Ernie Clark. Hilperton Division, Wiltshire Council.

Search the site

powered by FreeFind
Quick Contact
Tel: 01225 769940
Mobile: 0794 120 1995
CurrentNewsletter
Current NewsLetter
News articles from around the Division:

Monday August 14, 2017 My response to the latest consultation...

Share |
News Image
...for the Gap housing application.

Why has this application not been refused by WC?

The following has been sent to the case officer and his boss.

 

'Hi Ruaridh and Mike,

Please note that I have ‘blind copied’ this email to several people.

In response to the latest ‘request for comments’ may I make the following observations please? As a member I expect an answer from you to the points I will raise. I am happy for this email to be up-loaded onto the planning portal but understand why your reply won’t be.

Firstly, two recent planning appeal decisions have confirmed that the N&WHMA now has a land supply in excess of the required 5.25 years. The application land is not allocated in the CS and the only ‘loophole’ to permit this application would be a shortfall in the five year land supply figure – a shortfall which no longer exists. First question: This being the case, why has WC not refused this application as it is clearly contrary to CP1 and CP2? Surely the LPA is giving the applicant false hope by allowing them to continually amend their application.

Secondly, the land covered by this application is recommended for housing in the draft DPD (dDPD). However, the dDPD is suggesting only 205 houses on the whole of the area west of Elizabeth Way due to the numerous mitigation measures which will be required for noise, bats etc. This revised application is still for 170 houses and so cannot possibly meet the required mitigation measures expected in the dDPD.

Thirdly, surely it would be a corruption of the correct and proper scrutiny process for any permission to be granted before the dDpd is adopted.

Finally, the new Updated Noise Impact Assessment states that ‘noise levels across the site are predicted to be suitable for residential development, assuming appropriate mitigation is included through design.’ In other words, it is accepted that the site is too noisy for housing (which would tie-in with what existing neighbours of the road could tell you) in its current form. The mitigation would reduce capacity and is really covered by my second point above. I further note that the assessment feels that traffic levels along Elizabeth Way will not increase! Second question: What road is expected to be used by residents of the thousands of houses planned for the ‘Ashton Park’ development if it is not Elizabeth Way? Is WC intending to build a by-pass for the by-pass?'