83. The neighbourhood planning process has been so successful in Malmesbury that plan development in the form of a new supermarket is coming forward even before the plan itself goes to referendum. Dyson are part of our steering group and plans for an extension to their business have also been submitted. This would include extra sports facilities which would be available to the public. Plans for 53 assisted living apartments are to be submitted shortly. In short, the Malmesbury Neighbourhood plan delivers.

The case for Councillor Simon Killane (Chair of the MNP steering group)

The main points are:

84. The steering group consists of 20 people who have produced an evidence based plan utilising local knowledge and expert advice following hundreds of submissions and open days. The MNP is community led, robust and sustainable.

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 16 Report /Y3940/A/13/2200503

It is the most advanced neighbour plan in Wiltshire – a test case. Allowing the appeal would completely undermine the neighbourhood plan process and this plan in particular.

The case for Mr William Allbrook (Trustee of Malmesbury School Academy Trust)

The main points are:

85. The MNP outlines how development will proceed in tandem with the expansion of the primary school, which is currently at capacity. The Park Road appeal is for 77 houses and will produce about 23 primary school pupils. The development will destabilise the current situation and introduce uncertainty. A willingness to enter into a Section 106 Agreement to provide financial contributions for education is unlikely to resolve this problem in the short or long term. Malmesbury has embraced Localism and is advanced with its own Neighbourhood Plan, which supports development in the right places. The proposed development has no local support.

86. Whilst it is very unlikely that any of the houses built on the site will ever flood Park Road floods on regular occasions, sometimes for several weeks. Furthermore, Park Road is a narrow road and is unsuitable for increased traffic. There are few passing places and the adjacent builder’s merchant receives deliveries from large lorries early in the morning which would conflict with residents of the proposed estate going to work or doing the school run. This is likely to cause significant congestion.

The case for Councillor John Gundry

The main points are:

87. The Statement of Community Involvement published by the appellant’s in March 2011 acknowledged that the majority of respondents raised concerns about the proposals. Malmesbury Town Council objected to this application after a meeting attended by 110 members of the public. The re-application made in autumn 2012 attracted over 100 letters of objection from residents. These figures demonstrate the level of local opposition to the development. It is clear that the Town Council and people of Malmesbury have repeatedly and thoroughly rejected development of this site.

The case for Mr Robert Tallon (Chairman of Brokenborough Parish Council)

The main points are:

88. The parish council joined with Malmesbury Town Council and Malmesbury St Paul’s Without Parish to produce a robust local plan. The plan has allocated enough development sites to accommodate the recent increase demanded by the minister. The appeal site is not favoured to satisfy current demand. We are rapidly approaching the point where the plan will be put to a public referendum, which we are confident will show strong acceptance. It is difficult to over emphasise the importance of allowing the MNP to be the arbiter of where (and how many) houses should be built.

89. The road from the appeal site through Brokenborough will be used by vehicles to avoid congestion in Malmesbury. This mile and a half long road has few passing

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 17 Report /Y3940/A/13/2200503

places, a pinch point at the centre of the village and a dangerous access to the Tetbury Road. Park Road is also sensitive for many of the same reasons, including road heave and dangerous bends.

The case for Mr David Jarvis

The main points are:

90. The emerging CS will establish the level of development appropriate for Malmesbury and the MNP will determine the precise details. That is localism at its best, an approach wholly in line with government thinking, and the appeal site should be examined fairly through this process, not in isolation through this Inquiry. If the appeal is allowed almost 30% of the currently identified housing need will have been pre-determined in an unbalanced way and the whole neighbourhood plan process will have been seriously devalued if not fatally damaged. What would have been the point of all the work that has been undertaken and who is going to have the slightest interest in attending or contributing to future requests for local involvement.

91. The Transport evaluation prepared for the appellant reads like a desk study with a complete lack of understanding as to how traffic moves in, out and around Malmesbury. The route from Park Road to Filands is frequently slow or at a standstill for a number of reasons not least of which centres on the time of the school run and Dyson staff arriving and departing. Anyone leaving the appeal site wishing to go west is likely to use the single track road through Brokenborough. Flooding is also a major issue at the appeal site and particularly the access road.

Written Representations

92. Written representations were received from a great number of individuals. All objected to the proposed development. Rather than detail each individual objection I will outline the main points raised. These related to traffic congestion and safety, the capacity of the local infrastructure including schools and the regular flooding of Park Road. Other points concerned the ecological impact of the proposed development and the fact that the site abuts an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Many objectors also commented on the fact that the proposed development would be prejudicial to the MNP. Two individuals also objected to the proposed development on the grounds of invasion of privacy and that light and warmth to their property would be compromised.

Conditions

93. In the event that planning permission is granted the appellants and the Council have agreed a list of conditions which they would wish to see imposed on the planning permission. This list is found in Inquiry document 11. I attach at Annex 1 of this report the conditions I recommend if permission is granted. My recommendation takes account of the agreement of the parties and the discussion at the Inquiry.

94. The first three conditions are standard and, as the application was in outline, relate to the submission of the reserved matters and the timing of these and the implementation of the permission.

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 18 Report /Y3940/A/13/2200503

95. In the interest of the final character and appearance of the proposed development I consider it would be necessary to impose conditions relating to the finished floor levels and height of dwellings (4 & 5), the materials to be used in the external surfaces of dwellings (6) and tree protection and landscaping (15, 16, & 17) For the same reason I have recommended a condition designed to ensure that the final scheme is in line with the submitted illustrative masterplan (23) and additional ones requiring further details of lighting and the provision for the storage of refuse and re-cycling materials (20 & 22).

96. To comply with the requirements of the statutory authorities and prevent the proposed development causing flooding problems it is necessary that works are carried out in line with the previously submitted Flood Risk Assessment (7) and that further details of the drainage scheme for the site are submitted (8). As the access road is liable to flooding it would also be necessary to impose a condition to ensure an emergency flood evacuation plan is in place (24).

97. I recommend that conditions are imposed relating to the submission of further details of the proposed road system (13) and of details for parking arrangements (12). As well as these it is necessary that improvements are carried out to the junction with Park Lane (11). These conditions are necessary in the interest of highway safety and the amenity of future residents. Further conditions are also necessary in the interests of the amenity of future residents in relation to a Crime Prevention Plan (21) and a contamination investigation (9).

98. To protect the environment and local ecology it is also necessary that conditions are imposed requiring the submission of a Construction Environmental Management Plan and an Ecological Management Plan (18 & 19). In the interest of the amenity of local residents I also consider it necessary that a Construction Method Statement is submitted (14). As the site in on the edge of Malmesbury, a medieval settlement, I also recommend that an archaeological investigation is carried out (10).

99. Lastly, otherwise than as set out in this decision and conditions, it is necessary that the development shall be carried out in accordance with the submitted and approved plans, for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning. I have therefore recommended a condition to this effect (25).

Obligations

100. The Council’s third reason for refusal related to the provision of affordable housing and contributions to mitigate the effect of the proposed development. During the Inquiry I was supplied with a signed and dated Section 106 Agreement72 that would facilitate the provision of the affordable housing and also contributions towards the provision of cemeteries, highway improvements, indoor leisure, off site play area, waste containers and secondary and primary education to mitigate the effects of the proposed development. The Council confirmed that the Section 106 Agreement overcame the third reason for refusal.

101. Whilst the contributions have not been contested by the appellants it is nonetheless incumbent on me to assess them against the tests outlined in Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulation 122. These tests, which are

72 Inquiry Doc 18 www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 19 Report /Y3940/A/13/2200503

also set out in paragraph 204 of the Framework, are that the obligation is necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, is directly related to the development, and is fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.

102. For this purpose the Council have supplied me with a document73 that gives the justification and relevance for each of the requested contributions. For each contribution the document gives the policy background, necessity and proposed use for the contributions. In light of this I consider that the required contributions meet the tests outlined in CIL Regulation 122.

The report continues on the next page

73 Inquiry Doc 19 www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 20 Report /Y3940/A/13/2200503

Conclusions

The numbers in square brackets in superscript [1] refer to previous paragraphs

103. The Council gave three reasons for refusal. One of these related to the submission of a Section 106 Agreement and this has been discussed earlier. Of the other two reasons, one related to the location of the appeal site outside of the settlement boundary and the second concerned the prejudicial impact on the emerging MNP. Whilst these two reasons were given separately and to an extent discussed separately at the Inquiry, it is nonetheless incumbent on me to bring them together when arriving at an overall planning balance in my final recommendation.

Five year housing land supply

104. Firstly however I will consider the question of the five year housing supply. Paragraph 49 of the Framework makes clear that housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered to be up to date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites. In light of this paragraph it is necessary to consider whether or not the Council can demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites.

105. The clarification note confirms the following agreed figures. An annualised requirement for the Malmesbury area (the North and West Housing Market Area) of 1,237 homes. This figure derives from correspondence between the Council and the draft CS Examining Inspector, and I have no better evidence of an objectively assessed need for the future. The parties also agree that total completions for the period 2006-2013 were 8,189 homes. The Council’s estimated completions for 2013-2014 are 1,049 although this is not agreed by the appellant. Using this figure gives a total number of completions for the period 2006-2014 of 9,238 against the requirement of 9,896, giving a shortfall of 658 homes over the period. The differences between the parties were succinctly outlined in the Clarification note[56] and I will consider the matters in that order.

Base date

106. In their most up to date housing land supply assessment the Council have used a base date of April 2014[45]. Using this base date they can, in their view, demonstrate a five year housing land supply, although they accept that using an April 2013 base date they cannot demonstrate such a supply[15]. The figures used by the Council in assessing the housing supply for the April 2014 base date are based on information gained through consultation with site representatives in December 2013[45] for large sites and an assumption for small sites based on an assessment of historic completions The Council consider the figures to be robust, comprehensive yet conservative[45] and to take into account all components of supply[48].

107. Whilst such a methodology is unusual I am mindful that the Inquiry itself took place in April 2014 and that, consequently, if the April 2013 base date was used then the figures would be almost a year out of date. Furthermore, I also note that the figures presented by the Council do not include the permission for 220

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 21 Report /Y3940/A/13/2200503

dwellings at Mead, Westbury that was given following the Council’s assessment[48].

108. On balance I consider that, from the information available to me, the information obtained by the Council can be considered to be a reasonable estimate of the likely number of completions. Therefore the use of the April 2014 base date, although unusual and not necessarily applicable in other circumstances, is appropriate and acceptable in this particular case. I note that this conclusion differs from that of the Inspector in the Deddington appeal[48], but I consider that in the case before me the Council have more fully taken into account all the components of supply.

Sedgefield or Liverpool method for dealing with any shortfall

109. The Sedgefield method incorporates the housing shortfall into the first (or next) five years of the plan period. In this case that would mean adding the shortfall of 658 homes to the base requirement of 6185 over the period 2014- 2019. The Liverpool method distributes the shortfall over the whole (or remaining) plan period. Using this method only 274 homes would be added to the base requirement over the period 2014-2019.

110. As regards which approach is the most suitable, I note that the NPPG states that local planning authorities should aim to deal with any undersupply within the first 5 years of the plan period where possible. Furthermore, in the Planning Advisory Service document entitled Ten Key Principles for owning your housing number, it is made clear that the Sedgefield approach is more closely aligned with the requirements of the NPPF and the need to boost significantly the supply of housing and remedy the unsatisfactory consequences of persistent under delivery.

111. I note that in the Barwell appeal[44] the Inspector found the Liverpool method to be preferable. This was however based on the premise that applying the shortfall over the shorter time period would not be realistic based on the economic climate prevailing at that time. In the case before me I have been given no significant evidence to show that applying the shortfall over the shorter period would be unrealistic. For this reason, and taking into account the advice given in the NPPG, I consider that the Sedgefield method should be followed.

5% or 20% buffer

112. The Framework makes clear in paragraph 47 that local planning authorities should provide five years worth of housing against their housing requirements with an additional buffer of 5%. The paragraph goes on to indicate that where there has been a record of persistent under delivery then the buffer should be increased to 20%.

113. As outlined above the shortfall for the period 2006-2014 is 658 homes. The Council point to the fact that there is only a shortfall if the CS requirement is used, rather than the requirements of either the development plan at the time (the Wiltshire and Swindon Structure Plan - WSSP) or the draft Regional Spatial Strategy (dRSS). However, the fact is that the Council have accepted an annual requirement of 1237 homes and the CS covers a twenty year period starting in 2006. I also note that the annual requirements of the WSSP were considerably less than those required by the CS and would have dated from evidence gathered

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 22 Report /Y3940/A/13/2200503

prior to 2006, and considerably before the introduction of the Framework and the requirement that housing supply should be significantly boosted. I consider therefore that the figure of 1,237 should be the amount by which the supply of housing should be judged. There is therefore a shortfall of 658 homes over the period 2006-2014, and the Council themselves acknowledge that delivery has fallen below the requirement over a continuing period[42]. It follows that the buffer to be applied should be 20%.

114. Having arrived at an estimate of the housing requirement it is now necessary to estimate the housing supply likely to become available over the next five years. The two main parties differ on a number of sites as shown in table 3 of the Clarification, and these were discussed at length during the Inquiry. Footnote 11 to paragraph 47 of the Framework makes clear that to be considered deliverable sites should be available now, offer a suitable location for development now, and be achievable with a realistic prospect that housing will be delivered on the site with five years and in particular that development of the site is viable. The footnote goes on to state that sites with planning permission should be considered deliverable until permission expires, unless there is clear evidence that schemes will not be implemented within five years, for example they will not be viable, there is no longer a demand for the type of units or sites have long term phasing plans. I will bear these factors in mind when considering the potential of the disputed sites below.

115. The NPPG also deals with this issue and states that a site is considered achievable for development where there is a reasonable prospect that the particular type of development will be developed on the site at a particular point in time. This is essentially a judgement about the economic viability of a site and the capacity of the developer to complete and let or sell the development over a certain period. I will deal with each site in turn.

Hunters Moon

116. This site has a recommendation to approve subject to a section 106 Agreement. The Council expect the site to deliver a total of 371 homes over the next five years. They have taken account of slippage that has already occurred by accepting that 51 homes will be delivered in the year 2014/15 instead of the 104 previously anticipated.

117. The appellant points to various factors that could delay the delivery of homes including the fact that there are cautions registered on the title of the land as well as restrictive covenants. They also point to the Council’s CIL charging schedule which is currently in preparation, which in the eyes of the appellant could be a factor in delaying a start on the site by delaying the signing of the Section 106 Agreement.

118. I consider that several of the points made by the appellant could be common to many sites and do not necessarily constitute clear evidence that development will not be deliverable. Conversely, I also note that the site does not actually have planning permission and that the housing trajectory assumed, although reducing the number of homes completed in 2014/15 to 51 from 104, still indicates that these houses will be complete by spring 2015 (see Henderson Rebuttal App 4). I find this to be unlikely given the constraints outlined above and also the slippage that has already occurred. However, I also consider the figures put forward by the appellant to have little substance or evidential basis. www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 23 Report /Y3940/A/13/2200503

On balance I think it unlikely that the site will produce homes in the year 2014/15 but that there is no reason to doubt that thereafter it could produce at the rate assumed by the Council. It follows that this site will be likely to produce 51 homes less than the Council predict and therefore only 320 in the next five years.

Foundry Lane

119. This is a LP allocation site. It is a brownfield employment site still in active use and remediation of contamination would be required prior to development. However, there is a resolution to grant planning permission for a mixed use scheme subject to a satisfactory Section 106 Agreement, which the Council confirmed is in the process of being finalised. I also note that the application has been submitted by the owners and not third party developers. Furthermore, the Council have assumed only 75 completions over the plan period with the first 25 completions not until 2017/18. Nothing in the appellant’s evidence leads me to consider such an outcome to be unlikely. I consider therefore that this site could produce the 75 homes as assumed by the Council.

Landers Field

120. This site is a saved LP allocation owned by the Council but has not been marketed and has no planning permission or resolution to grant. The appellant considers that the site cannot be developed until it appears in the housing allocations development plan document (DPD) that has yet to be published. Conversely the Council point to the fact that the site is relatively small and that a two year lead in time has been allowed for such that no homes are predicted until 2016/17. On balance, given the small size of the site and the allowed lead in time I consider the Council’s trajectory to be reasonable. The site will therefore in my view be capable of producing 150 homes over the next five years.

North Chippenham

121. This site has a resolution to grant planning permission and the Council consider that it will provide 510 homes over the next five years. However, an email from the developer dated 14 March 2014 (see Dunlop appendix 12 of updated appendix 27) provides a revised trajectory that would result in only 360 homes over the period. Whilst the Council consider this figure to be pessimistic it is nonetheless an up to date assessment from the actual developer and I have been given no significant reason to arrive at a different figure. I consider therefore that this site could deliver 360 homes over the next five years.

Rawlings Green

122. This site has the same developer as North Chippenham but has yet to be subject to a planning application. In the same email that gave a likely trajectory for the previous site the developer also gave a likely trajectory for this site. This figure was 100 homes and once again I have been given no significant evidence that would lead me to arrive at a different figure. The site is therefore likely to produce 100 homes in the next five years.

South-west Chippenham

123. This site is proposed as a strategic site within the CS. This means that it will be subject to the as yet unpublished DPD. Whilst on the negative side this could

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 24 Report /Y3940/A/13/2200503

mean a delay, on the positive side the housing requirement for Chippenham will increase due to the Examining Inspector’s report. The appellant points to the fact that a new Transport Study for Chippenham will have to be carried out which will in turn have an impact on the publication of the DPD. At the Inquiry it was made clear that some preparatory works were being carried out in advance of the DPD and it was also pointed out by the Council that it would be in the developer’s interest to demonstrate the readiness of the site in comparison to other sites in Chippenham.

124. This site was also considered by the Inspector in the Widham Farm appeal where he considered that a two year lead in period after the submission of a planning application was more real realistic than the Council’s allowed for eighteen months. The Council have taken this point on board in their housing trajectory for the site and assumed that no homes will be built prior to 2016/17. I accept the need for the DPD and Transport Study but nonetheless consider that, with the lead in time of two years, the Council’s trajectory is not overly optimistic. I consider therefore that this site could produce 275 homes over the next five years.

125. In arriving at my conclusions in relation to the Chippenham sites I have taken note of the appellant’s suggestion that as they are to be the subject of a future DPD then they should be discounted completely. This would seem to be a somewhat draconian measure and I consider that the lead in times allowed for these sites allow sufficient time for the adoption of the DPD.

Ashton Park Trowbridge

126. This is a large site that has been the subject of a Statement of Common Ground between the Council and the developer (see Henderson appendix 13a). This indicates that an outline planning application would be submitted by September 2013 with a determination by April 2014. At the Inquiry it was made clear that no application had yet been received. It follows that slippage has already occurred. Whilst I note that the Council have included a year’s slippage in their trajectory as against the trajectory given in the Statement of Common Ground, I nonetheless consider the prospect of this site delivering 600 homes within the next five years to be overtly optimistic. In light of this I conclude that this site could produce only 350 homes over the next five years.

Kingston Farm/Moulton Estate

127. This site has a resolution to grant planning permission subject to a Section 106 Agreement and the Council have estimated that 20 homes will be delivered in the year 2015/16, with 45 each year thereafter. The appellant’s have pointed to a letter dated 19 February 2014 from Planningsphere (see Dunlop appendix 16 of appendix 27) that indicates that there is a viability problem with the required 30% affordable housing requirement when taken in combination with the Section 106 financial contributions. However, this letter also outlines a proposed viability resolution process that would culminate at the end of June 2014. Whilst some slippage may occur to this process it still seems to me that it would be perfectly possible for 20 homes to be delivered by the end of 2015/16. I consider therefore that this site could deliver the 138 homes over the next five years as indicated by the Council.

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 25 Report /Y3940/A/13/2200503

Marden Lane

128. This site received outline planning permission on 2 April and the Council anticipate that it will produce 25 homes in the year 2014/15. The appellant considers this to be optimistic and points to the 23 conditions attached to the permission. However, 23 conditions is not to my mind a particularly large amount and I have been given no significant evidence to show that the anticipated 25 homes cannot be achieved. Furthermore, even if 25 could not be produced in the year 2014/15 I have been given no evidence to show that any deficiency in this year could not be made up in subsequent years. I therefore consider that this site could produce 125 homes over the next five years.

129. The aggregate of the homes that would be produced on the above sites amounts to 1,993. This figure added to the undisputed supply of 4680 given in the Clarification gives a total 5 year housing supply of 6823. I have already found that the 5 year requirement is 8080 and it follows that the Council only have a 4.1 year supply of housing. The outcome of this is that the Council’s relevant policies for the supply of housing cannot be considered to be up to date and therefore paragraph 49 of the Framework is invoked.

First main consideration – settlement boundary

130. The Council referred to policy H4 of the LP in their reason for refusal. Policy H4 prevents housing in the countryside and the justification for the policy in paragraph 9.9 of the LP makes clear that this reflects the strict controls placed on new residential development within the countryside at all levels of planning guidance. Whilst the policy seeks to protect the countryside it is nonetheless a policy that relates to the supply of housing and therefore, in line with paragraph 49, should not be considered to be up to date.

131. It follows that the second bullet point of paragraph 14 of the Framework comes in to force. This makes clear that where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out of date permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole.

132. In arriving at the conclusion relating to policy H4 I have taken into account the Council’s comments that it is their intention to save it in the CS and that there have been no objections to this course of action. I also note that the possibility of amending the settlement boundaries around Malmesbury has been considered through the neighbourhood planning process, and it has been demonstrated that with the allocations proposed, the existing settlement boundary has been deemed to be satisfactory. These matters do not however lead me to different conclusion in respect of policy H4.

Second main consideration - prejudice to the plan-led approach

133. Paragraph 216 of the Framework advises on the weight that can be afforded to an emerging development plan. It makes clear that decision makers may give weight according to (1) the stage of preparation of the emerging plan (the more advanced the preparation, the greater the weight that may be given, (2) the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies (the less significant the unresolved objections, the greater the weight that may be given)

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 26 Report /Y3940/A/13/2200503

and (3) the degree of consistency of the relevant policies in the emerging plan to the policies in the Framework.

134. The Council point to the fact that the CS is at an advanced stage of preparation and is highly consistent with the Framework[16]. It was submitted for Examination in 2013 and the Examining Inspector suggests that a summer 2014 target would appear to be the earliest reasonable adoption date, although I consider this possibility to be unlikely. The appellant points to the modifications necessary to the CS as a result of the Examining Inspector’s 10th procedural letter [52]. These include an increase in the housing requirement and the necessity for a separate Allocations DPD, as well as one specific to Chippenham. The increased housing requirement means that a total of 885 dwellings are allocated to Malmesbury rather than the previously catered for 760.

135. This brings me on to the question of the MNP. Considerable work has been undertaken on this including an informal six week consultation. Twenty five potential housing sites were assessed against a set of criteria that were developed through consultation with a variety of experts [75], and the appeal site came towards the bottom of the list, below more preferable and in the promoters of the MNPs view, sustainable sites. I am also aware that the MNP has been prepared in an holistic manner with considerable thought given to the provision of the right form of housing in the right place in relation to infrastructure and services[78].

136. In relation to this it was made clear at the Inquiry that an extension to the primary school in Malmesbury has been negotiated that would cater for the increased number of children arising from homes built adjacent to the school in line with the sites allocated in the MNP. The promoters of the MNP also considered that whilst an education contribution from the appellants would remove the Council’s objection in respect of education, providing the contribution would not in itself result directly in a practical solution to the question of future education provision[80]. I also note that the promoters of the MNP consider that any further housing should be located on the other side of Malmesbury, such that the children arising from that housing could attend schools with capacity in neighbouring villages[80]. In terms of actual numbers it was pointed out that of the 885 homes required in Malmesbury between 2006 and 2026 only 50 are now outstanding[77], and it is likely that all will have been provided by only half way through the plan period[79].

137. Against this the appellant points to the fact that the MNP still has to undergo Examination, that there are outstanding objections[61], and that therefore in line with paragraph 216 of the Framework less weight should be afforded to it. This is an important point that carries significant weight. The objections are on the grounds that firstly, the proposals within the MNP are unsound as they predetermine the outcome of the CS Examination, secondly, that the site selection process is flawed and that thirdly, although somewhat similarly, there is insufficient evidence to support the preferred housing sites within policies 1 and 2 of the MNP as the most suitable and sustainable for development.

138. In respect of the first point, communication between the Council and the Examining Inspector for the CS has shown that the Council accept the recommended increased housing requirement. The Council have dealt with the Inspector’s recommendations in an expeditious manner, he has indicated that the

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 27 Report /Y3940/A/13/2200503

CS could be adopted as soon as summer 2014, and has given no indication in any of his correspondence that the CS could be found unsound. The MNP is in line with the CS and its promoters consider that it could accommodate the required increase in housing without modification. Notwithstanding this however, the MNP still has to undergo examination and a referendum, and these processes are unlikely to happen until the CS is closer to adoption.

139. As regards the second point I accept that the site selection process has been undertaken with advice from a number of professional bodies[75]. Whether or not the process is sound is a matter for the Examiner, and it would be inappropriate to consider the matter in the context of this Inquiry. However, there is the possibility that the process could be found not to be sound and evidence is likely to be presented to justify that position. This considerably limits the weight that can be afforded to this argument by the Council.

Other decisions

140. I have been provided with many appeal decisions by both main parties which are produced to support their cases. However, it is rarely the case that appeal decisions on other sites will bring to light parallel situations and material considerations which are so similar as to provide justification for decisions one way or the other. That is certainly the case here. For that reason I do not accept that any of the appeal decisions brought to my attention can have a determinative influence on this case.

Other matters

141. Several interested parties mentioned the flooding in Park Road. There is no argument that this does occur and photographs and video evidence given at the Inquiry confirm this. However, the site itself would not flood and a secondary emergency access would be provided. These factors, combined with the fact that the statutory authorities have not objected to the scheme lead me to conclude that this is not an issue that can be cited as a reason to refuse planning permission. Similarly, several parties have expressed concern about the surrounding road network, particularly the road to and through Brokenborough. The highway authority has not objected however, and I have been given no substantive evidence to show that there would be highway safety and congestion ramifications of such a serious nature that permission should be refused.

142. The site does abut an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty but little evidence has been presented that there will be harm occasioned to this and a condition has been suggested that would require the provision of an Ecological Management Plan for the development. One household also expressed concern about the impact of the proposed development on their property in terms of light, warmth and invasion of privacy. However, layout is not a matter in this Inquiry and is for consideration at a later date. It is at that time that such matters should be taken into account.

Overall balancing exercise

143. The Council cannot demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply. Therefore the second bullet point of the second section of paragraph 14 comes into play and the proposed development should be granted permission unless any adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. The

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 28 Report /Y3940/A/13/2200503

benefits would see a boost in housing supply with associated affordable housing on an acknowledged sustainable site where no site specific objections have been identified by the Council. The scheme would create jobs and have economic benefits, and in light of these factors would be in compliance with the definition of sustainable development contained within the Framework. Significant weight should be attributed to these matters.

144. Against this the Council pointed to the likely prejudicial impact on the development plan process. However, the CS is still in draft form and whilst I accept that considerable work has gone into the formulation of the MNP, it still has to undergo examination and a referendum. Furthermore, the quantum of housing proposed is very small in relation to the overall quantity required in the North and West Housing Market Area. I note that the promoters of the MNP consider that even this amount of houses would mean that Malmesbury would have received more houses by half way through the plan period than planned for the whole of the period. However, the assessed housing need is not a maximum figure, and the Framework makes clear that housing numbers should be boosted significantly.

145. Overall, given my above findings, I consider that there are no adverse impacts of such magnitude that they significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. The planning practice guidance makes clear that arguments that an application is premature are unlikely to justify a refusal of planning permission other than where it is clear that the adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits74.

Recommendation

146. It follows that for the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal be allowed.

John Wilde

Inspector

74 ID 21b-013-20140306 www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 29 Report /Y3940/A/13/2200503

APPEARANCES

FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY:

Mr Stephen Sauvain Q.C. Instructed by Mr I R Gibbons, Solicitor to the Council

He called Miss Carolyn Gibson Spatial Plans Team Leader, Wiltshire Council BA (Hons) MRTPI Mr Mark Henderson BSc Senior Planning Officer, Wiltshire Council (Hons) MA MRTPI

FOR THE APPELLANT:

Mr Christopher Boyle Q.C. Instructed by D2 Planning Limited

He called Mr D S Dunlop BA D2 Planning Limited (Hons) MRTPI

INTERESTED PERSONS:

Councillor Kim Power Malmesbury Town Council Councillor Simon Killane Malmesbury Town Council Mr William Allbrook Trustee of Malmesbury School Academy Trust Councillor John Gundy Mayor of Malmesbury Councillor Robert Tallon Chairman of Brokenborough Parish Council Mr David Jarvis Local resident

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 30 Report /Y3940/A/13/2200503

Documents

Core documents:

1) Wiltshire and Swindon Structure Plan 2016

2) North Wiltshire District Local Plan 2011

3) RSS Secretary of State's Proposed Changes July 2008

4) The Regional Strategy for the South West (Revocation) Order – Secretary of State, May 2013

5) Wiltshire 2026 - Planning for Wiltshire's Future October 2009

6) Wiltshire Core Strategy Consultation Document, June 2011

7) Wiltshire Core Strategy Pre-Submission Document, February 2012

8) Wiltshire Core Strategy Schedule of Proposed Changes, June 2012

9) Correspondence between Core Strategy Inspector and Council (EXAM 75, EXAM76, EXAM77, EXAM78b, EXAM80, EXAM81, EXAM82)

10) Wiltshire Core Strategy Focused Consultation September 2012

11) Wiltshire Core Strategy Examination Document TOP/21 – Topic Paper 15 Housing Requirement Technical Paper

12) Wiltshire Council response to Inspector on the Consultation on 2011 Household Projections and revocation of the RSS – WC, May 2013

13) Waste Core Strategy July 2009

14) Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document (NWDC April 2008)

15) North Wiltshire Open Space Study (2004)

16) Ministerial Statement 'Planning for Growth' (March 2011)

17) Waste Storage and Collection – Guidance for New Developments

18) South Wiltshire Core Strategy Inspector's Report

19) Housing Land Availability Report April 2012 (dated April 2012 published August 2014 Doc Ref Exam 63)

20) Wiltshire Council Strategic Housing Market Assessment December 2011

21) Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment Practice Guidance — DCLG, July 2007

22) Delegated Officer Report January 2012 for appeal application

23) Widham Farm Appeal decision APP/Y3940/A/09/2107373 dated 30th November 2009

24) Widham Farm Appeal Decision APP/Y3940/A/11/2165449 Dated 27th November 2013 www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 31 Report /Y3940/A/13/2200503

25) Brynards Hill Appeal Decision 12thMay 2011 APP/Y3940/A/10/2141906

26) Filands, Malmesbury appeal decision APP/Y3940/A/12/2183526 March 2013

27) Filands, Malmesbury appeal decision withdrawal letter March 2013

28) Ridgeway Farm, Swindon appeal decision APP/Y3940/A/11/2166277 —PINS & Secretary of State, November 2012

29) Land off Silver Street & White Horse Way and Land off Oxford Road, Calne appeal decisions APP/Y3940/A/12/2169716 —PINS, September 2012

30) Park Road, Malmesbury appeal decision APP/Y3940/A/11/2159115 —PINS, March 2012

31) Land at Sellars Farm, Gloucestershire appeal decision APP/C1625/A/11/2165865 — PINS, May 2012

32) Land to the rear of Verrington Hospital, Wincanton appeal decision APP/R3325/A/12/2170082 —PINS, August 2012

33) NPPF

34) Core Strategy Hearing session tracked change version August 2013

35) Marsh Road, Hilperton (APP/Y3940/A/13/2192250, August 2013

36) PAS NPPF Toolkit

37) Wainhomes (south west) Holdings Limited and the Secretary of State [2013] EWHC 597 Admin

38) Open Space SPD

39) Wiltshire Council Sustainability Appraisal Report September 2012

40) Wiltshire Core Strategy Examination in Public SOCGs Rawlings Green Chippenham, North Chippenham, Ashton Park and West Warminster

41) 'Working Towards a Core Strategy - Report on the Conformity of the Wiltshire Core Strategy Pre-Submission Document to the National Planning Policy Framework' (WCS/04)

42) Application of the PAS Self Assessment Toolkit - comprising current soundness and Legal Compliance Test (WCS/05)

43) Planning Policy Statement 1: General Principles

44) EXAM/29

45) Fairdown Avenue, Westbury (APP/Y3940/A/13/219651, August 2013

46) The Wiltshire Core Strategy Inspectors 10th procedural letter, 2nd December 2013

47) Wiltshire Councils response to the 10th procedural letter, 19 December 2013

48) The Wiltshire Core Strategy Inspectors 11th procedural letter, 23rd

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 32 Report /Y3940/A/13/2200503

December 2013

49) Wiltshire Councils response to the 11th Procedural letter, 29 January 2014 and statement on methodology for disaggregation of increased housing requirement to community area and housing market area level.

50) Wiltshire Core Strategy Inspector's 12th Procedural letter, 4 February 2014

51) Draft Malmesbury Neighbourhood Plan Volumes 1 and 2

52) Malmesbury Neighbourhood Steering Group MNSG 'Basic Conditions' Statement

53) EXAM84, EXAM85, EXAM86, EXAM90 EXAM91

Documents handed in during the Inquiry:

1) Appearances – Council

2) Henderson POE – summary

3) Gibson POE – summary

4) Council opening submissions

5) Letter dated 24 February giving notice of the Inquiry

6) Statement by Mr William Allbrook

7) Statement by Councillor Gundy

8) Statement by Councillor Robert Tallon

9) Statement by Mr David Jarvis

10) Henderson rebuttal statement

11) List of conditions

12) MNSG housing and supermarket site selection score

13) Clarification note regarding 5 year housing land supply matters

14) Statement by Councillor Power

15) Sheet showing small windfall delivery 2009-12

16) Sheet showing Council’s targeted survey of large sites

17) Bundle of correspondence relating to housing delivery

18) Section 106 Agreement

19) Evidence to justify the Section 106 Agreement

20) Appeal decision APP/Y3940/A/13/2206076

21) Extract from the NPPG www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 33 Report /Y3940/A/13/2200503

22) Extract from the NPPG

23) Statement from Councillor Power

24) Addendum to MNSG site selection criteria

25) Attendance sheets

26) Costs application by the appellant

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 34 Report /Y3940/A/13/2200503

Annex 1 - Schedule of conditions 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin either before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission or before the expiration of two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved, whichever is later. 2) Details of the appearance, landscaping, layout, and scale, (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before any development begins and the development shall be carried out as approved. 3) Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the local planning authority not later than three years from the date of this permission. 4) No building on any part of the development hereby permitted shall exceed two and a half storeys in height. 5) No development shall commence on site until details of the proposed ground floor slab levels have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved levels details. 6) No development shall take place until samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the buildings hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 7) The development permitted by this planning permission shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved Flood Risk Assessment (dated September 2012), including the following mitigation measures detailed. 8) Development shall not begin until a detailed surface water drainage scheme for the site, based on sustainable drainage principles and an assessment of the hydrological and hydrogeological context of the development, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the development is completed. 9) No development shall commence on site until an investigation of the history and current condition of the site to determine the likelihood of the existence of contamination arising from previous uses has been carried out and all of the following steps have been complied with to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority:

i) A written report has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority which shall include details of the previous uses of the site for at least the last 100 years and a description of the current condition of the site with regard to any activities that may have caused contamination. The report shall confirm whether or not it is likely that contamination may be present on the site.

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 35 Report /Y3940/A/13/2200503

ii) If the above report indicates that contamination may be present on or under the site, or if evidence of contamination is found, a more detailed site investigation and risk assessment has been carried out in accordance with DEFRA and Environment Agency's 'Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination CLR11' and other authoritative guidance and a report detailing the site investigation and risk assessment shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. iii) If the report submitted pursuant to step (i) or (ii) indicates that remedial works are required, full details have been submitted to the Local Planning Authority and approved in writing and thereafter implemented prior to the commencement of the development or in accordance with a timetable that has been agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority as part of the approved remediation scheme. On completion of any required remedial works the applicant shall provide written confirmation to the Local Planning Authority that the works have been completed in accordance with the agreed remediation strategy. 10) No development shall commence on site until: a) a written programme of archaeological investigation, which should include onsite work and off-site work such as the analysis, publishing and archiving of the results, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority; and b) The approved programme of archaeological work has been carried out in accordance with the approved details. 11) No works shall commence on site until the improvement of Park Lane has been completed in accordance with approved drawing number: BSP- MALMESBURY-1/01B. Full construction details of the highway improvement shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority prior to commencement. The works shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details. 12) Before occupation, each dwelling shall be provided with a properly consolidated and surfaced parking area at a ratio of 1 space for a 1 bedroom dwelling, 2 spaces for a 2 or 3 bedroom dwelling and 3 spaces for a 4+ bedroom dwelling. 13) No development shall commence on site until details of the estate roads, footways, footpaths, verges, junctions, street lighting, sewers, drains, retaining walls, service routes, surface water outfall, vehicle overhang margins, embankments, visibility splays, accesses, carriageway gradients, drive gradients, car parking and street furniture, including the timetable for provision of such works, have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall not be first occupied until the above approved details have been implemented in full, unless an alternative timetable is agreed in the approved details. 14) No development shall take place, including any works of demolition, 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 throughout the construction period. The Statement shall provide for: i) the parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 36 Report /Y3940/A/13/2200503

ii) loading and unloading of plant and materials iii) storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development iv) the erection and maintenance of security hoarding v) wheel washing facilities vi) measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction vii) a scheme for recycling/disposing of waste resulting from demolition and construction works

15) No demolition, site clearance or development shall commence on site until an aboricultural statement and tree protection plan of all relevant details above and below ground have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No retained tree/s shall be cut down, uprooted, or destroyed, nor shall any retained tree/s be topped or lopped other than in accordance with the approved plans and particulars without prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority. Any topping or lopping approval shall be carried out in accordance with BS 3998 2010 British Standard for Tree Work or arboricultural techniques where it can be demonstrated to be in the interest of good arboricultural practice. If any tree is removed, uprooted, destroyed or dies, another tree shall be planted at the same place at a size and species planted at such time that must be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. No equipment, machinery or materials shall be brought onto the site for the purpose of development until a scheme showing the exact position of protective fencing to enclose all retained trees and hedgerows beyond the outer edge of overhang of their branches in accordance with British Standard 5837: 2005: Trees in Relation to Construction has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and protective fencing has been erected in accordance with the approved plans. The protective fencing shall remain in place for the entire development phase and until all equipment, machinery and surplus materials have been removed from the site. Such fencing shall not be removed or breached during construction operations without prior written approval by the Local Planning Authority. In this condition "retained trees" means an existing tree which is to be retained in accordance with the approved plans and particulars; and paragraphs above shall have effect until the expiration of five years from the first occupation or the completion of the development whichever is later. No fires shall be lit within 15 metres of the furthest extent of the canopy of any tree or group of trees to be retained on the site or adjoining land and no concrete, oil, cement, bitumen or other chemicals shall be mixed or stored within 10 metres of the trunk or any tree or group of trees to be retained on the site or adjoining land. 16) No demolition, site clearance or development shall commence on site until an Arboricultural Method Statement (ASM) prepared by an arboricultural consultant providing comprehensive details of construction in relation to trees shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All works shall subsequently be carried out in strict accordance www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 37 Report /Y3940/A/13/2200503

with the approved details. In particular, the method statement must provide the following:-

• A specification for protective fencing to trees during both demolition and construction phases which complies with BS5837:2005 and a plan indicating the alignment of the protective fencing; • A specification for scaffolding and ground protection within tree protection zones in accordance with BS5837:2005 • A schedule of tree works conforming to BS3998:2010 • Details of general arboricultural matters such as the area for the storage of materials, concrete mixing and use of fires; • Plans and particulars showing the siting of the service and piping infrastructure; • A full specification for the construction of any arboriculturally sensitive structures and sections through them, including the installation of boundary treatment works, the method of construction of the access driveway including details of the no- dig specification and extent of the areas of the driveway to be constructed using a no-dig specification; • Details of the works requiring arboricultural supervision to be carried out by the developer's arboricultural consultant, including details of the frequency of supervisory visits and procedure for notifying the Local Planning Authority of the findings of the supervisory visits; and • Details of all other activities which have implications for trees on or adjacent to the site; • Day and sunlight calculations must be submitted in accordance with • Building Research Establishment guidance and British Standard 8206-2: • 2008. Code of Practice for Daylighting.

The development shall be carried out as specified in the approved Arboricultural Method Statement (ASM) and shall be supervised by an arboricultural consultant.

17) A pre-commencement site meeting shall be held and attended by the developer's arboricultural consultant, the designated site foreman and a representative from the Local Authority to discuss details of the proposed work and working procedures prior to any demolition, site clearance and any development. Subsequently and until the completion of all site works, site visits should be carried out on a monthly basis by the developer's arboricultural consultant. A report detailing the results and any necessary remedial works undertaken or required shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Any approved remedial works shall subsequently be carried out under strict supervision by the arboricultural consultant following that approval.

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 38 Report /Y3940/A/13/2200503

18) Prior to commencement of development a Construction Environmental Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. As a minimum this shall include measures to: • Protect and translocate any reptiles from working areas of the site; • Protect hedgerows and trees in accordance with BS5837; • Avoid the potential for polluted run-off water leaving the site.

All development shall be carried out in full accordance with the approved Construction Environmental Management Plan unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 19) Prior to commencement of development an Ecological Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. As a minimum this shall include measures for: • Management of all semi-natural habitats including grassland, hedgerow, woodland and wetland features; • Restoration of the pond; • Details of hibernacula to be created; • Details of bird and bat boxes to be erected on trees. 20) Prior to commencement of development a lighting scheme including a lux plan for the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All development shall be carried out in full accordance with the approved lighting scheme and retained as such thereafter. 21) Prior to the commencement of development, a Crime Prevention Plan detailing security and crime prevention measures setting out how the development will achieve an appropriate standard of security shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All development shall be carried out in full accordance with the approved Crime Prevention Plan and retained as such thereafter. 22) No development shall commence on site until details of the storage of refuse, recycling and composting, including details of location, size, means of enclosure and materials, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The dwellings shall not be first occupied until the approved refuse, recycling and composting storage has been completed and made available for use in accordance with the approved details and it shall be subsequently maintained in accordance with the approved details thereafter. 23) No development shall take place until an urban design and framework plan for the development of the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The plan shall be substantially in accordance with G2650 – Illustrative Masterplan 18.10.12 and shall be submitted to the local planning authority no later than the first submission for approval of any of the reserved matters and shall include: • the arrangement of street blocks; • the overall level and location of car parking at the site; • the density and mix of dwellings; • the general location of affordable housing; • building heights and massing; www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 39 Report /Y3940/A/13/2200503

The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved framework masterplan. 24) No Development shall take place until a flood emergency evacuation plan has been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The plan shall incorporate and reflect management arrangements for the gated emergency access route included within the Signe S106 Agreement dated ……. 25) The development hereby permitted shall be implemented in accordance with the submitted plans and documents listed below. No variation from the approved plans should be made without the prior approval of the Local Planning Authority. Amendments may require the submission of a further application.

• BSPMALMESBURY.1/02- Proposed access arrangement

• Site Location Plan 18.10.12

• Site Plan and Section Plans 1,2 & 3 18.10.12

• Site Sections 18.10.12

• G2650 – Illustrative Masterplan 18.10.12

• BSPMALMESBURY.1

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Page 40

RIGHT TO CHALLENGE THE DECISION IN THE HIGH COURT

These notes are provided for guidance only and apply only to challenges under the legislation specified. If you require further advice on making any High Court challenge, or making an application for Judicial review, you should consult a solicitor or other advisor or contact the Crown Office at the Royal Courts of Justice, Queens Bench Division, Strand, London, WC2 2LL (0207 947 6000).

The attached decision is final unless it is successfully challenged in the Courts. The Secretary of State cannot amend or interpret the decision. It may be redetermined by the Secretary of State only if the decision is quashed by the Courts. However, if it is redetermined, it does not necessarily follow that the original decision will be reversed.

SECTION 1: PLANNING APPEALS AND CALLED-IN PLANNING APPLICATIONS; The decision may be challenged by making an application to the High Court under Section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (the TCP Act).

Challenges under Section 288 of the TCP Act

Decisions on called-in applications under section 77 of the TCP Act (planning), appeals under section 78 (planning) may be challenged under this section. Any person aggrieved by the decision may question the validity of the decision on the grounds that it is not within the powers of the Act or that any of the relevant requirements have not been complied with in relation to the decision. An application under this section must be made within six weeks from the date of the decision.

SECTION 2: AWARDS OF COSTS

There is no statutory provision for challenging the decision on an application for an award of costs. The procedure is to make an application for Judicial Review.

SECTION 3: INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS

Where an inquiry or hearing has been held any person who is entitled to be notified of the decision has a statutory right to view the documents, photographs and plans listed in the appendix to the report of the Inspector’s report of the inquiry or hearing within 6 weeks of the date of the decision. If you are such a person and you wish to view the documents you should get in touch with the office at the address from which the decision was issued, as shown on the letterhead on the decision letter, quoting the reference number and stating the day and time you wish to visit. At least 3 days notice should be given, if possible.

https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-communities-and-local- government

Wiltshire Council Housing Land Supply Appendix 4

WC Housing Land Supply Proof of Evidence

3/12 Kite Wing Direct Line: 0303 444 5412 Temple Quay House Customer Services: 0303 444 500 2 The Square Bristol, BS1 6PN e-mail: [email protected]

Head of Service Economic Development and Planning County Hall Our Ref: PINS/Y3940/429 Bythesea Road Trowbridge Date: 16 November 2015 Wiltshire BA14 8JN

Dear Ms Clampitt-Dix

Chippenham Site Allocations Plan (CSAP) – Examination in Public

When agreement was reached to suspend proceedings regarding the Chippenham Site Allocations Plan on Wednesday I said that I would write to the Council setting out my reasons for suggesting that suspension would be appropriate. My reasons are:

i) There are fundamental concerns with the adequacy of the Site Selection Procedure (SSP). These centre on 2 main aspects. The first is the use of a 'ranking' exercise relating to the criteria set down in Core Strategy (CS) Policy 10 which seeks to provide guidance for the site allocations in the CSAP. These were not ranked in the CS and the basis for the ranking exercise is not clear and neither is there a clear indication of how the ranking influenced the final choices. The second aspect is the 2 stage approach to identifying, firstly, broad strategic areas and secondly specific locations within those areas to allocate for development. This results in some locations not being evaluated in the same detail as others before being rejected. The basis for the first stage exercise is a narrative approach which does not give confidence that those areas rejected in the first round have been subject to a robust evaluation. Ultimately, this could result in one or more legal challenges to adoption on the basis that reasonable alternatives were not given proper consideration.

ii) The Sustainability Appraisal (SA) must be shown to be adequate. This was subject to detailed examination and it became apparent that it is not adequate. The reason for this is that, like the SSP, it followed a 2 stage process. In many cases, the differences in performance between the five areas under consideration against the 12 identified SA objectives are unsubstantial to the extent that there is little discernible difference. Indeed, in the SA's own summary it states that "the options perform broadly similarly against SA objectives.." and "no areas contain absolute sustainability constraints that cannot be mitigated" leading to the conclusion that "...due to the high level nature of this assessment none of the five identified areas are discounted entirely..." Nevertheless, only

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate

three of those broad areas were taken forward for detailed assessment of locations for development within them. As with the SSP, this leads to sites which may well have scored highly in the second stage appraisal being ignored for the purpose of that exercise. Whilst the site options chosen for the second stage appraisal are identified on OS base maps there is no indication in the SA of reasons why these specific choices have been made against potential alternative locations.

As a consequence of the assessment of these two major pieces of evidence there is no basis to say whether site options favoured by certain representors would perform better, or worse, than the chosen site options for incorporation in the Plan. In other words it cannot be concluded that the LPA has properly taken into account reasonable alternatives and, essentially, this is why there is no basis for finding the chosen site options to be sound. This is not a situation that can be remedied without revisiting the two exercises.

A third area of concern, which had been explored in the early appraisal, but has not been resolved, is that of deliverability. The chosen strategy has, at its heart, an arc of development across the northern edge of Chippenham comprising land within three of the broad areas - A, B and C. Planning permission has been granted, subject to completion of a S106 agreement, for 750 dwellings within area A. Areas B & C would accommodate some 1,500 of the total of 'at least 2,625 dwellings' beyond existing commitments to be accommodated. All three of the areas would contribute to an 'Eastern Link Road' (ELR) connecting the A350, west of the town to the A4 in the east (although the Council insists this is not a by-pass but a link road).

The Plan requires development at area B to fund a bridge over the railway line and a link road to the south (the Cocklebury Link Road) to alleviate town centre congestion in addition to providing a length of the ELR with a limit of 200 dwellings prior to completing the link between Cocklebury Road and the B4069. The Plan makes it clear that the site’s location will place strain on existing traffic corridors, parts of which are already congested. However, para 5.18, indicates that the new road infrastructure would ultimately improve existing conditions raising questions over whether the infrastructure provision would be compliant with the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010, S122, as fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development proposals. Only 400 dwellings within area C can be completed prior to the railway bridge and ELR link provided in conjunction with the development of area B becoming available. Additionally, development at area C must provide the final section of the ELR plus a bridge over the River Avon to provide access to the northern part of the allocation.

Clearly the chosen reliance on the northern arc requires a smooth and coordinated progress over the 10 year remainder of the Plan period. It also involves a total outlay of between around £18.8m* and some £30m (independent assessment for a representor) for the sections attributable to areas B and C. I have formed the opinion that there must be some doubt that it will be possible to negotiate S106 agreements to fully fund the necessary infrastructure. Additionally, bearing in mind that the S106 agreement being negotiated for Area A proposal shows only 20% affordable housing provision against a CS compliant requirement of 40% whilst not contributing to any 'big ticket' items such as bridges, it begs the question of whether the proposals can ever be shown to be CS policy compliant in relation to affordable housing. All of these issues raise serious questions regarding deliverability of the proposals which the hearing failed to resolve.

*the estimate is contained in the Council’s recent draft Transport Strategy – although the estimate makes no reference to the bridges.

The Council accepted that in order to resolve these issues further substantial work would be required so that a pause in proceedings has become necessary.

In addition to those 3 substantial matters of concern, there are a further 3 matters that must be addressed in order for the Examination to resume in a satisfactory manner. These are:

1. An absence of substantive evidence to show that the plan is 'based on delivering significant job growth, which will help to improve the self- containment of the town..." as required by the CS - in other words, that the Plan gives priority to new employment provision.

2. A need to acknowledge the provision of the ELR as a policy requirement. Its role and character remained ambiguous throughout the hearings. It is characterised as a 'distributor road' whose purpose is to provide access to development sites, with a bonus of relieving existing congestion. Nevertheless the design characteristics, alignment and origin and destination links to the Primary Road Network suggest that it could effectively act as a by-pass and encourage out commuting to nearby urban areas such as Swindon and Bristol - not supportive of the high priority to employment fundamental to the CS approach. It has, throughout, remained a largely invisible policy requirement with no indication of its importance to the strategy by means of the Policies Map.

3. Key aspects of the strategy require funding through the developments: notably the ELR and the bridges, and potentially flood alleviation works. Whilst there was talk of S106 agreements being required in connection with planning permissions for individual proposals, of the 2 current resolutions to grant permission, the mixed use development within area A for 750 dwellings was considered by the LPA in April 2014 and there is still no S106 agreement, whilst that at Hunters Moon for 450 dwellings was submitted in June 2013 and also has no S106 agreement at this time. The Plan must address the issue of coordinated delivery to ensure the key pieces of infrastructure are in place at the time they are required, otherwise the plan has serious deliverability issues. It is necessary to address the issue of which aspects of infrastructure provision can be fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to a specific development, rather than providing a wider benefit or addressing a pre-existing situation. The Government’s Planning Practice Guidance, para ID: 23b-003-20150326, advises that “policies for seeking planning obligations should be set out in a local plan…to enable a fair and open testing of the policy at examinations”. This Examination has been denied the opportunity with the apparent assumption being that developers will accede to the Council’s demands in any event. The evidence provided from the site within area A and the Hunters Moon site suggests otherwise.

For all of these reasons there was no alternative but to seek substantial further information and evidence and, potentially, significant modifications to the submitted Plan. The requirement was accepted and it was agreed these matters could not be addressed without a pause in the proceedings, with a period of 6 months – to 11 May 2016 - being considered as an appropriate timescale.

As you will know, Examining Local Plans Procedural Practice, para 8.16, indicates a requirement that the Local Planning Authority provides a schedule and timetable of work necessary in order to address the matters raised. In this instance, a fundamental concern is with the adequacy of the Sustainability Appraisal which was carried out for the Council by consultants, which will require a substantial additional input. Addressing the identified shortcomings may result in risk to the basis on which the Plan has been prepared since commissioning new evidence may lead to major changes to the submitted Plan. If this were to be the case I would urge the Council to consider withdrawing the Plan under S22 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (as amended) rather than pursue a significant amount of additional work to ensure soundness.

In the circumstances outlined I consider it would be appropriate to incorporate a date when the timetable and schedule of work is formally reviewed in order to show that the work can be completed and the Examination resumed on schedule. This should be earlier rather than later, so I suggest that a date for a meeting towards the end of January be built in to the timetable.

Yours sincerely

Patrick T Whitehead (Inspector)

Wiltshire Council Housing Land Supply Appendix 5

WC Housing Land Supply Proof of Evidence Allocation Masterplan, February 2016

Indicative 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 2026/27 2027/28 2028/29 2029/30 2030/31 2031/32 2032/33 Housing Delivery Trajectory* Persimmon / - 20 70 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 110 Hannick Homes (Up to 1,200 Homes)**

(Application Ref. 15/01800/OUT) Redrow Homes 60 60 60 23 ------(203 Homes)

(Application Ref. 14/06562/FUL)

Allocation ------30 30 30 30 27 Remainder (c. 147 Homes)

WWUE Allocation Total 60 80 130 123 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 130 130 140 30 27 (c. 1,550 Homes)

Total to 2026 893 new homes Post-2026 657

* The trajectory is based on best available information at the time of writing. It is indicative and delivery rates may be greater or less than those indicated in the above table owing to variables such as market demand, the number of competing outlets, planning timelines and drawing down land from landowners. Moreover, the delivery trajectory could extend beyond 2033. Please note the annual periods for each year run from 1st April to 31st March. ** Assumes that securing outline planning consent and reserved matters approval, discharging pre-commencement planning conditions and drawing down the land from the landowners will delay construction until 2018. The need to implement core services/infrastructure informs the low level of projected delivery in the first year.

GL Hearn Page 45 of 45 J:\Bristol Planning\Job Files - Live\J029240 & J029241 - West of Warminster Urban Extension\Reports\160202 WWUE Allocation Masterplan - Final.docx

Wiltshire Council Housing Land Supply Appendix 6

WC Housing Land Supply Proof of Evidence

Brandon Lewis MP Minister of State for Housing and Planning

Department for Communities and Local Government Fry Building 2 Marsham Street London SW1P 4DF Simon Ridley Chief Executive The Planning Inspectorate Temple Quay House www.gov.uk/dclg 2 The Square th Temple Quay 19 December 2014 Bristol BS1 6PN

Dear Simon,

Strategic Housing Market Assessments

I am writing to ensure our existing policy position on emerging evidence in the form of Strategic Housing Market Assessments is clear.

We have set out in our recent guidance that a Strategic Housing Market Assessment is just the first stage in developing a Local Plan and councils can take account of constraints which indicate that development should be restricted (http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/blog/guidance/housing-and- economic-land-availability-assessment/stage-5-final-evidence- base/#paragraph_045).

The extent of constraints will be justified on a case by case basis for each Local Plan, depending on particular local circumstances, within a housing market area.

Many councils have now completed Strategic Housing Market Assessments either for their own area or jointly with their neighbours. The publication of a locally agreed assessment provides important new evidence and where appropriate will prompt councils to consider revising their housing requirements in their Local Plans. We would expect councils to actively consider this new evidence over time and, where over a reasonable period they do not, Inspectors could justifiably question the approach to housing land supply.

However, the outcome of a Strategic Housing Market Assessment is untested and should not automatically be seen as a proxy for a final housing requirement in Local Plans. It does not immediately or in itself invalidate housing numbers in existing Local Plans.

Councils will need to consider Strategic Housing Market Assessment evidence carefully and take adequate time to consider whether there are environmental and policy constraints, such as Green Belt, which will impact on their overall final housing

requirement. They also need to consider whether there are opportunities to co- operate with neighbouring planning authorities to meet needs across housing market areas. Only after these considerations are complete will the council’s approach be tested at examination by an Inspector. Clearly each council will need to work through this process to take account of particular local circumstances in responding to Strategic Housing Market Assessments.

As you are aware, the Secretary of State can recover appeals, for example where he considers that they raise issues of national importance. This is important to support the application of relevant policies at national level.

BRANDON LEWIS MP

Wiltshire Council Housing Land Supply Appendix 7

WC Housing Land Supply Proof of Evidence

Appeal Decision Inquiry held on 28 & 29 February, 1 & 2 March 2012 Site visit made on 1 March 2012 by Terry G Phillimore MA MCD MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Decision date: 28 May 2012

Appeal Ref: APP/C1625/A/11/2165865 Land at Sellars Farm, Hardwicke, Gloucestershire GL2 4QD • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant outline planning permission. • The appeal is made by Robert Hitchins Limited and Redrow South West against the decision of Stroud District Council. • The application Ref S.11/1190/OUT, dated 15 June 2011, was refused by notice dated 8 November 2011. • The development proposed is residential development (up to 200 dwellings) including infrastructure, ancillary facilities, open space and landscaping; construction of new vehicular access from the C223/Sellars Road.

Decision

1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for residential development (up to 200 dwellings) including infrastructure, ancillary facilities, open space and landscaping; construction of new vehicular access from the C223/Sellars Road on Land at Sellars Farm, Hardwicke, Gloucestershire GL2 4QD in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref S.11/1190/OUT, dated 15 June 2011, subject to the conditions set out in the attached schedule.

Procedural Matters

2. At the inquiry an application for costs was made by the appellants against the Council. This application is the subject of a separate Decision.

3. The appeal relates to an outline planning application with all matters reserved other than means of access.

4. On 25 January 2012 a direction was issued by the Secretary of State pursuant to the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 that the development is not Environmental Impact Assessment development.

5. Prior to the inquiry the Council indicated that it did not intend pursuing its reason for refusal relating to flooding and pollution.

6. The appellants have made planning obligations under section 106 of the Act with respect to affordable housing, education, a travel plan and highway works.

7. A large part of the evidence and submissions at the inquiry related to Government guidance in PPS3 Housing and the then draft National Planning Policy Framework. Following the inquiry the final version of the Framework

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Appeal Decision APP/C1625/A/11/2165865

came into force on 27 March 2012, replacing PPS3 amongst other existing documents. The main parties and others who participated in the inquiry were subsequently invited to submit written representations on relevant matters raised by the Framework, with a further period allowed for responses to the representations made. The appeal is determined having regard to the contents of the Framework and the written submissions received.

Main Issues

8. The main issues are:

a) having regard to the location of the site outside the defined settlement boundary as identified in the development plan, whether its current release for development is justified by housing land supply considerations, including taking into account concern about prematurity;

b) whether the location of the site would discourage the use of more sustainable modes of transport;

c) the impact the development would have on highway conditions in the vicinity.

Reasons

Housing land supply

9. The 8.65ha site comprises farmland on the southern edge of urban Gloucester in the Quedgeley/Hardwicke area. It lies outside the Harwicke settlement boundary defined in the Stroud District Local Plan 2005, and therefore is in countryside. The proposal does not accord with policy HN10, which is that outside the defined settlement boundaries residential development will not be permitted unless it is essential to the efficient operation of agriculture or forestry. Given the restrictive nature of the policy, this is a fundamental conflict with the development plan.

10. Objectives in the National Planning Policy Framework include widening the choice of high quality homes. To boost significantly the supply of housing, local planning authorities should identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide 5 years worth of housing against their housing requirements, with an additional buffer of 5% (moved forward from later in the plan period) to ensure choice and competition in the market for land.

11. Previous Government guidance in PPS3 also required a continuous 5 year supply of deliverable housing sites to be maintained. In this context elements of agreement were reached between the main parties during the inquiry on the current 5 year housing land supply position in the District. The agreed calculations gave a range in the supply from 2.47 to 4.48 years. There was thus no dispute that a 5 year supply does not presently exist. The main disagreements were in relation to the source of the 5 year requirement figure and the treatment of past shortfalls in terms of whether these should be front loaded into the 5 year requirement or spread throughout the remaining plan period. A further area of dispute which related to the potential delivery from a small number of specific sites made only a limited difference to the results. At the inquiry the appellants were prepared to cede this point in favour of the

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 2 Appeal Decision APP/C1625/A/11/2165865

Council’s inclusion of these in the 5 year supply, which it calculated at 2,203 dwellings.

12. Further calculations have been submitted by the main parties following the inquiry which take the Framework’s 5% buffer into account. The appellants have also put forward an additional set of calculations based on an increased buffer of 20%, which the Framework advises should be provided where there has been a record of persistent under delivery of housing. However, taking into account the District’s completions in the last 5 years as being most relevant, the pattern of fluctuations both above and below an annual requirement of 470, and a total shortfall of around 360 dwellings during this period affected by recession, does not amount to such a record.

13. Additional differences have arisen with respect to the treatment of windfall sites, having regard to the advice in the Framework that an allowance may be made for these if an authority has compelling evidence that such sites have consistently become available in the local area and will continue to prove a reliable source of supply. Discussion between the parties has resulted in elimination of some double counting in the Council’s original revised figures, but there remains a disagreement on the detail of the allowance. With the differing inputs, there is in the final submitted figures a range in the calculated 5 year supply (with a 5% buffer in the requirement) of between 2.35 and 4.59 years. Thus it continues to be the case that the existence of a shortfall in supply against the 5 year requirement is undisputed.

14. With respect to the source of the requirement, the appellants’ position is to use the Gloucestershire Structure Plan Second Review 1999 figure for the District for the period 1991-2011 of 9,400 dwellings, giving an annual requirement of 470. Rolling this forward and adding on the previous under-provision against the requirement and a 5% buffer gives an annual requirement of 863. While the Structure Plan remains part of the development plan, and is reflected in the Local Plan, its housing requirement figure is not based on an up-to-date assessment. The Council’s preference is to use its locally agreed requirement figure of 9,350 dwellings for 2006-2026 less completions to date plus 5%, giving an annual rate of 517. The figure derives from the emerging Regional Spatial Strategy for the South West updated by more recent projections. Although the RSS will not now be adopted, this evidence base is more current than that of the Structure Plan, and takes into account previous undersupply against the Structure Plan. The figure remains subject to consultation, but appears to have a sound derivation, and is to be preferred.

15. With regard to the shortfall in completions against this requirement over the period 2006-2011, there is no definitive guidance or binding local precedent on how this should be treated. However, in view of the emphasis in Government policy on delivery, and with no strong local case for rolling forward the backlog over the longer period, the shortfall should be added to the 5 year target, giving an annual requirement of 565. A third possible calculation of the requirement using the 2008 based ONS predictions gives similar results.

16. With the Council’s figure for existing commitments of 2,371 (which includes a higher allowance for small site windfalls), it is concluded on this basis that there is a current housing land supply in the District of no more than 4.2 years. The proposal at 200 units represents significantly less than 0.5 years supply.

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 3 Appeal Decision APP/C1625/A/11/2165865

17. Evidence at the inquiry addressed the considerations for deciding planning applications set out in paragraph 69 of PPS3. This paragraph required having regard to: achieving high quality and a good mix of housing; the suitability of a site for housing; using land effectively and efficiently; and ensuring that a proposal is in line with planning for housing objectives, reflecting the need and demand for housing in, and the spatial vision for, the area and not undermining wider policy objectives. The Council accepted that the proposal complies with all of these identified objectives, with the exception of transport and highways matters as an aspect of environmental sustainability, which are dealt with below. The Council’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment identifies the site as being suitable, available and deliverable for housing. The main parties properly agree that it is in a generally sustainable location, with education, community and other facilities being readily accessible within the area and within walking and cycling distance. It is also common ground that demand arising from any potential shortage of facilities can be remedied through planning obligations, as considered below.

18. The Framework encourages the use of brownfield land. However, housing development on greenfield sites is envisaged as being necessary in the emerging Core Strategy, and this part of the District is identified as an appropriate location for this. The Core Strategy seeks to accommodate a residual requirement of 3,119 dwellings. While Hardwicke is not identified as a preferred option for further growth, the proposal represents only some 6.4% of this target. The scale of the scheme in this context is relatively minor. The proposed development is not so substantial, nor would there be a cumulative effect of such significance, that granting permission could prejudice the Core Strategy to a material degree by predetermining decisions about the scale, location or phasing of new development which it is addressing. In addition, the Core Strategy remains at consultation stage, with adoption not anticipated until the summer of 2013. It therefore still has some way to progress and carries limited weight.

19. The site was promoted for inclusion as an allocation at the time of preparation of the Local Plan, but this was rejected by the Local Plan Inspector. He was concerned that housing developed on the site would be in competition with the strategic housing allocations. However, there has since been considerable progress in development of the latter, and their prospects do not appear to be markedly vulnerable in this respect, despite the extension to Hunts Grove envisaged in the Core Strategy. The Inspector’s further concern about imbalance due to concentration of housing development in this part of the District also no longer applies in the context of the spread of sites anticipated in the Core Strategy. There is no reason to disagree his finding that development of the site, although it is greenfield, would be acceptable in visual terms and a natural and logical extension to Hardwicke if required. The nature of the site would substantially change, which would be perceived especially by local residents, but there would be no overriding conflict with the recognition given in the Framework to the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside.

20. The development would therefore help address an identified shortfall in housing land supply in the area. The site is suitable for the proposed development, and is in an acceptable location for housing. There is insufficient potential prejudice to the Core Strategy to warrant withholding permission on grounds of prematurity. National policy in the Framework seeks to boost significantly the

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 4 Appeal Decision APP/C1625/A/11/2165865

supply of housing, and this provides a strong consideration in favour of the current release of the site contrary to the protection given by Local Plan policy HN10.

Sustainable transport

21. Policy TR1 of the Local Plan refers to sustainable transport. It indicates that permission will be granted for development that deals satisfactorily with a number of issues. The only specified ones in dispute between the main parties are nos. 1 and 2, which refer respectively to the need to minimise travel and to provide access to development via a wide choice of transport modes.

22. The site is located adjacent to the Gloucester urban area, which is one of the locations identified in the policy where development should be focussed. As noted above, the location is agreed to be sustainable and accessible.

23. Detailed points have been raised with respect to the distances to local bus services and the frequencies of these. References are made to the criteria annexed to RPG10. Taking an overall view of the available services, and having regard to the potential of a travel plan to encourage their use and the circumstances of the site’s location on the edge of the urban area, these services provide an acceptable level of accessibility by public transport. While the new footpath leading from the site to the north west would be of limited width, an existing wider path is available in that direction across the road and provides a satisfactory alternative. The absence of street lighting on Sellars Road southwards does not appear to give rise to any existing problem and is unlikely to be a serious issue with the use of this road arising from the development. Satisfactory sight lines could be achieved from the new pedestrian and cycle access points along the east side of the site. The proposal would not give rise to any safety issues such as to result in a conflict with policy GE5 of the Local Plan.

24. The location of the site would enable a reasonable choice of sustainable transport modes.

Highways impact

25. Vehicular access to the development would be from near to the existing School Lane/Sellars Road roundabout at the north end of the site, which would be modified. The main parties agree that, with these alterations, there is no need for improvement to any of the junctions examined in the submitted transport assessment as a result of the predicted traffic impact of the scheme, and there are no material capacity issues.

26. The roads to the south of the site (Church Lane, Pound Lane, Green Lane) have a rural nature, exemplified by some narrow sections only suitable for single way working, an absence of footways and lighting, and intermittent frontage development. They are not statutorily designated ‘quiet lanes’, but have some of the characteristics of these which are clearly valued by local residents. They are used by walkers, cyclists and horseriders, but also carry vehicular traffic including as an access to the A38 and M5. In this context, and as identified in the transport assessment, there is scope for improvements to conditions on the Lanes by way of traffic calming measures, illustrated by the appellants’ indicative scheme comprising works to the carriageways and verges.

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 5 Appeal Decision APP/C1625/A/11/2165865

27. The main parties have agreed forecasts of traffic flows associated with the development. Different views on the likely flows are taken in local representations, but the forecasts are based on a reasonable expert technical assessment and there is no compelling reason to disagree with them. In the Lanes the forecast maximum increase in am/pm peak hour flows would be an additional 1 vehicle on Green Lane and 44 vehicles each on Church Lane and Pound Lane. The latter would be an increase of some 18% on forecast flows at the opening year of 2016. Under background traffic growth the resultant flow levels would not be reached until 2030, and an erroneous comparison in this respect was made by the County Council as local highway authority in its assessment.

28. However, in absolute terms the maximum change to flows would be about the addition of 1 vehicle every 80 seconds, and flows would remain below a peak of 300 vehicles per hour which can be regarded as a relatively low level. The Council at the inquiry confirmed that it did not allege a safety issue under policy GE5 would arise from this, and there is no firm evidence to indicate otherwise. The environmental impact at this scale of increased use would also be minimal, including the effect on conditions for other road users, even without traffic calming measures. On this basis the proposal would not give rise to an adverse change in the environment of the Lanes or significant effect on local quality of life.

29. The proposal would have an acceptable impact on highway conditions.

Planning Obligations

30. The Framework sets out policy tests for the seeking of planning obligations, and there are similar statutory tests contained in Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations (2010) which must be met for obligations to be given weight. These tests apply to the submitted obligations.

31. Provision for affordable housing is necessary to address local and national policy requirements and help meet local needs for such housing. A contribution towards education is needed to accommodate the additional pressure on facilities that would arise from occupation of the development. Provision for a travel plan is necessary to encourage sustainable transport use. These obligations are all directly related to the development, and are fairly and reasonably related to it in scale and kind, as well as being necessary to make it acceptable. They can therefore all be given weight in its favour.

32. A further obligation is for a payment of £86,000 towards traffic calming measures on Church Lane, Pound Lane and Green Lane. As set out above, these works would enable an improvement in environmental conditions on these Lanes. However, in view of the marginal effect that the proposal would have on existing conditions, the obligation is not necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms. It cannot therefore be taken into account in this decision.

Other Matters and Overall Balance

33. Following withdrawal of the Council’s reason for refusal on flooding and pollution, the main parties agreed that there are no issues in this respect that should prevent the development going ahead and that the submitted Flood Risk Assessment meets the requirements of PPS25. There is nothing in the new Technical Guidance to the Framework on Flood Risk, which replaces PPS25, to

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 6 Appeal Decision APP/C1625/A/11/2165865

indicate that a different conclusion should be reached. While there remain third party concerns on this matter, the technical evidence and views of the Environment Agency support the position that the proposal is acceptable on this ground, subject to appropriate conditions.

34. The substance of the objection made by Gloucester City Council is dealt with above under the main issues. With respect to the concern of British Waterways, there is no evidence that there would be a material adverse effect on the adjoining canal or bridge, subject to a condition on treatment of the boundary. On ecology, appropriate surveys have been submitted, and provision can be made within the development secured by way of a condition on biodiversity.

35. There are substantial local objections to the development. These have been taken into account, including the photographic and video submissions, but do not override the findings of the above assessment made on the merits of the proposal in terms of an absence of serious adverse impacts from the development.

36. Having regard to the advice in the Framework, taken overall the proposal is considered to be a sustainable form of development. The Framework sets out a presumption in favour of sustainable development. Policy HN10 of the Local Plan is in significant conflict with the Framework because the preclusion on residential development outside the defined settlement boundary at Hardwicke does not allow for a sustainable development which would help meet a shortfall in provision for the currently identified housing requirement. The advice in the Framework outweighs the inconsistency of the proposal with this element of the development plan and justifies granting permission for the development.

Conditions

37. The application is in outline and appropriate conditions are required relating to submission and approval of the reserved matters. Given the scale of the development it is appropriate for these to be divided into phases. Although only 2 residential phases are currently anticipated, it could be more, and a design code is needed to ensure adequate consideration of the interrelationships between the phases. In order that the development is in keeping with the surroundings, and reflects the Design and Access statement, a restriction on height of dwellings in required. Coordination of infrastructure provision also warrants a phasing arrangement for this, together with provision of fire hydrants.

38. Whatever the final details of the reserved matters, a need can be anticipated for controls on provision of open space, recreational areas and landscaping including protection of retained trees and hedgerows to ensure that these important components are properly provided for within the development.

39. To safeguard highway conditions in the area and provide satisfactory links with the surroundings, requirements relating to temporary and permanent access provision are needed. In view of the scale of the development and likely impact of construction on the surrounding area, implementation according to an approved method statement is warranted, together with control on the hours of works.

40. Potential archaeological interest necessitates investigation of this. The boundary of the neighbouring canal should be properly treated for safety and

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 7 Appeal Decision APP/C1625/A/11/2165865

security. External lighting requires control in the interests of appearance and amenity.

41. As set out above, the proposal is acceptable in terms of flooding and pollution, but implementation of drainage measures is needed to ensure appropriate provision, together with separate control on recreational areas. In the interests of biodiversity, mitigation and enhancement measures for ecology should be carried out in accordance with the submitted assessments.

42. Differing versions of a condition relating to the carrying out of highway works for traffic calming in the Lanes were put forward at the inquiry. In the same way as found above on the planning obligation on this matter, the works are not required to make the development acceptable, and the condition does not meet the test of necessity. It is therefore not imposed.

Conclusion

43. For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. T G Phillimore

INSPECTOR

Schedule of Conditions 1) No development shall take place until a Phasing Plan and Programme for the development has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The submitted details shall indicate the extent of each phase, the approximate number of units proposed within each phase and the associated timetable of works, and shall broadly accord with the development layout indicated on the illustrative Masterplan R.0234_03-1D. The development shall then be constructed in accordance with the approved Phasing Plan and Programme. 2) Before any development is commenced in respect of any phase approved in connection with condition 1, details of the appearance, landscaping, layout, and scale (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") of that phase shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The submitted details shall include all building facing materials and finishes; surface material finishes for the highways, footpaths, cycleways, private drives and all other hard surfaces; screen walls, fences and other means of enclosure; existing and proposed ground levels, proposed finished floor levels and building heights. The submitted reserved matters shall accord with the parameters and objectives laid out in the Design and Access Statement June 2011 Ref: R.0234.15D and the illustrative Masterplan R.0234_03-1D. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 3) Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the local planning authority before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. 4) The development hereby permitted shall be begun not later than two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved.

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 8 Appeal Decision APP/C1625/A/11/2165865

5) Prior to the submission of any reserved matters application relating to dwellings, a phase related Design Code framework for the whole of the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The submitted Design Code shall accord with the submitted Design and Access Statement June 2011 Ref: R.0234.15D and shall include the following details for each phase: a) a full and detailed design analysis of the surrounding built form and its key characteristics; b) a design approach which reflects and builds on these identified characteristics; c) approximate housing numbers, mix and density, identifying development blocks with an indication of building heights; d) the location of landmark buildings and key frontages; e) the approximate location, number and mix of affordable housing units; f) off-street parking arrangements; g) landscape treatments; h) areas of public open space indicating their function and facilities to be provided and their location; i) access and circulation including footpaths and cycleways. All applications for reserved matters shall accord with this Design Code. 6) No single dwelling house shall exceed a maximum of 12 metres in height above ground level, including attic and roof space accommodation, in any phase. 7) No development shall commence until a detailed Infrastructure Phasing Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The Infrastructure Phasing Plan shall include the programme for the provision of the following infrastructure both with regard to individual phases, the interconnectivity of each phase and its linkage to the wider external networks: a) highway and drainage infrastructure; b) pedestrian and cycle ways; c) hard and soft landscaping implementation; d) all informal and formal recreation areas. The development shall then proceed strictly in accordance with the approved Infrastructure Phasing Plan. 8) Prior to the occupation of any dwelling fire hydrants served by mains water supply shall have been installed in that phase in accordance with a scheme for that phase previously submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. 9) The reserved matters referred to in condition 2 shall include further details of the siting, design, external appearance, landscaping, means of access and play equipment for all formal and informal recreation areas at a level that accords with the land areas specified in the approved Design and Access Statement June 2011 Ref: R.0234.15D. These areas shall then be provided in strict accordance with the approved details and the Infrastructure Phasing Plan required by condition 7. 10) No occupation shall commence in any phase that includes open space until a Management Strategy for the maintenance and management of all areas of formal and informal space within that phase not subject to adoption by public authorities has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The Strategy shall include details of any Management Company proposed and its terms of reference and long term safeguarding. 11) All landscaping schemes submitted in pursuance of condition 2 shall be fully implemented in the first complete planting and seeding seasons following the occupation of the buildings, or the completion of the phase

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 9 Appeal Decision APP/C1625/A/11/2165865

to which they relate, whichever is the sooner. Any trees or plants which, within a period of five years from the completion of the relevant development phase die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased, shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species. 12) No work within an individual phase, including any felling, uprooting, removal or pruning of any tree or hedgerow, shall take place on the site until further details of all trees and hedgerows to be retained within the individual phase have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority (“the retention scheme”), together with the measures for their protection (“the protection scheme”) during the course of construction works. The retention scheme shall accord with the illustrative Masterplan R.0234_03-1D and the approved Design and Access Statement June 2011 Ref: R.0234.15D and the level of retention contained therein. The protection scheme shall accord with BS5837 “Trees in Relation to Construction”. 13) Development shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved retention scheme under condition 12. All trees and hedgerows to be retained shall be protected during the course of construction works in accordance with the approved protection scheme which shall be maintained in its approved form for the duration of the construction phase. Within the protected areas, land levels shall not be changed, no fires shall be lit, no equipment, machinery or vehicles shall be operated, no materials shall be stored or disposed of and there shall be no mixing of cement or use of contaminating materials or substances. 14) No development shall begin until details of a temporary access to accommodate construction traffic have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved temporary access shall be completed within 4 weeks of any development commencing on the site and shall be the sole means of vehicular access to the site from then until such time that the approved permanent access shown on plan no. SF/PA/OPT2A rev B has been completed and made available for use. 15) Development shall not begin until full engineering details of the permanent vehicle access arrangements generally in accordance with the details shown on plan no. SF/PA/OPT2A rev B have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. No residential unit shall be occupied until those access arrangements have been constructed in accordance with the approved details and thereafter they shall be retained as such. 16) The sole means of permanent vehicular access to the permitted development shall be from the C223/Sellars Road as indicated on Drawing SF/PA/OPT2A rev B. 17) No development shall begin until details of two pedestrian/cycleway links to be provided between the site and Sellars Road have been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. No dwelling shall be occupied until the scheme as approved is fully operational in connection with the phase to which it relates and thereafter the scheme shall be retained as such.

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 10 Appeal Decision APP/C1625/A/11/2165865

18) No dwelling shall be occupied until the access road between that dwelling and the existing county highway, including footways and turning heads (where applicable), has been laid out in accordance with the submitted plans and constructed to at least basecourse level. 19) 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 implemented in full prior to the commencement of the development and shall be adhered to throughout the construction period or relevant phase. The Statement shall provide for: i. the parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors; ii. loading and unloading of plant and materials; iii. storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development; iv. the erection and maintenance of security hoarding including decorative displays and facilities for public viewing, where appropriate; v. wheel washing facilities; vi. measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction; vii. a scheme for recycling/disposing of waste resulting from demolition and construction works. There shall be no burning of any waste or other materials on the site, except in an incinerator, in accordance with details which shall have been previously submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to the commencement of development; viii. a routing strategy for all construction traffic serving each phase including the designated means of access to the development via the local road network together with associated highway signage. 20) No construction site machinery or plant shall be operated, no process shall be carried out and no construction-related deliveries taken at or dispatched from the site except between the hours 08:00 and 18:30 on Mondays to Fridays, between 08:00 and 14:00 on Saturdays and not at any time on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays. 21) No development shall take place within the application site until the applicant, their agents or successors in title, has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation previously submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. 22) Notwithstanding the information shown in the submitted plans, prior to the commencement of development, details and an implementation timetable shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority of suitable boundary treatments to be provided along the western edge of the site to prevent the risk of members of the public entering onto British Waterways land and adjoining canal. The development shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details and thereafter retained as such.

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 11 Appeal Decision APP/C1625/A/11/2165865

23) Prior to the commencement of any phase of the development hereby permitted, details of the external lighting for that phase shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in strict accordance with the approved scheme and thereafter retained as such and no other external lighting of any description shall be erected within that phase. 24) No development on any phase shall take place until a supplemental drainage and flood strategy to the submitted Flood Risk Assessment dated April 2011 prepared by Phoenix Design and the addendum documentation “Response to Drainage and Flood Risk Comments”, for the whole of the development, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The submitted strategy shall accord with the recommendations of the “Peer review of Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Assessment” Document 2, dated 27 September 2011 prepared by Halcrow. The supplemental strategy shall amongst other matters include: i. Further investigations into the existing groundwater regime and associated soil/ground conditions; ii. Surface water run-off and attenuation measures; iii. Levels and flood routes; iv. Drainage infrastructure (foul, surface water, ground water and SuDS); v. Phasing of the drainage infrastructure; and vi. The adoption and maintenance of the drainage infrastructure. Prior to commencement of any phase of the development, full details of the drainage, levels and flood routes for that phase, in accordance with the approved supplemental strategy, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Prior to commencement of any phase of the development, a scheme for the adoption and maintenance for drainage infrastructure within that phase, in accordance with the approved supplemental strategy, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall include details for the adoption by a public authority, statutory undertaker, registered provider or management company together with details of the under-writing of such arrangements. The development shall then be carried out in strict accordance with the approved strategy and details and shall be maintained as such thereafter. 25) No development of phased recreational space as approved under Condition 9 shall take place until detailed drainage proposals for all formal recreation spaces (as defined in the approved Design and Access Statement June 2011 Ref: R.0234.15D) in accordance with the Supplemental Drainage and Flood Strategy approved under Condition 24 have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The submitted scheme shall be prepared in direct reference to Sport England and National Playing Field Association guidance to ensure that such areas can be made available for recreation use and shall include full details as to the maintenance of the drainage infrastructure and its long term adoption by a public authority, registered provider or

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 12 Appeal Decision APP/C1625/A/11/2165865

management company. The drainage shall then be provided in strict accordance with the approved details prior to the bringing into use of the areas and shall be maintained as such thereafter in accordance with the approved maintenance regime. 26) No works of any description shall commence on site until a comprehensive wildlife enhancement and mitigation strategy for the whole development has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The submitted scheme shall include full details of all mitigation measures proposed including the provision of a wildlife corridor in accordance with that indicated on the illustrative Masterplan R.0234_03-1D, an implementation timetable to protect any species or habitats identified and measures for the future maintenance of any mitigation works/enhancement areas. The strategy shall accord with the recommendations contained within the approved Ecological Assessment Document 4909.EcoAs.v12 dated May 2011 prepared by Ecology Solutions Ltd. The mitigation and enhancement measures shall then be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme and maintained in accordance with the approved maintenance regime.

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 13 Appeal Decision APP/C1625/A/11/2165865

APPEARANCES

FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY:

Peter Goatley of Counsel Instructed by Martin Evans, Solicitor, Stroud District Council He called:

Mark Baker BSc CEng Director, Mark Baker Consulting Limited MICE FCIT FILT Eur Ing

Michael Muston Director, Muston Planning BA(Hons) MPhil MRTPI

FOR THE APPELLANTS:

Anthony Crean QC Instructed by Robert Hitchins Limited

He called:

Peter Amies BSc Director, Phoenix Design Partnership Limited

Peter Finlayson BSC Managing Director, PFA Consulting Ltd CEng MICE MIHT MCIWEM

Mervyn Dobson MA Partner, Pegasus Planning Group MPhil MRTPI MRICS

INTERESTED PERSONS:

John Jones Councillor, Severn Ward, Stroud District Council Graham Littleton Councillor, Hardwicke Ward, Stroud District Council Ian Butler Chairman, Hardwicke Parish Council David Drew Councillor, Farmhill and Paganhill Ward, Stroud District Council Anthony Blackburn Councillor, North Stroud division, Gloucestershire County Council

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED

1 Council’s inquiry notification letter 2 Statement of common ground on highways, traffic and transport-related matters 3 Appellants’ opening submissions 4 Councillor Jones’s statement 5 Councillor Littleton’s statement 6 Amendments to Mr Baker’s proof 7 Traffic Advisory Leaflet 3/04 8 Agreed statement on 5 year housing land supply calculations 9 S106 undertaking dated 28 February 2012 on affordable housing 10 Appellants’ preliminary cost estimate of traffic calming scheme

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 14 Appeal Decision APP/C1625/A/11/2165865

11 Councillor Drew’s statement 12 Council’s draft condition on highway works 13 S106 undertaking dated 31 October 2011 on education 14 S106 agreement dated 1 November 2011 on a travel plan 15 Appellants’ draft condition on highway works 16 Average house price figures submitted by Mr Dobson 17 Policy H2 of the South East Plan 18 Revised draft conditions schedule 19 Revised draft condition no. 28 20 Draft S106 planning obligation on highway works 21 Council’s closing submissions 22 Welcome Break (and others) v Stroud District Council and Gloucestershire Gateway Limited [2012] EWHC140 (Admin) 23 Appellants’ closing submissions 24 Appellants’ costs application 25 Council’s response to appellants’ costs application 26 S106 undertaking dated 2 March 2012 on highway works

Documents received following the inquiry 27 Appellants’ comments on the National Planning Policy Framework dated 16 April 2012 28 Council’s comments on the National Planning Policy Framework dated 18 April 2012 and attachments 29 Letter from Councillor Jones dated 13 April 2012 30 Letter from Mr Butler dated 10 April 2012 31 Letter and attachments from the Council dated 27 April 2012 32 Response and attachments from the Appellants dated 30 April 2012

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 15

Wiltshire Council Housing Land Supply Appendix 8

WC Housing Land Supply Proof of Evidence

Appeal Decision Inquiry held on 11 April 2012 and 21-23 August 2012 Site visit made on 23 August 2012 by Mike Robins MSc BSc (Hons) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Decision date: 5 October 2012

Appeal Ref: APP/Y3940/A/11/2165449 Land at Widham Farm / Widham Grove, Station Road, Purton, Swindon, Wiltshire SN5 4EW • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a failure to give notice within the prescribed period of a decision on an application for outline planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr C R Cornell against Wiltshire Council. • The application Ref N/11/02574/OUT, is dated 28 July 2011. • The development proposed is up to 50 dwellings and associated works following demolition of two dwellings (Kilmayne and Perrying, Station Road).

Decision

1. The appeal is dismissed.

Application for costs

2. At the Inquiry an application for costs was made by Mr C R Cornell against Wiltshire Council. This application is the subject of a separate Decision.

Procedural Matters

3. The proposal for fifty houses is in outline with the matter of access to be determined at this stage. Appearance, landscaping, scale and layout are therefore reserved for future determination.

4. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was published on 27 March 2012. Following this, the Council reassessed the housing land supply and presented their revised figures to the Inquiry. In the interests of fairness it was necessary to adjourn the Inquiry to allow time for the appellant to consider the revised data. Subsequently the main parties agreed a Statement of Common Ground on housing supply matters, (HSSoCG), signed 15 August 2012, and a second Statement of Common Ground for the proposal, (SoCG), signed 22 August 2012.

5. A Unilateral Undertaking, signed and dated 22 August 2012, was submitted by the appellant under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. This was to address contributions sought by the Council, albeit some remain contested by the appellant. I have considered this later in my decision.

6. The Council set out in a delegated report that they were minded to refuse the application and cited eight initial reasons. Of these the Council confirmed that following the submission of further information and consultation, those relating to ecology, layout and highways had been overcome. Matters relating to planning

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate WC Housing Land Supply Evidence Appendix 5 Appeal Decision APP/Y3940/A/11/2165449

obligations, reason for refusal 8, have been addressed through the submission of the S106 Unilateral Undertaking.

Main Issues

7. In light of this I consider that the main issues in this case are firstly, whether or not there are material considerations that would outweigh the development plan presumption against development in the countryside, and secondly, whether or not planning permission should be withheld on the grounds that the proposed development would be premature in relation to the adoption of emerging Development Plan Documents.

Reasons

Background

8. The appeal site is an area of open grazing land to the north of the settlement of Purton. It is outside of the currently identified settlement framework boundary. Purton is an elongated settlement with the majority of houses set along High Street and Station Road, from which the proposed development would take its access. The southern boundary of the site adjoins Pear Tree Close and Glevum Close, both of which are within the framework boundary. To the west lies Locks Lane while beyond the adjoining fields to the north is a railway line with more housing beyond, albeit these lie outside the framework boundary.

9. The proposal would introduce up to 50 houses with a dedicated bus turning area, identified public open space and ponds associated with both ecological mitigation and surface water management. A previous application for 136 dwellings was submitted, which was subsequently dismissed on appeal in 20091.

10. The development plan for the area includes the adopted Regional Strategy, (RPG10), the Wiltshire and Swindon Structure Plan, (WSSP), and the North Wiltshire Local Plan, adopted 2006 (the Local Plan), whose relevant policies have been saved. The Local Plan designates the settlement framework boundary and in Policy H4 sets out that new dwellings in the countryside will be permitted outside the boundary provided they are in connection with the essential needs of agriculture, forestry or other rural based enterprise.

11. In terms of housing supply both main parties accepted that the data and projections found in the adopted development plan are out of date. In this respect revised housing requirements were promoted during the development of the draft Regional Spatial Strategy, (dRSS). This was subject to Examination in Public, incorporation of proposed changes and a version was published for consultation in July 2008. Although reaching an advanced stage, the likelihood of this plan being adopted is considered extremely low in light of the Secretary of State’s avowed intention to revoke Regional Strategies, and the enactment of the Localism Act, which prevents further Regional Strategies from being created.

12. In response to the Government’s position on Regional Strategies, the Council indicated that they moved to reconsider the housing requirements for Wiltshire to inform an emerging Core Strategy, (eWCS). This document has now reached a relatively advanced stage with a resolution by the Council and its submission for examination. The Council’s ambitions for this plan to be adopted by the end of

1 APP/Y3940/A/09/2107373 www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 2 WC Housing Land Supply Evidence Appendix 5 Appeal Decision APP/Y3940/A/11/2165449

2012 or early 2013 may, however, be questioned in light of recent concerns and a need to re-consult.

13. Notwithstanding this the Council point to an extensive consultation process involved in the development of the evidence base and suggest that the eWCS is preferable, both in terms of the housing requirement and the strategic approach to delivery, to either the out of date WSSP or the figures promoted in the dRSS.

14. The appellant raised concerns over the weight that should be afforded to the eWCS in light of objections to proposed housing numbers, declaring a preference for the publicly tested dRSS. However, the appellant goes further, suggesting an additional proposition that irrespective of the housing land supply position, the proposal represents a sustainable development. As such it should benefit from the Frameworks’ presumption in its favour, in light of a contention that the development plan policies are out of date.

15. While this proposition raises other concerns, which I address later, in light of my first main issue it is necessary to consider the housing land supply issue on the basis of the evidence available at the time of this Inquiry.

The 5-year housing land supply

16. The main parties agreed the HSSoCG, which reflected on areas of agreement, including dates, calculation methodology and some elements of available sites. Areas of disagreement and implications in terms of three broad scenarios associated with the WSSP, the dRSS and the eWCS were set out. On the face of it, the Council’s projections suggest that a 5-year housing supply is available for all scenarios except the dRSS requirement for North Wiltshire. The appellant’s projections, however, suggest that a 5-year supply is not present for any of the remaining scenarios, except that of the dRSS requirement for the Rest of North Wiltshire, (RoNW), and even then they consider this insufficient when assessed against the Framework requirements for a buffer.

17. The Framework has changed the way housing supply can be looked at in terms of what allowances can be made, the inclusion of sites and the introduction of a 5 or 20 percent buffer, depending on past performance. There also remain fundamental differences between the main parties with regard to included sites, the preferred area of assessment and the preferred housing demand figures. I will address each in turn.

Sites

18. The Council case relied on data from its Annual Monitoring Report (AMR) but presented updated figures which included changes they identified in the Framework, notably in paragraphs 47 and 48. This included permitted sites, previously discounted in absence of evidence in the AMR, and windfalls. The agreed methodology separates the housing supply into eight components. Although the HSSoCG presents the data across a number of different areas, as an example, if Wiltshire is considered as whole then the parties differences with these components are as follows: small sites, 68 dwellings; large permitted sites, 134 dwellings; sites subject to S106, 193 dwellings; outstanding local plan sites, 69 dwellings; Vision Sites, 150 dwellings; strategic sites, 2047 dwellings; previously discounted permitted sites, 704 dwellings and windfalls, 678 dwellings.

19. Thus the appellant suggests a difference between the Council’s housing supply and their own of some 4,045 dwellings, made up in part by site specific

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 3 WC Housing Land Supply Evidence Appendix 5 Appeal Decision APP/Y3940/A/11/2165449

differences and in part by a disagreement over which elements should be included. Some 80% of the difference relates to the strategic sites, the Vision Sites, windfalls and previously discounted sites.

20. The Council refer to paragraph 47 of the Framework and its footnote regarding the inclusion of strategic sites, specifically allocations in the eWCS. This paragraph seeks to significantly boost the supply of housing and requires that local planning authorities should ‘use their evidence base to ensure that their Local Plan meets the full, objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing in the housing market area”. It specifically includes “key sites critical to the delivery of the strategy over the plan period”.

21. The footnote sets out a definition for specific, deliverable sites: that they should be available now, offer a suitable location for development now, and be achievable with a realistic prospect of delivery within five years. While on the face of it the requirement for sites to be available now would appear to preclude sites without permission, the definition continues by addressing permitted sites directly. In order for strategic plans to be put in place to address the housing supply, I consider that allocated sites can be included, including those within emerging plans, subject to the weight that can be given to that plan and its evidence base and the submission of information indicating a reasonable likelihood of them progressing within the five year period.

22. I accept that where there are outstanding objections to sites, such matters need to be addressed and resolved, however, it is not for me to prejudge the outcome of the eWCS examination. I must decide on what weight I can give to the Council’s assertion that these allocations should be included. In doing this it is necessary to separate the weight that can be given to the emerging plan from that associated with the evidence base associated with that plan. While I have been given examples from East Northampton2 and from Preston3 where draft allocations have not been included, the relevant weight must be ascribed based on the specific stage of preparation of the evidence base and the evidence supporting deliverability.

23. In this case I consider that exclusion of all the draft allocations is not appropriate. The Council have identified the sites following public consultation and they report that they have been subject to a Sustainability Appraisal. The sites are included within the AMR. While I note the appellant’s concern over the recent appeal decision in Malmsbury4 the Inspector in that case also accepted the principle of including strategic sites. The Council relied on this decision to support their position that the sites were available and deliverable. The appellant referred me to a slightly earlier decision by the same Inspector5 which discounted draft Local Plan sites, however, it strikes me that this differs in the progress of the emerging plan and the evidence therefore available to the Inspector. The decision clearly refers to the need for consultation and representations on the emerging plan.

24. I accept that until planning permission is secured and the sites are built out, the housing supply from the sites cannot be guaranteed. Nonetheless to exclude such sites risks Councils having to plan to meet housing supply in a dynamic market on the basis of only sites with planning permission or from relatively old plans. This would risk devaluing the process of strategic planning. While full weight cannot be

2 APP/G2815/A/09/2108495 3 APP/N2345/A/11/2145837 4 APP/Y3940/A/11/2159115 5 APP/Q4625/A/11/2157515 www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 4 WC Housing Land Supply Evidence Appendix 5 Appeal Decision APP/Y3940/A/11/2165449

given to the precise numbers put forward by the Council, I consider it reasonable to include these sites in absence of specific evidence that they cannot be delivered.

25. Turning to Vision Sites similar arguments apply, albeit that they are not formally proposed as allocations. They are included in the AMR and the eWCS sets out a specific policy for their delivery. The Council presented evidence that two sites, Foundary Lane and Hygrade Factory, while not currently having permission, are likely to be delivered within the five year period. While there may be some matters to be resolved on these sites, and the appellant points to part of the Foundary Lane site and the Hygrade site as being still partly occupied, this does not mean they cannot be delivered. On balance I consider that the dwellings associated with these sites can be included.

26. The Council have included windfall sites in their 5-year housing supply figures for the first time following the publication of the Framework. Paragraph 48 identifies that windfalls may be allowed for in the 5-year supply subject to compelling evidence. While initially a significant additional element was introduced to the Inquiry in response to the Framework, this has subsequently been altered. The Council have provided evidence of their methodology which I consider show that they have correctly excluded residential gardens from their assessment. The remaining figure has been accepted by the appellant in evidence as being reasonable, however, its use in meeting housing demand has not been accepted.

27. It was argued that as windfalls have not been previously relied on, to do so now would alter the strategic fit of demand and supply previously planned for, thus they should be added instead to the housing requirement. To rely on them now would, the appellant contends, reduce the allocations and impact on the delivery of affordable housing.

28. To my mind this is contrary to the Framework’s acceptance of their inclusion in the 5-year supply. The debate over whether the strategic approach would still meet the affordable housing need must be had at the eWCS Examination. I am satisfied that the Council has provided evidence that windfalls will continue to offer a reliable supply and their approach has been conservative. Consequently I consider that in this case they should be included in the assessment.

29. Turning to site specific elements, the Council have included dwellings associated with sites which have planning permission but were previously excluded from the AMR in the absence of evidence. This has been done in response to the footnote to paragraph 47 of the Framework, which says “Sites with planning permission should be considered deliverable until permission expires, unless there is clear evidence that schemes will not be implemented within five years,..”

30. In cross examination the Council accepted that Royal Arthur Park was not for market housing but for C2 use and should not be included for WSSP or dRSS calculations. While this may meet a defined need in the emerging plan going forward I am not convinced on the evidence before me that it is acceptable to include this within the housing supply calculations. Furthermore I note the inclusion of a number of dwellings associated with small sites which previously had been excluded from the AMR. While I accept that there is no specific evidence that these sites will not be delivered, their exclusion previously was in light of historic trends and an assessment of the likely delivery of such sites. Although generic in its approach, I still consider that it is reasonable to conclude that this

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 5 WC Housing Land Supply Evidence Appendix 5 Appeal Decision APP/Y3940/A/11/2165449

would represent clear evidence that a similar level of small sites will not be delivered going forward. These should be excluded from the assessment.

31. Of the remaining contested sites, Gerard Buxton Sports Ground was set out as delivering 168 dwellings but the appellant suggested that this should be excluded as the sports ground remains in use. The AMR identifies that the development is phased and this was supported in evidence from the Council, who reported recent confirmation from the developer that the relocation of the sports ground would be phased with the development and the expected development rate would be met. I am satisfied that this should remain in the assessment.

32. The former Bath and Portland Stoneworks has a long planning history but in light of a recent application to extend the 2008 permission I see no reason why this should not be included in the assessment in accordance with the Framework definition. The Custom Transformers site was suggested to have consistently not delivered, however the Council evidence confirms that construction is underway; this site should be included. In relation to the Brynards Hill site, while it is apparent that at the base date for the assessment permission only existed for 100 dwellings, the additional 26 are confirmed to be deliverable within the five years in the AMR, which identifies 150 dwellings in total. On the evidence before me it appears likely that the additional dwellings were identified in the housing trajectory and could legitimately have been included.

33. The site south east of Woodmand was reported by the appellant as unlikely to commence but was confirmed by a Council officer visit in February 2012, as being under development. Similarly, the site at Blue Hills, was confirmed as underway although only for 36 dwellings. For the sites at Quemerford House and Rudlow Manor, the appellant suggests there is no certainty on delivery, however, I have no specific evidence that the dwellings will not be delivered and therefore they should be included.

34. A small reduction was made by the appellants to the delivery of dwellings at Rylands Sports Ground, but no evidence given to support this. Finally, the Chicken Factory site was confirmed to now have outline permission and a conservative estimate of delivery put forward by the Council. I consider that these also should be included.

35. Box Wharf was acknowledged as C2 use by the Council and should be excluded. To understand the implications of these changes to the proposed figures the other matters of contention between the main parties now need to be considered.

Housing Requirements

36. The HSSoCG provides agreed housing requirement figures for the various scenarios. While the appellant prefers the dRSS figures, the Council consider that those developed as part of the evidence base for the eWCS should be preferred.

37. While the future adoption of the dRSS is considered extremely unlikely, the evidence base that underpins the housing requirements is capable of being a material consideration. The weight that can be given must, over time, erode as more recent growth projections, housing needs and community planning initiatives influence the understanding of housing requirements, however, the dRSS remains the only publicly tested figures before me.

38. The Council have outlined the stages they have gone through in preparing their eWCS. While the process of community involvement, capacity analysis,

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 6 WC Housing Land Supply Evidence Appendix 5 Appeal Decision APP/Y3940/A/11/2165449

consultation and review are acknowledged, the headline figure of 37,000 and the underpinning strategic distribution are the subject of outstanding objections, specific elements of which have been detailed in evidence. While I have nothing to suggest that the plan is unsound, I can not give significant weight to it in accordance with paragraph 216 of the Framework. Furthermore it is clear that there are likely to be delays in the Examination and therefore subsequent adoption of the Strategy.

39. This is not therefore, as the Council set out, a simple case of ‘a stark choice’ between the dRSS and the eWCS. Although I favour the dRSS figures at this stage, which furthermore provide a conservative approach to ensuring the adequate provision of housing, I must give some weight to the emerging evidence base in light of its more up to date projections and the extent of more local engagement in assessment of needs.

40. I do not consider that the Council’s case is weakened in any way by their previous reliance on the dRSS over the eWCS in earlier appeal decisions. I consider this entirely appropriate in light of the relatively early stage of the process the strategy would have been at. Furthermore while my approach on this is less supportive of the eWCS than that reached by the Inspector in the Malmsbury decision, I am not aware of the evidence that was presented at that time in relation to possible objections to the strategy.

41. The Framework has introduced a requirement that housing supply is considered in light of a buffer to ensure choice and competition in the market. The Council suggested that this should only be applied for forward planning and plan making purposes and should not apply for decisions on housing applications. They draw on the reference to the buffer only being set out under paragraph 47 and not 49. On the evidence before me I do not consider that this would provide the robust support necessary for the significant boost in housing supply sought by the Framework.

42. Consequently I must consider whether there has been a record of persistent under delivery which would indicate a need for this buffer to be 20% rather than 5%. The appellant suggested that the Council have failed to meet the requirements, when assessed against the dRSS, for at least three of the last five years. However, I support the Council in their view that this is too simplistic an approach to under delivery. The Council showed that over the period they achieved in excess of 80% of the requirement at a time when the dRSS introduced a significant step change in housing delivery. Housing delivery must, by its nature, be variable and a steady year on year delivery is unlikely to be achievable. On balance I consider that the evidence before me does not indicate a persistent level of under delivery and the 5% buffer should be applied.

Area of Assessment

43. As the strategic planning approach has changed, different areas have been identified against which to assess housing. The WSSP, acknowledging the predominance of Swindon and Chippenham, promoted a disaggregation approach, with the appeal site and Purton lying within the Rest of North Wiltshire (RoNW). This was in effect continued in the dRSS where housing requirements for the former North Wiltshire District (NWD) were addressed, and a similar remainder area excluding Chippenham and the west of Swindon, could be inferred. The eWCS redefines new Housing Market Areas, HMAs, and a tier below these of

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 7 WC Housing Land Supply Evidence Appendix 5 Appeal Decision APP/Y3940/A/11/2165449

Community Areas (CAs). Purton and the appeal site would lie within the North and West HMA, and within the Royal Wootton Bassett and Cricklade CA.

44. The previous appeal decision on this site, which referred to two other decisions in the area, supported the principle of the disaggregation approach, noting it was reasonable given the way targets were being set in the dRSS. However, the appellant pointed to later appeal decisions where the approach was not considered valid. These include Sandpit Road, Calne,6 and appeals at Brynards Hill, Royal Wootton Bassett7. These, however, all appeared to consider both the former NWD as well as the RoNW. At Brynards Hill the decisions focussed on the RoNW and the Council’s inability at that time to confirm a 5-year housing supply.

45. At Sandpit Road, the supply against both the areas was debated. In light of what was identified at that time as a serious shortfall in the NWD, only 2.7 years, the Inspector considered the scheme necessary to respond to this and support longer term delivery in the RoNW area. While this led to a High Court case8, the Council’s challenge against that decision was not upheld, but the judgement was confined to deciding only whether the Inspector’s decision was irrational and not whether it was right or wrong.

46. All these decisions were taken at a time when the eWCS was at a very early stage and significant weight was given to the dRSS. The dRSS set out its spatial strategy as follows: “To accommodate and manage growth in the most sustainable way, most new development will be provided for at Strategically Significant Cities and Towns (SSCTs). Provision for more limited development will be made at market and coastal towns and in small towns and villages where this will increase self-containment and promote stronger communities.”

47. To my mind this approach is relatively consistent across the development plan, through to the eWCS, with increased acknowledgement of the need for some growth in the rural areas which responds to and meets the needs of the local community, and an acceptance that there needs to be some measure of flexibility to assist in delivery. The Council suggest that this is what is achieved in relation to the eWCS and the HMA and CA approach.

48. Purton lies in relatively close proximity to Swindon but remains a settlement in its own right. It is a somewhat dispersed settlement and has a limited range of shops and facilities other than the school. I visited the other centres locally of Cricklade and Royal Wootton Bassett. Cricklade was more clearly a market town with a well defined centre and range of shops, while Royal Wootton Bassett was a settlement of a notably higher order in terms of size and facilities.

49. Purton’s acknowledged vulnerability as a settlement providing a dormitory function for Swindon is clear, and irrespective of which strategic approach to housing delivery is considered, it does not lend itself as a location which would meet the wider needs of the district, in the same way that Calne and Royal Wootton Bassett could.

50. Albeit the eWCS strategic approach of HMAs responds to the Framework, the weight I can give is significantly limited by the fact that it has yet to go to formal Examination. Accordingly I consider that an assessment based on the RoNW remains a material consideration of some weight.

6 APP/Y3940/A/09/2108716 7 APP/Y3940/A/09 215331/2 and APP/Y3940/A/10/2141906 8 CO/2683/2010 www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 8 WC Housing Land Supply Evidence Appendix 5 Appeal Decision APP/Y3940/A/11/2165449

Conclusions on the 5-Year Housing Supply

51. It has been necessary to carefully consider the housing requirement and supply situation in Wiltshire as a result of the changes being introduced at both national and local level. My conclusions are by necessity based on the evidence put before me and can in no way prejudge the outcome of the eWCS Examination in Public which may take place later in this year or early 2013.

52. I consider that the principal assessment should be made between the housing requirement for the RoNW and the housing supply presented by the Council, amended in response to the evidence provided at the Inquiry. This must be further considered in light of the housing demand across North Wiltshire and the emerging strategic approach for the North and West HMA. I have summarised this in the following table:

Plan / Policy Housing 5-year Housing Assessment Requirement Housing supply9 Requirement (years)*

dRSS Rest of 3,024 1,008 1522 7.5 North Wiltshire

dRSS North 10,684 3,549 3052 4.3 Wiltshire

eWCS North 15,249 5,083 6292 6.2 and West HMA

*5.25 years required to meet the 5% buffer

53. This indicates that the appellant’s proposition that even using the eWCS figures the Council cannot demonstrate a 5-year housing supply is not well founded. The Council have shown a 5-year housing supply relative to the RoNW dRSS figures and the eWCS North and West HMA, but have failed to demonstrate adequate supply for the dRSS North Wiltshire area. As set out above, I consider that the weight that can be given to the dRSS figures is somewhat lessened by the length of time since their preparation and examination, but also that the weight I can give to the emerging figures is similarly limited.

54. Nonetheless, although the exact numbers cannot be relied on, I am satisfied that the resulting figures indicate that within the context of a strategic approach focussing sites on larger settlements or a housing market area that responds to the existing settlement pattern rather than political boundaries, the Council have demonstrated a 5-year housing supply. Furthermore I do not consider that the 4.3 years, set against an expectation of 5.25 years, represent a serious shortfall in the former North Wiltshire District, such that there is an overwhelming need for development to meet this specific demand.

55. In such circumstances I consider that there is sufficient evidence to support that, for this location, a 5-year housing supply has been shown.

9 Revised in light of my finding on sites above. www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 9 WC Housing Land Supply Evidence Appendix 5 Appeal Decision APP/Y3940/A/11/2165449

Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development

56. The Framework introduced a presumption in favour of sustainable development; that proposals should be approved without delay where they accord with the development plan or where the plan is considered out of date. Two propositions were put forward by the appellant, firstly, that in absence of a 5-year housing supply the housing strategy policies of the development plan were out of date, and secondly, that the settlement framework boundary that informed Policy H4 of the Local Plan was out of date.

57. My findings on the 5-year supply set aside the first proposition, and two tests need to be passed for the second; whether the site is sustainable and whether the plan policy is out of date. The Council agreed that the original boundaries were set some 15 to 20 years ago, however, despite the appellant’s suggestion that their use was for meeting a housing demand that has been significantly increased since, I consider this too simplistic. The boundaries define settlements, not just to allow for their expansion, but to ensure their containment and protection of the surrounding countryside, an element that remains strongly supported in the Framework and a key element in the assessment of wider sustainability issues.

58. My reading of the previous appeal decision on this site suggests that the boundaries were considered in both the preparation and Examination of the Local Plan in 2006, and while they do not appear to have been assessed against the significant increase in supply sought by the dRSS, they have been against the large increase currently promoted in the eWCS. This process has not led to a redrawing of the boundaries, consequently I do not consider that Policy H4, which they inform, is out of date or fails to conform with the Framework.

59. Sustainability needs to be considered on a spectrum, informed by the accessibility of a site, its relationship to the environment and infrastructure and its delivery against a wider spatial vision. I am satisfied that the site represents opportunities for future residents to access the services and facilities within Purton, albeit the nature of the settlement means that they are some distance away. I also accept that the proposal would strengthen the public transport options. However, its relationship to Swindon and the relative lack of employment provision in Purton would be likely to lead to an increased reliance on the car.

60. On balance I consider that this is a reasonably sustainable site, but one which does not accord with the existing and emerging housing strategy. Despite mitigation to address ecological impacts, it would nonetheless extend the built-up area into the countryside that forms a setting for the settlement. Overall I do not consider that the presumption, as set out in the Framework, applies to this site.

Other material considerations

61. The appellant identifies that there is an unmet need in Purton for affordable housing and that such a need can only be met by larger scale housing schemes that trigger an affordable component. This is accepted in principle by the Council although the Parish Council points out that other development in the parish is bringing forward affordable housing.

62. Notwithstanding this I consider that the provision of 15 affordable houses as part of this scheme represents weight in favour of the proposal.

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 10 WC Housing Land Supply Evidence Appendix 5 Appeal Decision APP/Y3940/A/11/2165449

63. The proposal would contribute to economic growth and the appellant confirmed interest from housing developers which suggests the site would be developed. I also consider that this weighs in favour of the proposal.

64. The proposal also offered an element of highway and footpath improvement and contributions to address Council concerns over infrastructure impacts. The local road improvements would have a limited benefit to the community although the infrastructure contributions, which I consider below, only meet or address perceived direct impacts and should therefore be considered as neutral.

Conclusion on the First Main Issue

65. I have found that the Local Plan presumption against development outside of settlement framework boundaries remains a relevant policy consideration. The proposal conflicts directly with this policy. The Council has demonstrated a 5-year housing supply relative to this location and no support is found for this development in the spatial strategies, either existing or emerging. While I note the benefit that will arise from the scheme in terms of affordable housing I do not consider that this outweighs the policy presumption. The proposal therefore fails to comply with Policy H4 of the Local Plan.

Prematurity

66. The Council consider that the proposed development would not conform with the emerging settlement strategy, and in particular the strategic approach to development within the Royal Wootton Bassett and Cricklade CA. In this, Purton is identified as a Large Village. Core Policy 1 and 2 of the eWCS sets out this strategy, stating that development at Large Villages will be limited to that needed to help meet the housing needs of settlements and to improve employment opportunities, services and facilities. Core Policy 2 considers that proposals outside of the identified limits of development will only be permitted where it has been identified through community-led planning policy documents.

67. This position was reinforced by the Parish Council, the local Unitary Councillor and the representative of Ps and Qs, a local community group, who reflected on the positive work underway on both Parish and neighbourhood planning within Purton. It was identified that the CA Neighbourhood Plan is part of the Front Runners pilot. In this context a need for only 115 additional houses was identified for the CA; as such the proposal was considered to represent a significant proportion of that being brought forward, and was against the wishes of the community and prior to a community led consensus on appropriate locations for development.

68. The Framework does not address prematurity, but a prior national guidance document, The Planning System: General Principles, 2005, does and remains in force. The position this sets out is that prematurity in terms of an emerging development plan document (DPD) may be justified, but only where the proposed development is so substantial, or its cumulative effect would be so significant that granting permission could prejudge the DPD.

69. In terms of the scale of the development, fifty houses would not be a significant additional number in relation to the size of Purton, nor would it be significant when considering the housing requirement or current supply proposed for the wider area, either the RoNW or the North and West HMA. The CA definition and housing requirements are part of the eWCS and I have already noted that this awaits Examination and the weight that can be given to it is limited. In particular a flexible delivery against a minimum housing demand figure suggests that a www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 11 WC Housing Land Supply Evidence Appendix 5 Appeal Decision APP/Y3940/A/11/2165449

direct comparison of the 50 houses against the 115 identified is not a valid comparison at present.

70. I acknowledge the work being carried out in the community to further the Neighbourhood Plan, and the production of the Joint Strategic Assessment for the CA and the initiative of the Parish Council in carrying out surveys, strongly support this. At this time, however, there is no Neighbourhood Plan in place and any that comes through must be in general conformity with the strategic polices in the development plan. While I have considered the impact of the scheme in relation to emerging strategies in the overall balance, at present I do not consider that the proposal could be considered as premature in planning terms.

Other Matters

71. I note there are very real concerns expressed by local residents and interested parties with regard to traffic impacts and flood risk. In terms of traffic, the proposal has been discussed extensively with the local Highway Authority. A traffic assessment using nationally recognised approaches with agreed comparative data was prepared which was specific to the size of the proposal. The scheme is not criticised by the authority or by the Council on this matter.

72. Three issues appear to be of concern: firstly, the access onto Station Road; secondly, traffic though the village, particularly at a pinch point near the Angel Inn and near the parish church to the south east; and thirdly, impacts on the wider area from this and other larger development taking place on the outskirts of Swindon. I drove around the area and can envisage some traffic delays associated with the narrowing of the High Street in the centre of the village, and I noted the poor alignment past the church, albeit this is leading into the country lanes surrounding the area.

73. Current road closures may well have effected my appreciation of the traffic associated with the Swindon development, however, I can understand that while there are more obvious routes for connecting to the major road network, when congested these may be bypassed utilising the minor routes, through Cross Lanes junction, for example, and indeed through Purton. Nonetheless I do not consider that the traffic associated with this scheme can be considered to significantly impact on the wider network. It will add only marginally to existing delays in the centre of Purton, but not to a significant extent sufficient to justify refusal on this matter alone. Regarding the access out onto Station Road, I noted there are a number of other entrances, but the access has been designed with both a suitable form and visibility. I can see no reason to consider that its use would compromise, or increase the risk associated with the use of the other entrances close to the site or indeed present along the road.

74. Turning to flood risk the site is not identified as lying within an area at risk of fluvial flooding. The site is crossed by a small watercourse and some highway drains. At times of significant rainfall, and in light of the underlying geology, I understand that there would be some pooling of water on the site; it is relatively flat and slightly lower than surrounding areas. The development, however, has been accompanied by a flood risk assessment and a surface water management proposal that would use water storage on site in retention ponds and controlled discharge to the watercourse. The discharge would be managed to respond to the equivalent of a 1 in 2 year rainfall event. In effect the site would hold back more water than the run off that may be experienced currently.

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 12 WC Housing Land Supply Evidence Appendix 5 Appeal Decision APP/Y3940/A/11/2165449

75. While I completely understand that neighbouring residents who have also experienced pluvial flooding or the back up of drainage systems would be concerned, I am satisfied that with suitable conditions the proposal could effectively manage surface water drainage with no significant impact on local properties. The control of the discharge of the site should also address the pressure that may occur on downstream culverts associated with the railway and beyond.

76. Such sustainable drainage systems are increasingly common and this proposal has been assessed and accepted in principle by the Environment Agency. While I understand its long term maintenance may be a concern, the systems are for the most part passive and recent legislation properly addressed the responsible authority for longer term control.

77. One other matter was raised related to the ‘Inclosure Act’, however, this is not a matter that I consider can be addressed though the planning process.

Infrastructure

78. The Council sought contribution for education, libraries, public art, waste collection, cemeteries, transport and public open space. These were based on their Local Plan Policy, forecast impacts and guidance notes or emerging documents.

79. I note that the appellant, although setting out all the requested contributions in a Unilateral Undertaking, challenged a number with respect to the policy basis for their inclusion and their necessity, and the Council itself had concerns over the introduction of a viability assessment clause. Furthermore, the undertaking sought to restrict its terms such that they would only come into effect if they were accepted as necessary in this decision. However, if an appellant submits an executed obligation then it has legal effect, it does not cease to have legal effect simply by including a clause to that effect in the Deed.

80. Such contributions need to be assessed against the statutory tests of Regulation 122 of The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations, 2010. In this case, however, in light of my conclusions on the first main issue, it is not necessary to apply these tests as the Regulation only applies where a relevant determination is made which results in planning permission being granted.

Conclusion

81. This proposal would conflict with the extant Local Plan as it would represent development outside of an identified settlement framework boundary. I have found the development plan to be in accordance with the Framework and that the Council in this case has demonstrated a 5-year housing supply for this location. I do not consider that the weight afforded to the benefits of the scheme particularly in terms of affordable housing, nor my overall conclusions on prematurity and the other matters, serve to outweigh this conflict.

82. For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Mike Robins

INSPECTOR

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 13 WC Housing Land Supply Evidence Appendix 5 Appeal Decision APP/Y3940/A/11/2165449

APPEARANCES

FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY:

Mr Richard Benwell, of Counsel Instructed by I Gibbons, Solicitor to Wiltshire Council He called:

Mrs T Smith BSc(Hons) Wiltshire Planning Officer MRTPI Mr N Tiley BSc(Hons) Wiltshire, Monitoring and Evidence

Mr Glass, Mr Moore, Mrs Morgan, Mr Ibbetson, Mr Litherland assisted in the discussion about the S106 contributions.

FOR THE APPELLANT:

Mr David Manley QC Instructed by Mr S Harris, Emery Planning Partnership He called:

Mr M Packer BSc(Hons) Consultant – PFA Consulting CEng MICE

Mr S Harris BSc(Hons) Associate Director – Emery Planning Partnership MRTPI

INTERESTED PERSONS:

Councillor Jacqui Lay Wiltshire Unitary Councillor

Mike Bell Chair of Purton Parish Council

Dr Richard Pagett Chair – Ps and Qs

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 14 WC Housing Land Supply Evidence Appendix 5 Appeal Decision APP/Y3940/A/11/2165449

DOCUMENTS

1 Council’s Notification Letter – dated 29 December 2011 2 Council’s Notification Letter – dated 29 December 2011 3 Statement of Common Ground – Housing Supply 4 E-mail correspondence – N Tiley to Wigan 5 E-mail correspondence – Cllr Lay to T Smith 6 Extract Proof of Evidence – Salford APP/U4230/A/2162115/2103 7 Council Opening Statement 8 Statement - Councillor Lay 9 Statement – Mike Bell – Purton Parish council 10 Joint Strategic Assessment – Royal Wootton Bassett and Cricklade 11 Cross reference for sites evidence 12 Copy of press statement – wind farm policy, 21 August 2012 13 Extract – South Wiltshire CS report 14 Statement of Common Ground 15 Signed and Dated Unilateral Undertaking 16 Statement - Dr Pagett – Ps and Qs 17 Conditions 18 Justification for Section 106 obligations 19 Comment on Unilateral Undertaking – Wiltshire Council 20 Closing Submission – Wiltshire Council 21 Closing Submission – Appellant

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 15 WC Housing Land Supply Evidence Appendix 5

Wiltshire Council Housing Land Supply Appendix 9

WC Housing Land Supply Proof of Evidence

Appeal Decision Inquiry sessions held on 8 and 9 July 2015. Closed in writing on 23 July 2015. Site visit made on 9 July 2015 by Robert Mellor BSc DipTRP DipDesBEnv DMS MRTPI MRICS an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Decision date: 15 September 2015

Appeal Ref: APP/M1710/W/15/3004843 Land north of 102 Downhouse Road, Catherington, Hampshire PO8 0TY  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 Southcott Homes Ltd against the decision of East Hampshire District Council.  The application Ref 25288/001, dated 26 June 2014, was refused by notice dated 29 January 2015.  The development proposed is a residential development of 26 dwellings including open market and affordable dwellings, landscaping and public open spaces, access, and associated engineering works.

This decision is issued in accordance with Section 56(2) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (as amended) and supersedes the decision issued on 11 August 2015 Decision

1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matters

2. The application described the site as ‘Land at 102-120 Downhouse Road, Catherington, Hampshire’. However it does not include any part of the curtilages of the existing dwellings at Nos 102 and 120. The Council therefore used the revised site description ‘Land north of 102 Downhouse Road, Catherington, Waterlooville (Horndean Parish)’. The appeal form gives a grid reference of Easting 469461 and Northing 115949. Application for costs

3. At the Inquiry an application for costs was made by Southcott Homes Ltd against East Hampshire District Council. This application is the subject of a separate Decision. Policy Context

4. The appeal is required to be determined in accordance with the provisions of the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The development plan here includes the East Hampshire Local Plan Joint Core Strategy 2014 (the JCS) and the saved policies of the East Hampshire Local Plan Second Review 2006 (the LP).

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Appeal Decision APP/M1710/W/15/3004843

5. The Council has recently submitted for examination a Housing and Employment Allocations document which is not yet part of the development plan. The housing sites proposed in that document do not include the appeal site and no changes are proposed to the Settlement Policy Boundary in this vicinity. However those matters are the subject of objections. The allocations and boundaries may change before the document is adopted as part of the development plan. The document therefore merits only limited weight.

6. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and the supporting national Planning Practice Guidance (the NPPG) are important material considerations. Main Issues

7. Having regard to the development plan and to other material considerations the main issues are considered to be:

(a) Would the proposal accord with the provisions of the development plan in respect of the protection of the countryside?

(b) Would the proposal accord with the provisions of the development plan in respect of the separation of settlements?

• Is there a 5 year supply of housing as defined in national policy (paragraph 47 of the National Planning Policy Framework)?

• If there is not a 5 year supply, and if the policies for housing supply are consequently out of date, would this be a sustainable development, or would any adverse impacts of the development significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework as a whole (Paragraphs 14 and 49 of the Framework)?

(d) Would the proposed development make adequate provision for supporting infrastructure and for affordable housing? Reasons

(a) Protection of the Countryside

8. What were originally the small separate villages of Horndean, Catherington and Clanfield have been expanded as the result of considerable, mainly residential, development in the 20th century. Expansion has continued in the 21st century. The area around the appeal site has a semi-rural landscape character in that smaller or larger blocks and groups of suburban residential development are interspersed with areas of open farmland or other open space and are surrounded by more open rural farmland.

9. To manage built development, Settlement Policy Boundaries are defined on the Policies Map. The Clanfield Inset to the LP Policies Map covers the relevant area. The map key does not identify the relevant policy but the parties do not dispute that the current boundaries were those defined for the purposes of saved LP Policy H14. Development outside those boundaries is by definition in the countryside.

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 2 Appeal Decision APP/M1710/W/15/3004843

10. The appeal site is in Catherington which is part of Horndean Parish. The Settlement Policy Boundary in the Catherington area comprises several separate groups of buildings. Clanfield is a separate parish but there are places where built development in the 2 parishes adjoins other built development across the parish boundary. Indeed the main settlement policy boundary for Clanfield incorporates substantial areas of housing that are within Horndean parish and the shops at the functional centre of the settlement are on the parish boundary.

11. In the vicinity of the appeal site the parish boundary with Clanfield lies along Drift Road - a little to the north of the appeal site and beyond the nearest group of Catherington dwellings. The Settlement Policy Boundary defining the latter group closely adjoins the main Settlement Policy Boundary for Clanfield which runs along the opposite side of Drift Road.

12. The appeal site adjoins Settlement Policy Boundaries both to the north and south but is itself in the countryside, as is the adjoining land to the east and west. The countryside to the west across Downhouse Road is within the South Downs National Park.

13. As a strategic document the JCS did not review or amend the Settlement Policy Boundaries. However JCS Policy CP19 ‘Development in the Countryside’ is relevant to the boundaries as currently defined. It sets out a policy of ‘… general restraint in order to protect the countryside for its own sake. The only development allowed in the countryside will be that with a genuine and proven need for a countryside location, such as that necessary for farming, forestry, or other rural enterprises.’ The Appellant has not made any case that the development is needed for farming, forestry or for any other rural enterprise or activity.

14. It is concluded that there is therefore a literal conflict with JCS Policy CP19 and with the similar LP Policy H14. Whether there is also a conflict with the underlying objectives of Policy CP19 is less straightforward.

15. The policy objective to: ‘protect the countryside for its own sake’ needs qualification. According to dictionary definitions the phrase ‘for its own sake’ may simply mean that an activity is interesting or enjoyable and does not necessarily serve any greater purpose. However in this case the reasoned justification at JCS paragraph 7.6 explains that: ‘Inappropriate types and scales of development will not be permitted in order to maintain the landscape character and quality of the countryside.’ That would seem to be the true objective and it is a matter of public interest. It would be consistent with a core planning principle at paragraph 17 of the Framework which includes to recognise: ‘the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside’.

16. The District Council has not claimed any specific harm to landscape character or quality or provided any evidence to that effect. Although this was described as a key issue in the officer report, no harm to the landscape character of the countryside was identified there. The Statement of Common Ground between the District Council and the Appellant stated at 3.2 that: ‘The scheme is capable of being readily assimilated into the environment within which it is proposed without causing material harm to the prevailing character and appearance of the surrounding area.’

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 3 Appeal Decision APP/M1710/W/15/3004843

17. In relation to the adjoining South Downs National Park there was a comment in the officer report that the suburban character of the development would dilute the rural setting of the National Park, contrary to criterion (b) of JCS Policy CP29. However that was not given as a reason for refusal and no further evidence has been submitted to substantiate that comment at the appeal stage. Rather it was concluded in the officer report that there would be no harm to views from the National Park, mainly on the grounds that the development would occupy a modest gap between existing buildings and would be seen in that context.

18. The Appellant submitted a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment which concluded that the site has low landscape sensitivity, medium visual sensitivity, low landscape value, and medium high landscape capacity for development on the basis that development would not be intrusive in the wider landscape. Those conclusions have not been contested by the District Council. For the appeal the Appellant has provided a further written statement of landscape and visual evidence. That statement refutes any harm to landscape character, visual amenity, or the setting of the National Park.

19. The appeal site is an undeveloped field that is partially surrounded by a mature hedge which contains some trees. As an open field within a frontage of ribbon housing development it makes a modest contribution to the rural element of the area’s semi-rural character. The site was included in the Council’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment 2013 with potential for 37 dwellings. It is described there as a gap within ribbon development along Downhouse Road. It continues ‘The impact of housing on this site would not be unduly obtrusive and if undertaken behind the existing hedgerow would be largely screened in views from the road’.

20. In the appeal scheme a hedge along the frontage is proposed to be retained except where a new access is formed. Existing gaps in the hedge would be filled. Some scrub and trees in the south west corner would be removed but a line of trees along the southern boundary would be retained. To make efficient use of a greenfield site the development would be in depth and at a higher density than the existing housing to the north and south which features the long gardens that are typical of mid 20th century ribbon development.

21. Whilst some landscape features would therefore be retained the development would replace the open field with built development. There would be an inevitable change in landscape character within the site from an open field that contributes to the open semi-rural character of the surrounding area to a built- up and suburban character. However the effect on the character and visual amenity of the wider area would be substantially mitigated in that: the area is already a mix of rural and suburban characteristics; the development would directly adjoin existing suburban development on 2 sides with a relatively short frontage within a long strip of frontage development; and the retained landscape features would further moderate the visual impact and perceived landscape change, particularly as seen from the west within the National Park.

22. Whilst the harm to the countryside would thus be mitigated to a degree, it is concluded that there would nevertheless be some residual harm to the objectives of Policy CP23 to support the literal conflict with the policy wording. There would also be slight harm to the setting of the National Park although that would not on its own warrant dismissal. Whether or not that harm would

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 4 Appeal Decision APP/M1710/W/15/3004843

be more or less than for any other proposed housing allocation in the emerging allocations document is not for me to determine.

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 5 Appeal Decision APP/M1710/W/15/3004843

(b) Separation of Settlements

23. The appeal site and the land to the east are within a Local Gap as defined on the Policies Map and referred to in JCS Policy CP23. The Local Gaps are longstanding policies that were only partially reviewed for the JCS, which added one new gap. Policy CP23 is not a policy for the protection of countryside landscape or character but it seeks to keep gaps undeveloped so as to prevent coalescence and to retain the separate identity of settlements. It nevertheless would allow some development in the gaps if it would meet stated criteria that in summary: (a) it would not undermine physical or visual separation; or (b) compromise the integrity of the gap (whether individually or cumulatively); and (c) could not be located elsewhere.

24. The officer’s report concluded that the overall integrity of the gap would not be compromised and that there would not be coalescence of distinct settlements. Site specific factors were said to limit the extent that the development would undermine visual separation. Whether the development could be located elsewhere was not directly addressed by the report. The report nevertheless concluded that the proposal was not in conflict with CP23 and that was therefore not a reason for refusal. However Horndean Parish Council considers that the proposal fails all 3 criteria of Policy CP23 and that the gap should be retained.

25. The settlements of Catherington, Clanfield and Horndean already adjoin each other in parts and thus do not have completely separate physical identities. The defined Local Gaps generally serve to separate blocks of built development both within and between these settlements and prevent the coalescence of these blocks into a single urban area. When seeking areas for a large expansion the parish councils report a local preference for development on the outer eastern edge of Horndean rather than within these gaps.

26. The appeal site may be distinguished from other parts of the Local Gap by its relatively small size as a proportion of that area and by its location in a narrow gap between two ribbons of housing which are both parts of Catherington, albeit that the northern group abuts Clanfield. Development within the gap would join two separate groups of Catherington dwellings, one of which is already joined to Clanfield.

27. I therefore agree with the District Council that development would cause only limited harm in terms of physical and visual separation (which would nevertheless literally conflict with Policy CP23) and that it would not compromise the integrity of the gap. Whether the development could or could not be ‘located elsewhere’ as required by CP23(c) is related to wider housing supply considerations. (c) Housing Supply

28. It is not disputed that Policy CP19 is a relevant policy for the supply of housing. It is a material consideration that Paragraph 49 of the Framework provides that: ‘Relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up to date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites.’ In that context paragraph 14 of the Framework provides amongst other things that where relevant policies are out of date planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 6 Appeal Decision APP/M1710/W/15/3004843

would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the Framework policies as a whole.

29. JCS Policy CP1 also makes similar provision to paragraph 14 of the Framework when relevant policies are out of date. However the JCS does not seek to define what would make a policy out of date.

30. The Appellant considers that the Settlement Policy Boundaries are out of date and should be set aside on the basis either that:

(i) they were defined using an evidence base which is now out of date in respect of the identified need for housing, and the Local Plan is incomplete because the boundaries have not yet been reviewed to accommodate housing to meet that increased need; or

(ii) the Council currently lacks the 5 year supply of suitable and deliverable sites that is required by paragraph 47 of the Framework to address housing needs and which should include a 20% buffer (brought forward from later in the Plan period) in circumstances where there has been persistent under-delivery of housing as the Appellant claims.

The Council disputes both that it lacks a 5 year supply and also whether there has been persistent under-delivery in the past. If there has not been persistent under-delivery the necessary buffer required by the Framework would be reduced from 20% to 5%. Argument (i) and Policy CP1

31. In relation to argument (i) above and Policy CP1, the current Settlement Policy Boundaries were first defined at a time when the housing requirement for East Hampshire was set by the Hampshire Structure Plan. With the adoption of the South East Plan in 2009 the annual housing requirement was reduced with effect from 2006 onwards. However, with the identification of objectively assessed housing needs in 2013 (by means of a Strategic Housing Market Assessment – SHMA) and the subsequent adoption in 2014 of the JCS, the annual housing requirement for the period from 2011 onwards has since been more than doubled when compared to the South East Plan requirement.

32. It is not disputed between the parties that the total JCS requirement for housing is now incapable of being met within the existing Settlement Policy Boundaries as defined in the 2006 LP. However the JCS itself provides that the separate Housing and Employment Allocations document and Neighbourhood Plans will identify sufficient sites, and that where these are outside existing Settlement Policy Boundaries then those boundaries will be amended to accommodate the additional housing. The JCS also provides for the preparation of a separate Development Management document which will further review the Settlement Policy Boundaries and the Local Gap policies. In the meantime, and pending the examination and adoption of the Site Allocations Plan and Neighbourhood Plans, the Council has been seeking to create a sufficient 5 year supply of housing sites by allowing some development outside existing Settlement Policy Boundaries, including through the temporary use of an Interim Housing Policy Statement (IHPS - now withdrawn).

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 7 Appeal Decision APP/M1710/W/15/3004843

Lovedean Lane Appeal

33. The Appellant refers to the appeal decision concerning Lovedean Lane, which is in the same parish as the present appeal site1. In that case in November 2014 planning permission had been refused for a housing development on residential amenity grounds. At that time the Council acknowledged that it lacked a 5- year housing supply and the IHPS was in operation. Consequently it did not also refuse planning permission on the basis that the development was outside the Settlement Policy Boundary.

34. The Council explained that proofs of evidence for that appeal had been submitted before a 5-year housing supply was established in January 2015. The Council considered that it was then too late in the process to add an additional reason for refusal in relation to the SPB or to dispute the principle of housing development at that location. Whilst the Inspector was presented with up to date information on housing supply at the Inquiry in February 2015, this was not dealt with as a main issue. The Inspector explicitly did not determine whether a 5 year housing supply existed. Neither did she comment on whether any development plan policies were out of date. She dismissed the appeal but on residential amenity grounds only. However she did comment that the agreement between the Council and the Appellant that this was a ‘sustainable location’ for development weighed against the conflict with Policy CP19.

35. In the Statement of Common Ground for the current appeal the Appellant and the Council similarly agreed that this would be a ‘sustainable location’ for the development. However I consider that this falls short of a conclusion that this is overall a ‘sustainable development’ as defined in the Framework or as translated into JCS Policy CP1. That has a wider meaning than location since it requires consideration of all relevant provisions of the Framework or the development plan. These would include matters such as consideration of the character of the countryside. In the present appeal the agreement in relation to a sustainable location is one material consideration. But that is not the test set by the development plan or the Framework and it does not here outweigh the agreed conflict with Policy CP19.

Conclusions on Policy CP1

36. In the present appeal I do not consider that Policy CP19 or the other relevant JCS and LP policies are out of date for the purposes of Policy CP1 by reason of the age of the evidence base. LP Policy H14 remains a saved policy. The boundaries it defines are those to which Policy CP19 applies until such time as they are amended or replaced. The JCS was adopted as recently as 2014 when the JCS was found sound including in its approach to a Local Plan made up of separate strategy, allocations and development management documents. The Council has used the IHPS to address the interim housing supply issue. It has set the Settlement Policy Boundary aside where necessary on a case by case basis in order to create a supply of sites. To conclude in the alternative that all such boundaries are out of date would seriously undermine the plan-led system in East Hampshire and would risk severe harm to the objectives of local and national policy for the protection of the countryside which requires the prevention of uncontrolled sprawl. As the relevant policies are not out of date

1 Lovedean Lane APP/M1717/A/14/2229095 www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 8 Appeal Decision APP/M1710/W/15/3004843

the presumption in favour of development set out in Policy CP1 does not have effect. Argument (ii) and the Framework

37. Turning to argument (ii), the Framework at paragraph 49 does define relevant policies for the supply of housing as out of date where a 5 year housing supply is lacking. It is not disputed that such policies may include Settlement Policy Boundaries. The Appellant and the Council have produced a Statement of Common Ground on Housing Supply (Document 1A) which nevertheless includes significant areas of disagreement as follows:

 Whether an acknowledged backlog in housing supply since the start of the Local Plan period in 2011 should be addressed within 5 years (Sedgefield Method) or spread over the remaining Plan period (Liverpool Method).

 Whether there has been persistent under-delivery in the past such that a 20% buffer should be applied rather than a 5% buffer.

 Whether the housing requirement and housing supply set out in the Joint Core Strategy prepared by the Council and the South Downs National Park Authority should be disaggregated between the two areas.

 Whether the estimated supply contribution from 3 of the housing sites included in the Council’s calculated housing supply is deliverable within 5 years.

Lymington Bottom Road Appeal2

38. The Appellant has drawn attention to a recent housing appeal decision issued on 29 June 2015. That site is adjacent to Medstead in the north of the same District and similar matters were disputed. In that case the Inspector concluded that there was not a 5 year supply. This was calculated on the following basis:

 The Sedgefield method was applied because it is the Government’s preference as expressed in the NPPG.

 A 20% buffer was applied because of a record of persistent under- delivery.

 Housing requirements and supply were not disaggregated but were assessed for the whole District.

When assessed on that basis the District lacked a 5 year housing supply whether the Council’s or the Appellant’s figures for supply from 5 disputed sites were applied; the dispute concerning these sites was thus not considered further in the decision.

39. The Council’s supply calculation has been updated since the Inquiry for the above appeal and it now includes the 75 dwellings that were allowed then. However the Council is still considering whether to challenge that decision, especially in relation to the reasoning concerning persistent under-delivery and the 20% buffer.

2 Lymington Bottom Road, Medstead Ref APP/M1710/A/14/2225723 www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 9 Appeal Decision APP/M1710/W/15/3004843

Liverpool vs Sedgefield

40. The Council points out that the JCS Inspector used the Liverpool method when addressing a housing shortfall. The Council also argues that its ability to bring supply forward is hampered in that a significant proportion of the supply in the JCS will come from the strategic Whitehill-Bordon site, which cannot be readily advanced. Indeed part of that site is one of the disputed sites which the Appellant considers may not come forward within 5 years. The NPPG encourages the Sedgefield method wherever possible. However, whilst the Appellant points out that the NPPG was published after the JCS hearings, it was published before the JCS Inspector’s Report was issued. There was therefore an opportunity for the Inspector to consider the declared preference for the Sedgefield method.

41. I consider that it is reasonable in the present appeal to use the Liverpool method on the basis that: the Sedgefield method is not mandatory in national policy or guidance; in a plan-led system it was used by the JCS Inspector; and because there are obstacles to readily advancing available housing sites in a District where the JCS supported significant reliance on a large strategic development at Whitehill-Bordon which is also intended to meet some of the housing needs of the National Park that covers more than half the District.

42. The Inspector who considered this issue at the Sussex Road appeal3 within the National Park also considered the Liverpool method to be appropriate having regard to the proportion of supply represented by Whitehill-Bordon, albeit in the context of a disaggregated approach to supply within the National Park to which Whitehill-Bordon would also contribute.

20% vs 5%

43. National policy requires consideration of previous delivery of housing. NPPG Paragraph 3-035-20140306 advises that ‘The assessment of a local delivery record is likely to be more robust if a longer term view is taken, since this is likely to take account of the peaks and troughs of the housing market cycle’. However national policy and guidance does not otherwise specify over what period delivery should be assessed or what figures should be used for comparison purposes. The same paragraph says that the approach to identifying persistent under-delivery involves questions of judgement and that the factors behind persistent under-delivery will vary from place to place. It is therefore to be expected that decision-makers will at times reach different conclusions according to what evidence is available and how arguments are presented.

44. In this case the Council agrees with the Appellant that there has been a shortfall in housing provision against JCS requirements in the 4 years since the start of the plan period in 2011. That is notwithstanding that the JCS figures were only adopted in the Plan in 2014. The Council argues that its record of housing delivery should be assessed according to what the requirement of the adopted development plan was at the relevant time. Thus whilst the backlog in provision remains to be addressed in the future, that under-provision from 2011 was in respect of a housing requirement that had not yet been adopted. The Appellant disagrees and considers that previous under-provision against a retrospective JCS target should count as under-delivery.

3 Appeal Ref APP/Y9507/A/14/2218678 30 October 2014 www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 10 Appeal Decision APP/M1710/W/15/3004843

45. Even if the 2011-2015 period counts not just as retrospective under-provision but also as under-delivery, I do not consider that 4 years represents the ‘longer term’ advised by the NPPG, particularly given that the requirements are being applied retrospectively. Moreover the Inspector for the Lymington Bottom Road appeal did not explicitly conclude that these 4 years of under-delivery on their own demonstrated persistent delivery. However she went on to also consider the 2 previous years (2009-2011).

46. In 2009-2011 the South East Plan was still in legal force as part of the adopted development plan. It set a 260 dwellings per annum housing requirement for East Hampshire. The Appellant’s figures show that 538 dwellings were delivered in those 2 years which represents a small surplus over the SE Plan requirement (520 dwellings). Thus there was not under delivery against the requirements of the most up-to-date development plan requirement. It is true that in 2009 the Council decided to release some reserve sites in the Local Plan in order to maintain a 5 year supply for the future against the then development plan targets. But that does not mean that there was an acceptance of under-delivery at that time.

47. The Appellant points out that the SE Plan did not meet all housing needs within East Hampshire according to its own evidence base. However it did not seek to do so. Because it was a regional plan it allowed for the distribution of housing around the region. It was prepared before the national policy requirement to address housing needs more locally was introduced by the Framework in 2012. Nevertheless the Appellant considers that delivery in 2009-2011 should be assessed against a higher annual figure of 444 dwellings per annum in the period. This relates to higher assessments of need.

48. The Inspector for the Lymington Bottom Road appeal appears to have used a similar annual figure of 400 dwellings per annum for the period 2009-2011. This was based upon the 2008 population projections rather than the development plan requirement. However, as that period predated the Framework requirement to address objectively assessed housing needs locally, I do not judge that it is appropriate in this appeal to apply that requirement retrospectively when assessing the delivery of housing. Planning decisions in that period were being made legitimately according to a different development plan strategy and different national policy. That the JCS Inspector has in 2014 identified a higher minimum housing requirement does not affect my conclusions in relation to past delivery.

49. I conclude on the evidence before me that there has not been a record of persistent under-delivery and thus only a 5% buffer need to be applied.

Disaggregation

50. The Council has submitted a memo of understanding with the South Downs National Park Authority dated June 2015. This includes an agreed disaggregation of the JCS housing requirement between the authorities’ two planning jurisdictions within East Hampshire. That memo post-dated the Medstead Inquiry and would not have been before that Inspector.

51. The matter of disaggregation has also been considered at previous appeals when some Inspectors have supported that approach. However those appeals typically related to proposed developments within the National Park whereas the present appeal concerns land outside the National Park.

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 11 Appeal Decision APP/M1710/W/15/3004843

52. The SDNPA is intending to replace the JCS within the National Park with its own Local Plan and to make separate provision for site allocations. Disaggregation will be necessary for that exercise. However that Plan is at an early stage and attracts little weight.

53. In the meantime it seems to me that the statutory purposes to conserve the natural beauty, wildlife and heritage of the Park, coupled with the duty to foster the economic and social well-being of local communities, together provide for a greater constraint on housing development within the SDNPA than in the remainder of the District. Indeed the JCS already provides that some of the housing needs of the National Park will be met outside the Park Boundary as part of the strategic Whitehill-Bordon development.

54. It follows that when shortfalls in housing provision arise they would more appropriately be addressed by increasing supply outside the SDNPA rather than within it. Disaggregation may be justified when assessing the capacity of the SDNPA to absorb additional development. However until such time as there are separate development plans it is more difficult to justify when considering development proposals outside the Park. I therefore agree with the Inspector for the Lymington Bottom Road appeal that housing supply should be considered on a District-wide basis, at least for appeals outside the Park area.

Disputed sites

55. At the Inquiry the disagreement between the Council and the Appellant as to the future delivery of sites in the 5 year Housing Land Supply narrowed to 3 sites. These are listed in the amended Statement of Common Ground on Housing Land Supply. However whilst that includes a table of the respective supply figures for each of those 3 sites, the tables of figures for claimed overall housing supply in that document are based on previous disputed figures for a larger number of sites. Thus there are not precise figures from either party on the current supply situation.

56. The supply evidence has changed since the Lymington Bottom Road appeal in April and again since the written proofs for this appeal were submitted. Further disputed evidence about site specific matters was introduced during the Inquiry. This demonstrates the fluctuating position and the difficulty of coming to a reliable estimate on the disputed sites based on only cursory evidence from both sides at a short 2-day Inquiry. However I do not consider that it is necessary to reach any conclusions on these site-specific matters since they would not materially affect the outcome, having regard to my conclusions on the other disputed housing supply matters.

Conclusions on Housing Supply

57. The Appellant’s witness accepted that there would be a 5 year housing supply if it were calculated on the basis of a 5% buffer, the Liverpool method and the disaggregation of requirements and supply between the 2 planning authorities.

58. For the above reasons I support the Liverpool method and a 5% buffer. Whilst I agree with the Appellant that there should not be disaggregation for the purposes of this calculation at this site, that has much less effect on the overall supply when compared to the other factors. Thus whilst the supply position may be more marginal than the Council claims, I conclude on the balance of probabilities that the Council has demonstrated at least a 5 year housing

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 12 Appeal Decision APP/M1710/W/15/3004843

supply. That this is against only a minimum housing requirement in the JCS does not alter that conclusion.

59. On the balance of probabilities I consider that there is a 5 year housing supply. Policy CP19 is thus not out of date and there is no presumption in favour of the development.

60. Since the application was refused, the Council, the Appellant and the landowners have completed a Section 106 Planning Obligation Agreement which seeks to resolve those reasons for refusal which related to the provision of affordable housing and infrastructure. These matters are therefore no longer disputed between the main parties. However consideration is necessary as to whether the completed agreement is in accordance with the provisions of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (as amended). In particular whether the completed agreement accords with the provisions for pooled contributions.

61. The Council has submitted a CIL compliance statement which claims compliance with the Regulations and particularly with Regulations 122 and 123. The Appellant has expressed doubts as to whether there is sufficient information. However, as the appeal is being dismissed for other reasons I have concluded that it is unnecessary to seek additional information or to address the matter further. Other Matters

62. Account has been taken of all other matters raised in representations. In particular a number of interested persons have expressed concern about the safety of the access arrangements. Access would be onto a curving busy road with a 40mph speed limit which some vehicles may currently exceed. However the highway authority is satisfied that the access would be adequately safe on the basis that the speed limit would be reduced to 30mph with the addition of a gateway feature as a traffic calming element. That could be secured by a Grampian style negative condition to prevent the development from going ahead unless those measures are secured. The lower speed limit would mean that adequately safe visibility splays could be provided at the access without removing significant amounts of the frontage hedge.

63. The appeal site would be closely overlooked from No 120 Downhouse Road which is a bungalow with several south facing windows that benefit from an open outlook across the appeal site. However there is no planning requirement to maintain unchanged a view from private property. Whilst outlook from some windows would be restricted by the nearest dwelling these are not main windows to habitable rooms. Also the new Plot 1 dwelling would be set on lower ground which would reduce its apparent height. The boundary treatment between the two properties could be reserved by condition were the development otherwise acceptable. It is therefore concluded that living conditions at that property would not be significantly harmed in respect of outlook.

64. Planning conditions to control external lighting would reduce the risk of impacts on the nearby Clanfield Observatory.

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 13 Appeal Decision APP/M1710/W/15/3004843

65. Neither these nor the other matters raised (including other appeal decisions and legal cases) outweigh the conclusions on the main issues. Overall Conclusions

66. In relation to the 3 limbs of sustainable development it is acknowledged that the provision of market and affordable housing provides social benefits for the occupiers and wider economic benefits. However that does not necessarily require that the housing be provided in locations where there would be environmental harm. Whilst some of the Council’s reasons for refusal could be satisfactorily addressed by planning conditions and a Section 106 Obligation, they could not adequately mitigate the harm to the character and appearance of the countryside which would be in conflict with the development plan and specifically Policy CP19. It would thereby harm the environmental objectives of the JCS.

67. The Local Gap policy currently also remains in place and is contravened in that an adequate housing supply is available elsewhere and it has not been shown that the development could not be located outside the Local Gap as is required to satisfy that policy. The Council is already seeking to make provision by means of allocations to satisfy the minimum housing requirements for Clanfield and Horndean in the JCS. There is no maximum provision but if more sites are needed then the logic of the JCS policies is that either the additional sites should be outside the Local Gap or that the Local Gap policy and boundaries should be reviewed.

68. Because of the harm to environmental sustainability and the conflict with up- to-date policies in the plan-led system this would not be a sustainable development. The presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply whether under JCS Policy CP1 or the Framework. In specific relation to paragraph 14 of the latter, as the Council on the balance of probabilities does have a 5 year housing land supply, Policy CP19 is not out of date in the terms of the Framework and is contravened. Policy CP23 is also contravened in respect of the Local Gap. I have not identified specific conflict with JCS Policies CP1, CP2 or CP10 but conclude that there is overall conflict with the development plan which is not outweighed by the general support for housing development in the Framework.

69. There are no material considerations that here outweigh the identified conflict with the development plan.

70. The appeal should therefore be dismissed.

R P E Mellor

INSPECTOR

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 14 Appeal Decision APP/M1710/W/15/3004843

APPEARANCES

FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY:

Mr D Stedman-Jones Of Counsel He called Mr J Holmes BA Planning Witness – East Hampshire District PGCertUD MRTPI Council Mr A Harvey BA(Hons) Housing Supply Witness - East Hampshire MA MRTPI District Council –

FOR THE APPELLANT:

Mr P Cairnes Of Counsel He called Mr D Neame BSc MSc Planning Consultant – Neame Sutton Chartered MRTPI Town Planners

INTERESTED PARTY:

Ms E Tickell Horndean Parish Council

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED AT THE INQUIRY

1. Statement of Common Ground Housing Land Supply

1A Revised Statement of Common Ground Housing Land Supply

2. EHDC - Memo of Understanding between EHDC and SDNPA concerning disaggregation of housing requirement and supply

3. EHDC - Email concerning Causeway Farm and Petersfield Neighbourhood Plan

4. EHDC - Email concerning cycle and footway access to land E of Horndean Lane

5. Undated Section 106 Planning Obligation

6. Lymington Bottom Road, Medstead appeal decision Ref APP/M1710/A/14/2226723

7. Statement by Ms Tickell for Horndean PC

8. East Hampshire Local Plan Joint Core Strategy 2014

9. APP - Statement of Common Ground from Lymington Bottom Road Medstead Inquiry

10. EHDC Harvey Proof Revised Appendix N

11. APP - Note concerning Rowlands Parish Council position on housing supply in context of Land E of Horndean development

12. APP – Extract from SDNP Inspector’s report concerning non-inclusion of Catherington in SDNP.

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 15 Appeal Decision APP/M1710/W/15/3004843

13. EHDC note of definitions of settlements as opposed to parishes for purposes of housing supply

14. Signed and dated Section 106 Planning Obligation

15. Closing Statement by Mr Stedman-Jones

16. Opening statement by Mr Cairnes

17. Closing statement by Mr Cairnes

18. Written Costs Application by Mr Cairnes

19. Written response to Costs Application

20. EHDC – CIL Compliance Statement

21. EHDC - Table of developers’ contributions for South Forum area.

22. Email of 21 July 2015 with Appellant’s comment on the CIL compliance statement.

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 16

Costs Decision Inquiry held on 8-9 July 2015 Closed in writing on 23 July 2015 Site visit made on 9 July 2015 by R P E Mellor BSc DipTRP DipDesBEnv DMS MRTPI MRICS an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Decision date: 11 August 2015

Costs application in relation to Appeal Ref: APP/M1710/W/15/3004843 Land north of 102 Downhouse Road, Catherington Hampshire PO8 0TY  The application is made under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, sections 78, 320 and Schedule 6, and the Local Government Act 1972, section 250(5).  The application is made by Southcott Homes Ltd for a full or partial award of costs against East Hampshire District Council.  The inquiry was in connection with an appeal against the refusal of the Council to grant planning permission for a residential development of 26 dwellings including open market and affordable dwellings, landscaping and public open spaces, access, and associated engineering works.

Decision

1. The application for an award of costs is refused. The submissions for Southcott Homes Ltd

2. The application was made in writing with oral additions at the Inquiry and is summarised here. With reference to national Planning Practice Guidance it is claimed that the Council has failed to produce evidence to substantiate the first reason for refusal and has relied on vague, generalised or inaccurate assertions about the proposal’s impact which are unsupported by objective analysis.

3. In particular the Council has relied on manifestly out of date settlement policy boundaries and its contention that there is a 5 year housing land supply relies on untested and flawed evidence.

4. Notwithstanding the Lovedean Lane appeal decision1 it has failed to properly apply the Policy CP1 presumption in favour of sustainable development which incorporates that in the Framework and does not rely on a lack of a 5 year housing supply.

5. The Council has also persisted in an approach to the 5 year Housing Land Supply calculation that was expressly rejected by the Inspector in the Land East of Lymington Bottom Road, Medstead appeal2.

6. After Officers had initially supported the scheme the Council had arbitrarily changed its position without justification and has unreasonably prevented or delayed a development proposal which should have been permitted. The

1 APP/M1710/A/14/2229095 2 APP/M1710/A/14/2226723 www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Costs Decision APP/M1710/W/15/3004843

Appellant had been put to the significant expense of the appeal and seeks full costs. However if that is not allowed then a partial award is sought in respect of costs incurred from the date of the Lovedean Lane appeal decision. The response by East Hampshire District Council

7. The Council made a written response which is summarised here.

8. The appeal proposal is not in accordance with the development plan or the NPPF taken as a whole and the Council was entitled to refuse permission. The Council has submitted extensive documentary and other evidence to the Inquiry to substantiate that refusal. By way of comparison the Council criticises aspects of evidence submitted by the Appellant.

9. Policies CP19 and H14 are considered to be up-to-date and there is no evidence of inconsistency with the National Planning Policy Framework. The policies were drawn to define and distinguish areas of countryside and established settlements, not solely to restrict housing.

10. The Council considers that the appeal proposal is not sustainable for all the reasons canvassed at the appeal.

11. As there is a 5 year supply the development plan is up to date.

12. The Council’s argument that there would be significant harm to the plan-led system is crystal clear and not unreasonable. That harm should be accorded significant weight.

13. No Inspector or Secretary of State has considered the instant development to be acceptable. The Council disagrees with the Inspector at the Lymington Bottom Road appeal and is taking legal advice on challenging that decision. Other appeal decisions have favoured the Council’s position on the key issues of the appropriate buffer, disaggregation, and Liverpool/Sedgefield.

14. Lovedean Lane was refused on amenity grounds and the 5 year housing land supply issue was not investigated in any detail.

15. The Council had behaved reasonably throughout the appeal. The Council was cooperative at all stages and sought to narrow issues through the statements of common ground. It is understandable that the Appellant is disappointed that the 5 year supply position changed at the wrong moment for their application after the Council significantly boosted the supply of housing, including at Clanfield and Horndean.

16. The costs application is hopeless and should fail. Reasons

17. Costs may be awarded where a party has behaved unreasonably and the unreasonable behaviour has directly caused another party to incur unnecessary or wasted expense in the appeal process.

18. In this case I have concluded in my planning decision that the development policies are up-to-date and are contravened and that the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply, whether on the basis set out in Policy CP1 or in the National Planning Policy Framework.

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 2 Costs Decision APP/M1710/W/15/3004843

19. I consider that the Council did not correctly interpret either Policy CP19 or CP23. It did not produce any evidence of harm arising from the literal conflict with CP19 apart from harm to the plan-led system. Given the positive approach encouraged by national policy and JCS Policy CP1, such harm only merits significant weight where some associated harmful consequence for the public interest is demonstrated. The Council’s reason for refusal and inquiry evidence was vague in this regard. There was also a reference in the officer report to some harm to the setting of the national park but that was not reflected in the report’s conclusion or the decision.

20. In this case there was a clear conflict with the underlying objective of CP19 to protect the character of the countryside. That is to be expected when building on a greenfield site at the edge of a settlement. The Appellant recognised landscape character and appearance as an issue and commissioned landscape evidence. Nevertheless the Council signed a Statement of Common Ground to the effect that there was no harm to character or appearance.

21. In relation to Local Gap Policy CP23 the Council had not addressed a requirement of that policy to demonstrate that the development could not be located elsewhere. It was left to the parish council to point that out.

22. In the case of the Lovedean Lane appeal, the Council was justified in not seeking to add an additional reason for refusal at a late stage in the appeal process in relation to the settlement policy boundary, particularly as the IHPS appears to have still been in place. However the particular circumstances of that appeal were temporary and do not open the way to a general dismantling of the settlement boundary policies as out of date in circumstances where a 5 year supply exists and notwithstanding the general support for development in JCS Policy CP1, which is qualified.

23. As the housing land supply situation changed in January 2015, after the Lovedean Lane application was determined in November 2014 and before the subject application was determined on 29 January 2015, the Council was justified in changing its position on this issue whilst determining the application which led to the current appeal. That was unfortunate for the Appellant but does not demonstrate unreasonable behaviour.

24. In relation to Housing Land Supply, there is scope for judgement by the decision maker when assessing the factors that contribute to land supply and when assessing previous delivery, as the national Planning Practice Guidance recognises. There have been several planning appeals in East Hampshire and also the JCS Inspector’s Report that have reached differing conclusions on these matters but according to the available evidence. In the present appeal I consider that the Council’s approach was broadly correct except in relation to the disaggregation of supply (although I acknowledge that disaggregation may be appropriate in some other circumstances).

25. The Council did correctly identify that there was a conflict with the development plan and it was not unreasonable to refuse planning permission. The Council did not substantiate conflict with all the development plan policies referred to in the reason for refusal. It also omitted to include Policy CP23 where there was conflict with a relevant policy. The Appellant needed to address these matters in preparing evidence and at the Inquiry. This included the preparation of landscape evidence and work to address all the policies that had been cited. However had the reasons been better expressed and

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 3 Costs Decision APP/M1710/W/15/3004843

supported by evidence the appellant would have incurred similar expense in responding to them, indeed the Inquiry might have been extended with additional appearances by landscape witnesses. Conclusions

26. Thus whilst the Council has acted unreasonably in part, it is concluded that the refusal was not unreasonable and the appeal and Inquiry would have been necessary in any event. Had the Council presented its reasons more clearly and substantiated the harm with additional evidence, the expense for the Appellant would not have been significantly less and may have been more. No award of costs is therefore justified. R P E Mellor

INSPECTOR

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 4

Wiltshire Council Housing Land Supply Appendix 10

WC Housing Land Supply Proof of Evidence