The visionforwarminster.co.uk team of councillors would like you to read this.

Dear Councillor,

  Below are our objections to the proposal by HPH Ltd to build 35 houses on the Boreham Roundabout site – we have registered our objections with Wiltshire Council already.  Where we refer to the Wiltshire Core Strategy we are using the latest version August 2013 reference EXAM/34.

Policy Context

Section 5 of the supplied Survey – Design and Access Statement deals with the various planning policies that relate to this site.  It  attempts to demonstrate that the West Wiltshire District Plan is no longer relevant and that its replacement the Wiltshire Core Strategy has so many objections that limited weight can be placed on it.  We feel that the developer is attempting to suggest that there is no current planning policy in Wiltshire, which could be taken to mean that any planning application should be granted.  The developer’s arguments against the Core Strategy are that it may not be adopted until 2014 and that there have been numerous objections registered with the examination relating to the number of houses proposed by Wiltshire.

Against these arguments we would say that the inspector expects to issue his report within three months after the end of the final hearing sessions indicating that the draft report will be available to Wiltshire Council at the end of September or early October.  At this point Wiltshire Council will be able to determine the effect of the inspector’s recommendations for relevance to this application.  With respect to the housing numbers the objections relate to Wiltshire Council’s prediction for housing need in the county as a whole.  The hearing session relating to Warminster did not question the number of houses to be built but rather the timely delivery of the Warminster West Urban Extension.  These arguments were refuted both by Wiltshire Council and the developer Persimmon/Hannick homes both of whom gave evidence that they expect the West Urban Extension to be delivered on schedule.

We would like to remind Wiltshire Council and HPH in particular what the inspector said at the Wiltshire Core Strategy pre-hearing meeting

The Inspector’s starting point is that the Council has submitted what it considers to be a sound document and that this assumption can be justified by its evidence base.

The Core Strategy is therefore assumed by the inspector to be sound until proven otherwise. HPH are speculating, without factual evidence, that the inspector will find it unsound.

We believe that the status of the West Wiltshire District Plan is still valid but should be considered with the changes proposed by the emerging Wiltshire Core Strategy.

Outside town boundary

Core Policy 2 in the Wiltshire Core Strategy states -

Other than in exceptional circumstances identified in paragraph 4.25 development will only be permitted outside of the limits of development, as defined by the policies contained within the Plan. The limits of development may only be altered through community-led planning policy documents including neighbourhood plans, or a subsequent development plan document which identifies specific sites for development. This development must be adjacent or well related to the limits of development.

The exceptional circumstances listed in paragraph 4.25 are -

The Plan also includes ‘exception policies’ which seek to respond to local circumstance and national policy. In doing so these represent additional sources of supply to those detailed at paragraphs 4.22 and 4.24. These policies are listed below:

·         Additional employment land (Core Policy 34)

·         Military establishments (Core Policy 37)

·         Development related to tourism (Core Policies 39 and 40)

·         Rural exception sites (Core Policy 44)

·         Specialist accommodation provision (Core Policies 46 and 47)

·         Supporting rural life (Core Policy 48)

This site is outside the settlement boundary of Warminster and this plan to construct 35 houses does not meet any of the exceptional circumstances listed in paragraph 4.25.  We therefore believe that this development is prohibited by Core Policy 2, a  belief that was confirmed by Tim McCombe (Wiltshire Council Spatial Planning Strategy Team) at the SHLAA meeting in Warminster Civic Centre, where he stated that development on this site would only be permitted as a result of the NDO process.  The NDO process has since been abandoned by the Warminster Town Council. Further support for this opinion has been given by Belinda Kanzurovska, (development officer for Wiltshire Council), in her affordable housing officer’s consultation response to this application.

Houses are not needed

At the Core Strategy Examination on 11^th July 2013 for the Warminster Area Strategy Core Policy 31 Tim McCombe  further stated that Wiltshire Council believed that with the Warminster West Urban Extension and the sites within the development boundary, there will be a surplus of 200 dwellings within Warminster.  This site is therefore not needed to provide for the needs of Warminster.

Does not provide 40% affordable

Core Policy 43 in the Wiltshire Core Strategy states that -

Affordable housing provision of at least 40% (net) will be provided on sites of 5 or more dwellings. Only in exceptional circumstances, where it can be proven that on-site delivery is not possible, will a commuted sum be considered. On sites of 4 dwellings or fewer a financial contribution will be sought towards the provision of affordable housing.

It is proposed that this site be used for 35 houses of which only 9 (26%) come under the classification of Social Rented Housing.  The other 26 (74%) houses are classified as Market Housing.  At only 26% this application does not meet the requirements of Core Policy 43 and should be rejected.

See above response by Belinda Kanzurovska.

Land is rural buffer

This site represents open space separating the village of Bishopstrow from the edge of Warminster.  It was proposed in the West Wiltshire District Plan that this site should be left undeveloped to act as a Local Rural Buffer.  At the subsequent planning inspection report the inspector’s consideration and conclusions paragraph 3.2.377 stated -

The Revised Deposit lists various constraints to development (including reference to the River Wylye SSSI and the River Were, and to surface water attenuation) which seem reasonable to me, except that I have recommended deletion of all Local Rural Buffers on the basis that town policy limits would be devised for the 5 towns in the District, including Warminster. Such references would therefore need to be deleted but a compensatory reference could be made to policy limits being drawn tightly around the built-up area of Warminster, in order to prevent coalescence with Bishopstrow and to protect open countryside.

In his subsequent recommendation R3.62 he stated -

I recommend that the Plan be modified by deleting from paragraphs 3.2.66 and 3.2.67 references to Local Rural Buffers, replacing them with references to town policy limits preventing coalescence with Bishopstrow and protecting the open countryside.

For this reason the settlement boundary for Warminster was introduced and why development on this site has not been possible.  The Survey Design and Access Appendix document in appendix H provides the HPH Timeline of the Site History.  As can be seen since the inspector’s report in 2004 HPH have spent many years attempting to bypass this site’s status as being outside the settlement boundary culminating in the NDO process in 2011 together with, in June 2011 a comment to the Core Strategy Examination in an attempt to overturn the previous inspector’s conclusion.  We believe that nothing has changed with respect to this site and the inspector’s conclusion that this site should not be developed in order to stop the coalescence of Warminster and Bishopstrow still remains valid.

Greenfield site

All through the NDO process HPH have attempted to portray this site as brownfield and of no agricultural use because of its previous use in 1963 for the tipping of excavated soil.  Examination of this permission, contained within archaeological survey page 31, shows that condition 2 of the permission was -

On completion of the tipping the surface to be graded to an even gradient, covered with sufficient top soil to support and maintain vegetable growth and re-seeded.

The Ground Condition Report supplied with this application indicates that -

This Topsoil layer was typically around 150 to 300 mm thick, although, in places was found to extend to as deep as 950 mm.

As can be seen, this site is not brownfield (confirmed in NDO minutes) or of no agricultural use but merely not used for agriculture because the site owners have chosen to leave it un-used in an attempt to get planning permission.

Does not have the support of local opinion

The Survey Design and Access describes the NDO consultation event as positive with good support and interest in the local community for the principle of self-build of which this application includes only 7 houses.  The Survey Design and Access Appendix in appendix G provides a copy of the NDO Consultation Report to the Warminster Town Council Town Development Committee.  We believe that this consultation event was flawed for the following reasons.

The consultation suggested that the site was brownfield and of no agricultural use and did not make any reference to its status as a buffer between Warminster and Bishopstrow.

It was intended that the consultation would be carried out by Wiltshire Council on behalf of the NDO Steering Group.  However, due to other commitments, Wiltshire Council was unable to undertake the production of the consultation boards.  Consequently the consultation boards were designed by Creatrix PR an agency used by the developer.

Chris Wordsworth of HPH Ltd expressed the opinion at the NDO Steering Group meeting of 22^nd January 2013 that Wiltshire Council may have too ‘balanced’ a view and would have difficulty being unbiased, and that an outside PR company would be more positive.

We believe that a better indication of the views of local people is from the local election results from Warminster East.  At these elections three new independent candidates stood for election on a programme of local issues and were elected with a turnout of 96% (Warminster Town Council Website).  It was these councillors responding to local opinion who voted to abandon the NDO process at the Town Development Committee meeting on 10^th June 2013.  This decision was later endorsed at a full council meeting on the 24^th June 2013.

In conclusion, we believe that this consultation did not give a true representation of the views of local people and that it was produced at the direction of the developer with the aim of obtaining positive responses for development.

The views of Warminster Town Councillors and Bishopstrow Village

The following text has been copied from the Warminster Town Council Town Development Committee meeting (10^th June 2013) minutes -

Mike Perry, chair of the Bishopstrow Village Meetin,g spoke on item 13 Boreham Neighbourhood Development Order (NDO) saying that he was the only representative that was community based on the NDO Steering Group and he had been given a mandate to oppose the proposed development.

Councillor Dancey spoke against the proposal. He said that it is widely accepted that this is a project seen to help wealthier people obtain housing at a cheaper rate.

The development is outside the Town Boundary and there is no benefit to the community in terms of a community levy.

The River Wylye has an undeveloped path all the way around it and if this area of land is developed it will be the only area on its path that will have housing nearby.

If there is a desire for people to build houses for themselves, you need specialist knowledge and specialist skills.

This plan is bad for the river, unfair and when this goes out to referendum, I can gather enough votes to ensure that it does not go ahead.

Councillor Macdonald said that in his recent election campaign, it was clear that local people did not support this project and neither did he. The government had produced this scheme and Wilshire Council has been bribed to support schemes such as this. It will take away another water meadow.

Councillors Dancey and Macdonald summed up their proposal saying that this site could have been put elsewhere say in the West Urban Extension and why was the Town Council wasting its resources and time in pursuing this process?

We believe this demonstrates the lack of support for this development within the community of Warminster.

Housing Types

The following table is a comparison of the HPH and Persimmon/Hannick sites in terms of the number of houses against the number of bedrooms.  Note that for this comparison we have ignored the flats being developed on the Persimmon/Hannick site and we have included the three 5 bedroom houses from the HPH development in the 4 bedroom total number.

 

	HPH Development		Persimmon/Hannick
	Total No.	Percentage	Total No.	Percentage
2 Bedroom	8	22	306	44
3 Bedroom	13	37	359	51
4 Bedroom	14	44	29	4

 

We believe that the above table demonstrates that the HPH development is primarily designed to produce executive style housing rather than reflecting the mix of house types needed by Warminster and therefore this application should be rejected.

This belief is supported by Belinda Kanzurovska in her affordable housing officer’s consultation response to this application where she indicates

Current housing need figures indicate that a mix of 1,2 and 3 bed dwellings with possibly as small number of 4 and 5 bed units as being most appropriate.

Otter and Water Voles

Otters have been observed on the River Wylye adjacent to this site and because of this we would like to examine the mitigation provided for Otter and Water Voles.  We understand from the Survey – Management Plan paragraph 6.11 that this is provided in a separate Keystone document.  We have been unable to find this document in the document pack supplied with this outline planning application and until we have access to this document we believe that we are unable to provide an informed judgement on the proposed mitigation.  We would argue that until this lack of information is rectified that our right to consultation has not been complied with.

In addition, the Survey – Management Plan identifies possible evidence of recent Otter activity and a holt.  It then later goes on to state -

European Protected Species license can be granted by Natural England in respect of development that would otherwise be unlawful under the Conservation Regulations, providing that the following three tests (set out in the EC Habitats Directive) are passed:

·         The development is for reasons of overriding public interest

·         There is no satisfactory alternative: and

·         The favourable conservation status of the species concerned will be maintained and/or enhanced.

Under Regulation 9(5) of the Conservation Regulations, Planning Authorities have a legal duty to ‘have regard to the requirements of the EC Habitat Directive in the exercise of their functions’.  This means that they must consider the above three tests when determining whether Planning Permission should be granted for developments likely to cause an offence under the Conservation Regulations.  As a consequence, Planning Applications for such developments must demonstrate that the 3 tests will be passed.

Looking at these three conditions this application fails the two tests in that Wiltshire Council has provided evidence to the Core Strategy Examination that there is sufficient land available for the housing needs of Warminster indicating that there are satisfactory alternatives and that there is no overriding public interest.

Future uses of wildlife buffer

We are concerned about the long term protection of the River Wylye Special Area of Conservation/Sites of Special Scientific Interest.  Paragraph 4.2 of the Survey – Design and Access Statement says -

An ecological buffer zone of 0.53ha to be maintained by a private management company / trust surrounding the site along the river Wylye, as agreed with the Council’s ecologist.

We cannot find any indication in the supplied documentation as to what has been agreed with the Wiltshire Council ecologist and so feel that we are unable to determine if we wish to object.

We believe that given the importance of the River Wylye Special Area of Conservation/Site of Special Scientific Interest we are not in a position to provide a considered judgement as to whether we support the long term strategy for this site until the documentation pack supplied with this application is complete.  We would argue that until this lack of information is rectified that our right to consultation has not been complied with.