Agenda item

In respect of application numbered S/OUT/19/0294/RA                                    (Outline planning application for up to 43no. dwellings and associated works (Access not reserved), Land Off B4019, Broad Blunsdon, Swindon) the Committee considered: -

          Name                                 Address/Organisation

          Stuart Boyd                         Agent

          Jonathan Adams                 Parish Council

          Councillor Maureen Penny  Ward Councillor

          Councillor Steve Weisinger  Ward Councillor

Councillors Alan Bishop, Burns-Howell, Paul Dixon Jenny Jefferies, Stan Pajak and Jim Robbins spoke in respect of this application.

Submissions in support of the application can be broadly summarised as:

·       There was a bus stop in close proximity to the proposed development site and a footpath borders part of the site and this leads to the High Street to the north.

·       To the east is a recently approved housing development.

·       Only part of the proposed site would allow development due to water mains which passed through it.

·       The site was considered to have potential for development in the Draft Blunsdon Neighbourhood, although his plan was still at an early stage, which supported the sustainability of the site.

·       No heritage assets are harmed by the proposal and an archaeological investigation has not found anything of significance on the site.

·       Blunsdon has recently experienced a high level of housing pressure and this development, which accords with the NPPF, would help meet local housing need, the demonstrable need for affordable housing in Swindon and address the lack of a 5 year supply housing land without a conflict with heritage assets.

·       There were no highway, landscape or other technical objections to the proposal which would include 30 per cent affordable housing, open space and a financial contribution payable to the Parish Council for recreational use in addition to the Community Infrastructure Levy contribution.

·       The site was in a sustainable location, was well served by public transport and was near to local services, facilities, a local primary school and employment opportunities.

·       The site was screened on all sides by tall, dense hedgerows and trees which would be retained and protected.

·       A community Involvement Statement was submitted with the planning application, the Parish Council was engaged and over 400 leaflets delivered to local residents and a public consultation, attended by more than 60 local residents and members of the Parish Council, was held at the Cold Harbour Public House.

·       Only one local resident had objected to the proposed application.

·       The application was for more than nine units originally identified as the NPPF required developers to make the most efficient use of a sustainable site.

·       Changes to the indicative plan had been made following comments from local residents and Council officers.

·       All Council officers and other consultees either supported or did not object to the application proposal.

·       In addition to affordable housing the development would provide over 1 hectare of public open space, footpath connections to the adjacent public rights of way and £22,000 towards playing pitches in Broad Blunsdon.

·       There were no technical reasons for refusal and tilted balance considerations should be applied.

·       That due to the lack of a three year supply of housing land any Neighbourhood Plan could not be used as a relevant material consideration reason for refusal.

Submissions opposing the application can be broadly summarised as:

·       Access to the site was off the B4019 Blunsdon to Highworth Road and was close to the Turnpike junction and both the road and junction were already over capacity and trips from the site would add another 150 metres of traffic to the junction.

·       A letter of objection from the local village highlighted the adverse impact on traffic and the Parish Council were concerned with access arranges.

·       In 2011 Broad Blunsdon was a small village of approximately 603 dwellings; since then 495 additional dwellings have been built or benefit from planning permission.

·       These figures do not include the 118 additional houses built on Ermin Street nor the 1650 dwellings proposed for Kingsdown.

·       The application is contrary to Planning Policy SD2 and did not accord with NPPF Paragraph 78 which stated rural development should enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities.

·       The proposed development did not provide facilities for the residents or local village apart from an area which could not be developed.

·       There was no play area provision provided and Blunsdon Village had no youth provision and no statement of community involvement.

·       The proposal was an overdevelopment of a rural area and conflicted with a number of areas in the NPPF and the Swindon Local Plan.

·       The site was originally highlighted in the Neighbourhood Plan for nine dwellings rather than the 43 currently sought.

·       The number of houses approved and sought were out on context and proportion to Broad Blunsdon which had limited services and facilities and would place undue strain on the local infrastructure.

·       The Blunsdon Neighbourhood Plan was further advanced than indicated in the officer’s report with the public consultation period required under Regulation 14 having been completed and modifications being considered and should therefore carry more weight during Member deliberations.

·       The emerging plan identified three sites which residents would support for small scale development with up to nine houses on each, one of which being the site of the application.

·       The nine houses proposed had previously been agreed with the landowner.

·       Should the application be approved the Parish Council requested (i) that nine of the propose affordable houses be built in accordance with the principles set out within the emerging Neighbourhood Plan, and (ii) some provision be made for the youth of Blunsdon, for instance, a meeting place or a dirt bike track.

Resolved - That the Head of Planning, Regulatory Services and Heritage be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the conditions set out in the report together with any amendments, omitted or additional  conditions and the completion of a Section 106 agreement to secure the necessary mitigation.  In the event that the applicant fails to agree an extension of time to allow sufficient time for the LPA to deal with these matters then the Head of Planning, Regulatory Services and Heritage be authorised to refuse planning permission.