Mobile: 0794 120 1995
HPC has 'srongly objected' to the application.
As a 'statutory consultee' the parish council has made the following comments....
'Hilperton Parish Council STRONGLY OBJECTS to this planning application. Outline reasons are given below and will be expanded upon should this application proceed to being considered by a Wiltshire Council (WC) planning committee.
Section 70(2) of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 and section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 require that the determination of planning applications must be made in accordance with the Development Plan (DP) unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this case the adopted Wiltshire Core Strategy (WCS) forms the DP for this site but a Neighbourhood Plan is currently under development.
This site is not allocated for housing in the WCS and lies outside the development boundaries of both Hilperton (which is the application parish) and Trowbridge (the neighbouring parish to the west of the application site). The proposal is therefore in conflict with the DP Core Policy 2.
This council is led to believe that WC cannot currently demonstrate the required five years+ land supply for the North & West Housing Market Area due to serious problems in the Chippenham area. The council finds this a lamentable position for the Local Planning Authority (LPA) to find itself in. We also note that the housing land supply figures are updated only annually and wonder why this is not done on a more timely basis. Assuming that the land supply is below the required figure, this council would submit that the numerous adverse impacts of this application outweigh any possible benefits and so it is still possible for the LPA to refuse the application. Furthermore, by the time this application proceeded to appeal, the new April 2016 housing figures would be available and this council calculates that a five year+ supply figure is very likely to have been achieved and thus any appeal would fail.
Whilst not an exhaustive list, the parish council wishes to draw the case officer’s attention to the following main parts of the WCS which this application falls foul of.
CP 1. Hilperton is classed as a large village and so development should be limited to that needed to help meet the housing needs of the village and to improve employment opportunities, services and facilities. This application fails to meet any of these criteria.
CP 2. This site is outside the defined limits of development and these limits may only be altered by subsequent Site Allocations Development Plan Documents (SADPD) and neighbourhood plans. No SADPD has been prepared for this area and the neighbourhood plan is still being prepared.
CP 5.150 states that ‘It is recognised that villages surrounding Trowbridge, particularly Hilperton, ... have separate and distinct identities as villages. Open countryside should be maintained to protect the character and identity of these villages as separate communities. The local communities may wish to consider this matter in more detail in any future community-led neighbourhood planning.’
The same policy states ‘there is a requirement to provide a site for a secondary school to the south east of Trowbridge ... This would help to address cross town traffic which is currently a problem...’ No such school has yet been constructed and so, if this application is permitted, it would cause yet more cross town school traffic which is not sustainable.
This application is purely speculative and relies solely on the failure of WC to secure the required land supply. It is only right therefore that the final decision should rest with the Planning Inspectorate (where this would surely go if refused) rather than being decided by a LPA whose own WCS has found to be failing less than one year after its adoption.
This council reserves the right to add to or amend any of these comments at any time and this representation should not be regarded as a comprehensive rebuttal of the application.'
In addition, the parish council has made a few comments should the case officer be minded to recommend permission. These relate to no three storey dwellings on the site, the full 30% affordable housing requirement should be constructed on site with no financial set-off for off site provision, the speed limit of Elizabeth Way should be lowered to 40mph, and that provision should be made for housing for the elderly. In addition, the PC queries the claimed status of the area as being flood risk 1 when the area is known to flood (why is it called Hilperton Marsh one wonders) and WC regards it as a far higher flood risk.