Notice Board

 

Sun Aug 20 2017


Southwick Parish Council's response to Wiltshire Council regarding the Redrow Homes Outline Planning Planning Application 16/12279/OUT 

  1. SUMMARY

This document expresses the concern of Southwick Parish Council and many of its Parishioners to the proposed large housing development of residential homes applied for by Redrow Homes on the Land to the South of Blind Lane.

This application specifically requires SPC to comment only on the content of this application which covers up to 100 new homes. However, SPC urges WC to take account of the possibility that this application is only the first phase of further applications which are likely to follow, either from Redrow Homes, or other developers, if this application proceeds to the next stage of approval.

  1. MAJOR REASONS FOR OBJECTION
  1. This extract was taken from Wiltshire Core Strategy Adopted January 2015:

“It is recognised that the villages surrounding Trowbridge, particularly Hilperton, Southwick, North Bradley and West Ashton, have separate and distinct identities as villages. Open countryside should be maintained to protect the character and identity of these villages as separate communities.”

  1. This extract was taken from Appendix 6 of Housing Land Supply Statement base date April 2016:

Housing already provided for

Area

Indicative requirement 2006-2026

Completions 2006-2016

 

Developable commitments 2016-2026

Indicative remaining requirement

Trowbridge

6,810

2,776

2,017

2,017

Trowbridge CA remainder

165

242

29

0

  1. Recently, WC has rejected applications for the following reason/s:

“Having regard to all the submissions and relevant policies, including the policies of the NPPF taken as a whole, and mindful of the nominal 5-year housing land supply shortfall, this application is considered to be an inappropriate, unsustainable form of development which would have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area and highway impacts cumulatively would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefit of providing additional dwellings in an open countryside location and the provision of employment created through construction processes. As such the proposal is not considered to represent sustainable development being contrary to CP1, CP2, CP51, CP57, CP60, and CP61 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy 2015 and the policies of the NPPF taken as a whole.”

  1. For these three reasons stated above, WC should reject this application. Southwick should not be the focus of large scale housing developments like this one which is wholly out of scale and a disproportionate addition to the existing village.
  1. SPC considers that the planning process used by WC does not take account of warning prospective developers, at the earliest opportunity, that they are wasting time and effort in pursuing an application which clearly will not succeed. However, this is outside the scope of this response, and SPC will write to WC separately on this subject.
  1. INCORRECT/MISLEADING STATEMENTS

The application includes a number of statements which either contain incorrect facts, or appear misleading.

  1. Post Office. There is no post office in Southwick. A postal facility is available for one day a week for two hours in the village hall.
  2. Railway. There is no rail station in Southwick. One has to drive into Trowbridge.
  3. Healthcare. There are no doctors’ surgeries or dentist or healthcare in Southwick. The nearest are in Trowbridge.
  4. Public House.  There is only one public house in Southwick.
  5. The applicant states that no houses have been built in Southwick in the last decade; in fact over a hundred houses have been built on suitable sites. This includes the 55 homes which have been built on the old Mowlem factory site.
  6. The application quotes ”local convenience store and newsagents and other local retail”; there is one shop (which also sells newspapers) and two takeaways.  There is no other local retail.
  1. SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS TO ITEMS IN THE APPLICATION
  1. Redrow Homes Village Consultation

The application stated that Redrow Homes will carry out a full consultation with all village residents. To SPC’s knowledge this has not happened. A post drop with some information was made just prior to Christmas 2016 to around 400 homes in the near vicinity of Blind Lane. But there are some 850-900 homes in Southwick and they all need to be consulted on this application.

  1. School Places.

The primary school capacity is believed to be around 202 students with spare capacity around 5 or 6 places. This has only been achieved with the installation of external cabins. The addition of children from another 100 or more homes will undoubtedly more than fill this one school and lead to very high pupil/teacher ratio unless additional capacity is provided. But where?

  1. Work Opportunities

There are very few work opportunities in Southwick. Developers should build in a large town which has both work opportunities and supporting infrastructure already in place to support such a large housing development.

  1. Bus Service.

In the application Public Transport is identified as being “good or sufficient to support amongst other things commuting to and from work”. However, in reality Southwick has a very poor bus service which hardly covers normal daytime employment, let alone shift pattern working, unusual work hours or Saturday/Sunday working. No buses run on a Sunday.

  1. Flooding.

A main concern of SPC and Parishioners is the risk of flooding, not only on the proposed site but consequential flooding, i.e. if measures are put into place to minimise flooding on this development site, there could be an adverse impact on neighbouring areas. (See Appendix 1 taken from the Environmental Agency’s web site which shows high risk flooding areas near to this site). SPC strongly suggests that an Escrow type fund is put into place so that any flooding or consequential flooding due to the development will compensate villagers experiencing damage from such flooding, also taking into account that heavy vehicles using Blind Lane or Wesley Lane as access to the site could cause underground damage to drains and guttering.

  1. Drainage and Sewage

It is understood that the drains and sewers of Southwick are old and when installed were designed for a village. Hence WC must ensure that additional/replacement pipework will readily cater for this application and more, taking into account the uncertainty that other applications are highly likely to follow this one if it is approved. It would also ensure that  disruption to Parishioners in the area would only occur once.

  1. Electricity and Gas

SPC has not studied the provision of additional electricity (sub-station) and gas (pipework) resources needed for this application, and futures ones, but obviously this does need to be considered and taken into account at an early stage.

  1. Traffic Recording on Blind Lane

SPC believes that the traffic counting exercise carried out on Blind Lane was inadequate and did not capture all access points for traffic using Hollisway, Blind Lane, Southfields, Wesley Lane, Lamberts March, etc. SPC requests that WC review the traffic counting measures used for this application and ensures that they are repeated to capture all traffic, especially when the Primary School is open, so that a full picture is established.

  1. Heavy Traffic through the Village.

SPC is already concerned about the constant flow of heavy vehicles travelling through Southwick, bearing in mind that Wynsome Street (C234) is a ‘C’ road and not an ‘A’ road’.

If this application is approved, it can only exacerbate the number of heavy lorries which would be travelling through Southwick to access the development site.

  1. Site Access.

There are already severe traffic issues on the narrow Blind Lane due to residents parking and school run drop-offs and pickups and the fact that Blind Lane is often used as a ‘short cut’ between Wynsome Street and Frome Road as well as between Frome road and Bradley road, especially when the traffic is heavy on the main roads or there is  accident/roadwork delays on the main road. Construction traffic should not be allowed along Blind Lane from Wynsome Street to service the development site. SPC considers that there should be NO access points to the development site on Blind Lane but that one or two access points should be on Wesley Lane. There are various alternative options, including the possibility of a Southwick bypass going from Dunkirk Business Park to Bradley. SPC considers that, if the application is approved, the best way to resolve this is to hold tri-party discussion between WC, SPC and Redrow Homes.

  1. CONCLUSION.

Southwick, defined by WC as a Category C small town/village, wants to remain Category C. SPC and Parishioners do not object to, and have supported, appropriate, sustainable, developments such as infill houses within the village boundaries. SPC would also support the provision of appropriate additional facilities such the building of another school, some extra small shops, a dentist or a doctor’s surgery. But SPC does not support this application.

The Clerk

Southwick Parish Council

For and on behalf of Southwick Parish Council

Approved by its Chairman Cllr. K. Noble

Signed by the Chairman: …………Mrs. K. Noble………………………………….

Dated: ……………21/2/2017…………………………………

Statement made by the Chair of the Parish Council at the start of the last Ordinary Meeting of Southwick Parish Council held on Tuesday 17th January 2017.

Chairman’s Special Announcement

Before the Open Forum starts it is important for me to say a few words about the purpose of this Parish Council meeting tonight because you may have been drawn to attend this meeting by some misleading information.

This is a normal monthly Parish Council meeting routinely set up by law to enable the Parish Council to carry out its lawful business as detailed on the Agenda.

It is NOT a Planning Meeting at which we can devote all the time hearing Parishioners views and reasoned arguments about development applications.

You will hear later in the meeting under item 14d that there will be such a Planning Meeting devoted to hearing the views of all Parishioners about the Redrow Homes Outline Planning Application delivered to us by Wiltshire Council on 12 January 2017.

I apologise if any of you thought that this was a Planning Meeting, but it was not of our doing.

The Parish Council also wishes to point out that it is NOT the duty of a Parish Council to STOP any or all planning applications. A Parish Council’s duty is to seek out the wishes of the majority of Parishioners, particularly for possibly contentious planning applications, as well as ensuring that the application makes sense, is sustainable to the Parish, and that the Parish Council comments passed back to Wiltshire Council about the application would satisfy the majority of Parishioners.

The Parish Council in this respect has a difficult task to do as it will NOT be able to please everyone, but we do need to hear your views with reasoned arguments regarding potentially contentious applications, and the Parish Meeting is one of the places where we can do this.

We appreciate that there is not a great deal of time set by Wiltshire Council to respond to this Redrow application and we have already requested from the Senior Planning Officer for an extension of the Consultation Expiry Date to 28th February and I can confirm that the Planning Officer has agreed to this request.

As tonight’s Agenda includes a lot of Parish Council Business, I will be restricting the Open Forum to 15 minutes as per the Agenda, but I would urge all of you to write to the Clerk as soon as possible if you have strong views about the Redrow application stating your reasoned argument for those views, as well as making those views and arguments known to Wiltshire Council.

Can I also draw your attention to the Wiltshire Council web site where there is a page devoted to “How do I comment on planning applications?” This page contains two important sections about what issues will be considered, and what will not be considered. Significantly,  you cannot bring matters that are not material to the application such as ‘loss of value’ and ‘loss of view’ as these are outside the boundaries of the planning process and are more civil matters between parties. There is also a link to the online system where you can post your comments.

Thank you for listening and I now adjourn the Parish Council Meeting to start the Open Forum for a maximum of 15 minutes.

Two Significant Dates

Wiltshire Council will close submissions to the Shlaa map in mid December 2016 and will report in mid January 2017 on any changes that they propose to make to the existing map.

Wiltshire Council has a statutory duty to consult The Parish Council and we currently have an adopted policy of not wishing to see any large housing development within our Village.

Unfortunately Planning Inspectors have recently within West Wilts granted permissions to build on green field sites because Wiltshire Council has not been able or willing at Public Enquiries to demonstrate that it has a five year housing land supply plan.

However you can be assured that we will continue to be vigilant and will work with others like "Save Our Southwick" to stop large scale housing developments encircling our village.

 

<< Previous 1 2 3 4 Next >>

Powered by CuteNews

Southwick Parish Council's response to Wiltshire Council regarding the Redrow Homes Outline Planning Planning Application 16/12279/OUT 

  1. SUMMARY

This document expresses the concern of Southwick Parish Council and many of its Parishioners to the proposed large housing development of residential homes applied for by Redrow Homes on the Land to the South of Blind Lane.

This application specifically requires SPC to comment only on the content of this application which covers up to 100 new homes. However, SPC urges WC to take account of the possibility that this application is only the first phase of further applications which are likely to follow, either from Redrow Homes, or other developers, if this application proceeds to the next stage of approval.

  1. MAJOR REASONS FOR OBJECTION
  1. This extract was taken from Wiltshire Core Strategy Adopted January 2015:

“It is recognised that the villages surrounding Trowbridge, particularly Hilperton, Southwick, North Bradley and West Ashton, have separate and distinct identities as villages. Open countryside should be maintained to protect the character and identity of these villages as separate communities.”

  1. This extract was taken from Appendix 6 of Housing Land Supply Statement base date April 2016:

Housing already provided for

Area

Indicative requirement 2006-2026

Completions 2006-2016

 

Developable commitments 2016-2026

Indicative remaining requirement

Trowbridge

6,810

2,776

2,017

2,017

Trowbridge CA remainder

165

242

29

0

  1. Recently, WC has rejected applications for the following reason/s:

“Having regard to all the submissions and relevant policies, including the policies of the NPPF taken as a whole, and mindful of the nominal 5-year housing land supply shortfall, this application is considered to be an inappropriate, unsustainable form of development which would have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area and highway impacts cumulatively would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefit of providing additional dwellings in an open countryside location and the provision of employment created through construction processes. As such the proposal is not considered to represent sustainable development being contrary to CP1, CP2, CP51, CP57, CP60, and CP61 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy 2015 and the policies of the NPPF taken as a whole.”

  1. For these three reasons stated above, WC should reject this application. Southwick should not be the focus of large scale housing developments like this one which is wholly out of scale and a disproportionate addition to the existing village.
  1. SPC considers that the planning process used by WC does not take account of warning prospective developers, at the earliest opportunity, that they are wasting time and effort in pursuing an application which clearly will not succeed. However, this is outside the scope of this response, and SPC will write to WC separately on this subject.
  1. INCORRECT/MISLEADING STATEMENTS

The application includes a number of statements which either contain incorrect facts, or appear misleading.

  1. Post Office. There is no post office in Southwick. A postal facility is available for one day a week for two hours in the village hall.
  2. Railway. There is no rail station in Southwick. One has to drive into Trowbridge.
  3. Healthcare. There are no doctors’ surgeries or dentist or healthcare in Southwick. The nearest are in Trowbridge.
  4. Public House.  There is only one public house in Southwick.
  5. The applicant states that no houses have been built in Southwick in the last decade; in fact over a hundred houses have been built on suitable sites. This includes the 55 homes which have been built on the old Mowlem factory site.
  6. The application quotes ”local convenience store and newsagents and other local retail”; there is one shop (which also sells newspapers) and two takeaways.  There is no other local retail.
  1. SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS TO ITEMS IN THE APPLICATION
  1. Redrow Homes Village Consultation

The application stated that Redrow Homes will carry out a full consultation with all village residents. To SPC’s knowledge this has not happened. A post drop with some information was made just prior to Christmas 2016 to around 400 homes in the near vicinity of Blind Lane. But there are some 850-900 homes in Southwick and they all need to be consulted on this application.

  1. School Places.

The primary school capacity is believed to be around 202 students with spare capacity around 5 or 6 places. This has only been achieved with the installation of external cabins. The addition of children from another 100 or more homes will undoubtedly more than fill this one school and lead to very high pupil/teacher ratio unless additional capacity is provided. But where?

  1. Work Opportunities

There are very few work opportunities in Southwick. Developers should build in a large town which has both work opportunities and supporting infrastructure already in place to support such a large housing development.

  1. Bus Service.

In the application Public Transport is identified as being “good or sufficient to support amongst other things commuting to and from work”. However, in reality Southwick has a very poor bus service which hardly covers normal daytime employment, let alone shift pattern working, unusual work hours or Saturday/Sunday working. No buses run on a Sunday.

  1. Flooding.

A main concern of SPC and Parishioners is the risk of flooding, not only on the proposed site but consequential flooding, i.e. if measures are put into place to minimise flooding on this development site, there could be an adverse impact on neighbouring areas. (See Appendix 1 taken from the Environmental Agency’s web site which shows high risk flooding areas near to this site). SPC strongly suggests that an Escrow type fund is put into place so that any flooding or consequential flooding due to the development will compensate villagers experiencing damage from such flooding, also taking into account that heavy vehicles using Blind Lane or Wesley Lane as access to the site could cause underground damage to drains and guttering.

  1. Drainage and Sewage

It is understood that the drains and sewers of Southwick are old and when installed were designed for a village. Hence WC must ensure that additional/replacement pipework will readily cater for this application and more, taking into account the uncertainty that other applications are highly likely to follow this one if it is approved. It would also ensure that  disruption to Parishioners in the area would only occur once.

  1. Electricity and Gas

SPC has not studied the provision of additional electricity (sub-station) and gas (pipework) resources needed for this application, and futures ones, but obviously this does need to be considered and taken into account at an early stage.

  1. Traffic Recording on Blind Lane

SPC believes that the traffic counting exercise carried out on Blind Lane was inadequate and did not capture all access points for traffic using Hollisway, Blind Lane, Southfields, Wesley Lane, Lamberts March, etc. SPC requests that WC review the traffic counting measures used for this application and ensures that they are repeated to capture all traffic, especially when the Primary School is open, so that a full picture is established.

  1. Heavy Traffic through the Village.

SPC is already concerned about the constant flow of heavy vehicles travelling through Southwick, bearing in mind that Wynsome Street (C234) is a ‘C’ road and not an ‘A’ road’.

If this application is approved, it can only exacerbate the number of heavy lorries which would be travelling through Southwick to access the development site.

  1. Site Access.

There are already severe traffic issues on the narrow Blind Lane due to residents parking and school run drop-offs and pickups and the fact that Blind Lane is often used as a ‘short cut’ between Wynsome Street and Frome Road as well as between Frome road and Bradley road, especially when the traffic is heavy on the main roads or there is  accident/roadwork delays on the main road. Construction traffic should not be allowed along Blind Lane from Wynsome Street to service the development site. SPC considers that there should be NO access points to the development site on Blind Lane but that one or two access points should be on Wesley Lane. There are various alternative options, including the possibility of a Southwick bypass going from Dunkirk Business Park to Bradley. SPC considers that, if the application is approved, the best way to resolve this is to hold tri-party discussion between WC, SPC and Redrow Homes.

  1. CONCLUSION.

Southwick, defined by WC as a Category C small town/village, wants to remain Category C. SPC and Parishioners do not object to, and have supported, appropriate, sustainable, developments such as infill houses within the village boundaries. SPC would also support the provision of appropriate additional facilities such the building of another school, some extra small shops, a dentist or a doctor’s surgery. But SPC does not support this application.

The Clerk

Southwick Parish Council

For and on behalf of Southwick Parish Council

Approved by its Chairman Cllr. K. Noble

Signed by the Chairman: …………Mrs. K. Noble………………………………….

Dated: ……………21/2/2017…………………………………

Statement made by the Chair of the Parish Council at the start of the last Ordinary Meeting of Southwick Parish Council held on Tuesday 17th January 2017.

Chairman’s Special Announcement

Before the Open Forum starts it is important for me to say a few words about the purpose of this Parish Council meeting tonight because you may have been drawn to attend this meeting by some misleading information.

This is a normal monthly Parish Council meeting routinely set up by law to enable the Parish Council to carry out its lawful business as detailed on the Agenda.

It is NOT a Planning Meeting at which we can devote all the time hearing Parishioners views and reasoned arguments about development applications.

You will hear later in the meeting under item 14d that there will be such a Planning Meeting devoted to hearing the views of all Parishioners about the Redrow Homes Outline Planning Application delivered to us by Wiltshire Council on 12 January 2017.

I apologise if any of you thought that this was a Planning Meeting, but it was not of our doing.

The Parish Council also wishes to point out that it is NOT the duty of a Parish Council to STOP any or all planning applications. A Parish Council’s duty is to seek out the wishes of the majority of Parishioners, particularly for possibly contentious planning applications, as well as ensuring that the application makes sense, is sustainable to the Parish, and that the Parish Council comments passed back to Wiltshire Council about the application would satisfy the majority of Parishioners.

The Parish Council in this respect has a difficult task to do as it will NOT be able to please everyone, but we do need to hear your views with reasoned arguments regarding potentially contentious applications, and the Parish Meeting is one of the places where we can do this.

We appreciate that there is not a great deal of time set by Wiltshire Council to respond to this Redrow application and we have already requested from the Senior Planning Officer for an extension of the Consultation Expiry Date to 28th February and I can confirm that the Planning Officer has agreed to this request.

As tonight’s Agenda includes a lot of Parish Council Business, I will be restricting the Open Forum to 15 minutes as per the Agenda, but I would urge all of you to write to the Clerk as soon as possible if you have strong views about the Redrow application stating your reasoned argument for those views, as well as making those views and arguments known to Wiltshire Council.

Can I also draw your attention to the Wiltshire Council web site where there is a page devoted to “How do I comment on planning applications?” This page contains two important sections about what issues will be considered, and what will not be considered. Significantly,  you cannot bring matters that are not material to the application such as ‘loss of value’ and ‘loss of view’ as these are outside the boundaries of the planning process and are more civil matters between parties. There is also a link to the online system where you can post your comments.

Thank you for listening and I now adjourn the Parish Council Meeting to start the Open Forum for a maximum of 15 minutes.

Two Significant Dates

Wiltshire Council will close submissions to the Shlaa map in mid December 2016 and will report in mid January 2017 on any changes that they propose to make to the existing map.

Wiltshire Council has a statutory duty to consult The Parish Council and we currently have an adopted policy of not wishing to see any large housing development within our Village.

Unfortunately Planning Inspectors have recently within West Wilts granted permissions to build on green field sites because Wiltshire Council has not been able or willing at Public Enquiries to demonstrate that it has a five year housing land supply plan.

However you can be assured that we will continue to be vigilant and will work with others like "Save Our Southwick" to stop large scale housing developments encircling our village.

 

<< Previous 1 2 3 4 Next >>

Powered by CuteNews

News and Articles


Southwick Parish Council's response to Wiltshire Council regarding the Redrow Homes Outline Planning Planning Application 16/12279/OUT 

  1. SUMMARY

This document expresses the concern of Southwick Parish Council and many of its Parishioners to the proposed large housing development of residential homes applied for by Redrow Homes on the Land to the South of Blind Lane.

This application specifically requires SPC to comment only on the content of this application which covers up to 100 new homes. However, SPC urges WC to take account of the possibility that this application is only the first phase of further applications which are likely to follow, either from Redrow Homes, or other developers, if this application proceeds to the next stage of approval.

  1. MAJOR REASONS FOR OBJECTION
  1. This extract was taken from Wiltshire Core Strategy Adopted January 2015:

“It is recognised that the villages surrounding Trowbridge, particularly Hilperton, Southwick, North Bradley and West Ashton, have separate and distinct identities as villages. Open countryside should be maintained to protect the character and identity of these villages as separate communities.”

  1. This extract was taken from Appendix 6 of Housing Land Supply Statement base date April 2016:

Housing already provided for

Area

Indicative requirement 2006-2026

Completions 2006-2016

 

Developable commitments 2016-2026

Indicative remaining requirement

Trowbridge

6,810

2,776

2,017

2,017

Trowbridge CA remainder

165

242

29

0

  1. Recently, WC has rejected applications for the following reason/s:

“Having regard to all the submissions and relevant policies, including the policies of the NPPF taken as a whole, and mindful of the nominal 5-year housing land supply shortfall, this application is considered to be an inappropriate, unsustainable form of development which would have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area and highway impacts cumulatively would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefit of providing additional dwellings in an open countryside location and the provision of employment created through construction processes. As such the proposal is not considered to represent sustainable development being contrary to CP1, CP2, CP51, CP57, CP60, and CP61 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy 2015 and the policies of the NPPF taken as a whole.”

  1. For these three reasons stated above, WC should reject this application. Southwick should not be the focus of large scale housing developments like this one which is wholly out of scale and a disproportionate addition to the existing village.
  1. SPC considers that the planning process used by WC does not take account of warning prospective developers, at the earliest opportunity, that they are wasting time and effort in pursuing an application which clearly will not succeed. However, this is outside the scope of this response, and SPC will write to WC separately on this subject.
  1. INCORRECT/MISLEADING STATEMENTS

The application includes a number of statements which either contain incorrect facts, or appear misleading.

  1. Post Office. There is no post office in Southwick. A postal facility is available for one day a week for two hours in the village hall.
  2. Railway. There is no rail station in Southwick. One has to drive into Trowbridge.
  3. Healthcare. There are no doctors’ surgeries or dentist or healthcare in Southwick. The nearest are in Trowbridge.
  4. Public House.  There is only one public house in Southwick.
  5. The applicant states that no houses have been built in Southwick in the last decade; in fact over a hundred houses have been built on suitable sites. This includes the 55 homes which have been built on the old Mowlem factory site.
  6. The application quotes ”local convenience store and newsagents and other local retail”; there is one shop (which also sells newspapers) and two takeaways.  There is no other local retail.
  1. SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS TO ITEMS IN THE APPLICATION
  1. Redrow Homes Village Consultation

The application stated that Redrow Homes will carry out a full consultation with all village residents. To SPC’s knowledge this has not happened. A post drop with some information was made just prior to Christmas 2016 to around 400 homes in the near vicinity of Blind Lane. But there are some 850-900 homes in Southwick and they all need to be consulted on this application.

  1. School Places.

The primary school capacity is believed to be around 202 students with spare capacity around 5 or 6 places. This has only been achieved with the installation of external cabins. The addition of children from another 100 or more homes will undoubtedly more than fill this one school and lead to very high pupil/teacher ratio unless additional capacity is provided. But where?

  1. Work Opportunities

There are very few work opportunities in Southwick. Developers should build in a large town which has both work opportunities and supporting infrastructure already in place to support such a large housing development.

  1. Bus Service.

In the application Public Transport is identified as being “good or sufficient to support amongst other things commuting to and from work”. However, in reality Southwick has a very poor bus service which hardly covers normal daytime employment, let alone shift pattern working, unusual work hours or Saturday/Sunday working. No buses run on a Sunday.

  1. Flooding.

A main concern of SPC and Parishioners is the risk of flooding, not only on the proposed site but consequential flooding, i.e. if measures are put into place to minimise flooding on this development site, there could be an adverse impact on neighbouring areas. (See Appendix 1 taken from the Environmental Agency’s web site which shows high risk flooding areas near to this site). SPC strongly suggests that an Escrow type fund is put into place so that any flooding or consequential flooding due to the development will compensate villagers experiencing damage from such flooding, also taking into account that heavy vehicles using Blind Lane or Wesley Lane as access to the site could cause underground damage to drains and guttering.

  1. Drainage and Sewage

It is understood that the drains and sewers of Southwick are old and when installed were designed for a village. Hence WC must ensure that additional/replacement pipework will readily cater for this application and more, taking into account the uncertainty that other applications are highly likely to follow this one if it is approved. It would also ensure that  disruption to Parishioners in the area would only occur once.

  1. Electricity and Gas

SPC has not studied the provision of additional electricity (sub-station) and gas (pipework) resources needed for this application, and futures ones, but obviously this does need to be considered and taken into account at an early stage.

  1. Traffic Recording on Blind Lane

SPC believes that the traffic counting exercise carried out on Blind Lane was inadequate and did not capture all access points for traffic using Hollisway, Blind Lane, Southfields, Wesley Lane, Lamberts March, etc. SPC requests that WC review the traffic counting measures used for this application and ensures that they are repeated to capture all traffic, especially when the Primary School is open, so that a full picture is established.

  1. Heavy Traffic through the Village.

SPC is already concerned about the constant flow of heavy vehicles travelling through Southwick, bearing in mind that Wynsome Street (C234) is a ‘C’ road and not an ‘A’ road’.

If this application is approved, it can only exacerbate the number of heavy lorries which would be travelling through Southwick to access the development site.

  1. Site Access.

There are already severe traffic issues on the narrow Blind Lane due to residents parking and school run drop-offs and pickups and the fact that Blind Lane is often used as a ‘short cut’ between Wynsome Street and Frome Road as well as between Frome road and Bradley road, especially when the traffic is heavy on the main roads or there is  accident/roadwork delays on the main road. Construction traffic should not be allowed along Blind Lane from Wynsome Street to service the development site. SPC considers that there should be NO access points to the development site on Blind Lane but that one or two access points should be on Wesley Lane. There are various alternative options, including the possibility of a Southwick bypass going from Dunkirk Business Park to Bradley. SPC considers that, if the application is approved, the best way to resolve this is to hold tri-party discussion between WC, SPC and Redrow Homes.

  1. CONCLUSION.

Southwick, defined by WC as a Category C small town/village, wants to remain Category C. SPC and Parishioners do not object to, and have supported, appropriate, sustainable, developments such as infill houses within the village boundaries. SPC would also support the provision of appropriate additional facilities such the building of another school, some extra small shops, a dentist or a doctor’s surgery. But SPC does not support this application.

The Clerk

Southwick Parish Council

For and on behalf of Southwick Parish Council

Approved by its Chairman Cllr. K. Noble

Signed by the Chairman: …………Mrs. K. Noble………………………………….

Dated: ……………21/2/2017…………………………………

Statement made by the Chair of the Parish Council at the start of the last Ordinary Meeting of Southwick Parish Council held on Tuesday 17th January 2017.

Chairman’s Special Announcement

Before the Open Forum starts it is important for me to say a few words about the purpose of this Parish Council meeting tonight because you may have been drawn to attend this meeting by some misleading information.

This is a normal monthly Parish Council meeting routinely set up by law to enable the Parish Council to carry out its lawful business as detailed on the Agenda.

It is NOT a Planning Meeting at which we can devote all the time hearing Parishioners views and reasoned arguments about development applications.

You will hear later in the meeting under item 14d that there will be such a Planning Meeting devoted to hearing the views of all Parishioners about the Redrow Homes Outline Planning Application delivered to us by Wiltshire Council on 12 January 2017.

I apologise if any of you thought that this was a Planning Meeting, but it was not of our doing.

The Parish Council also wishes to point out that it is NOT the duty of a Parish Council to STOP any or all planning applications. A Parish Council’s duty is to seek out the wishes of the majority of Parishioners, particularly for possibly contentious planning applications, as well as ensuring that the application makes sense, is sustainable to the Parish, and that the Parish Council comments passed back to Wiltshire Council about the application would satisfy the majority of Parishioners.

The Parish Council in this respect has a difficult task to do as it will NOT be able to please everyone, but we do need to hear your views with reasoned arguments regarding potentially contentious applications, and the Parish Meeting is one of the places where we can do this.

We appreciate that there is not a great deal of time set by Wiltshire Council to respond to this Redrow application and we have already requested from the Senior Planning Officer for an extension of the Consultation Expiry Date to 28th February and I can confirm that the Planning Officer has agreed to this request.

As tonight’s Agenda includes a lot of Parish Council Business, I will be restricting the Open Forum to 15 minutes as per the Agenda, but I would urge all of you to write to the Clerk as soon as possible if you have strong views about the Redrow application stating your reasoned argument for those views, as well as making those views and arguments known to Wiltshire Council.

Can I also draw your attention to the Wiltshire Council web site where there is a page devoted to “How do I comment on planning applications?” This page contains two important sections about what issues will be considered, and what will not be considered. Significantly,  you cannot bring matters that are not material to the application such as ‘loss of value’ and ‘loss of view’ as these are outside the boundaries of the planning process and are more civil matters between parties. There is also a link to the online system where you can post your comments.

Thank you for listening and I now adjourn the Parish Council Meeting to start the Open Forum for a maximum of 15 minutes.

Two Significant Dates

Wiltshire Council will close submissions to the Shlaa map in mid December 2016 and will report in mid January 2017 on any changes that they propose to make to the existing map.

Wiltshire Council has a statutory duty to consult The Parish Council and we currently have an adopted policy of not wishing to see any large housing development within our Village.

Unfortunately Planning Inspectors have recently within West Wilts granted permissions to build on green field sites because Wiltshire Council has not been able or willing at Public Enquiries to demonstrate that it has a five year housing land supply plan.

However you can be assured that we will continue to be vigilant and will work with others like "Save Our Southwick" to stop large scale housing developments encircling our village.

 

<< Previous 1 2 3 4 Next >>

Powered by CuteNews

Southwick Parish Council's response to Wiltshire Council regarding the Redrow Homes Outline Planning Planning Application 16/12279/OUT 

  1. SUMMARY

This document expresses the concern of Southwick Parish Council and many of its Parishioners to the proposed large housing development of residential homes applied for by Redrow Homes on the Land to the South of Blind Lane.

This application specifically requires SPC to comment only on the content of this application which covers up to 100 new homes. However, SPC urges WC to take account of the possibility that this application is only the first phase of further applications which are likely to follow, either from Redrow Homes, or other developers, if this application proceeds to the next stage of approval.

  1. MAJOR REASONS FOR OBJECTION
  1. This extract was taken from Wiltshire Core Strategy Adopted January 2015:

“It is recognised that the villages surrounding Trowbridge, particularly Hilperton, Southwick, North Bradley and West Ashton, have separate and distinct identities as villages. Open countryside should be maintained to protect the character and identity of these villages as separate communities.”

  1. This extract was taken from Appendix 6 of Housing Land Supply Statement base date April 2016:

Housing already provided for

Area

Indicative requirement 2006-2026

Completions 2006-2016

 

Developable commitments 2016-2026

Indicative remaining requirement

Trowbridge

6,810

2,776

2,017

2,017

Trowbridge CA remainder

165

242

29

0

  1. Recently, WC has rejected applications for the following reason/s:

“Having regard to all the submissions and relevant policies, including the policies of the NPPF taken as a whole, and mindful of the nominal 5-year housing land supply shortfall, this application is considered to be an inappropriate, unsustainable form of development which would have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area and highway impacts cumulatively would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefit of providing additional dwellings in an open countryside location and the provision of employment created through construction processes. As such the proposal is not considered to represent sustainable development being contrary to CP1, CP2, CP51, CP57, CP60, and CP61 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy 2015 and the policies of the NPPF taken as a whole.”

  1. For these three reasons stated above, WC should reject this application. Southwick should not be the focus of large scale housing developments like this one which is wholly out of scale and a disproportionate addition to the existing village.
  1. SPC considers that the planning process used by WC does not take account of warning prospective developers, at the earliest opportunity, that they are wasting time and effort in pursuing an application which clearly will not succeed. However, this is outside the scope of this response, and SPC will write to WC separately on this subject.
  1. INCORRECT/MISLEADING STATEMENTS

The application includes a number of statements which either contain incorrect facts, or appear misleading.

  1. Post Office. There is no post office in Southwick. A postal facility is available for one day a week for two hours in the village hall.
  2. Railway. There is no rail station in Southwick. One has to drive into Trowbridge.
  3. Healthcare. There are no doctors’ surgeries or dentist or healthcare in Southwick. The nearest are in Trowbridge.
  4. Public House.  There is only one public house in Southwick.
  5. The applicant states that no houses have been built in Southwick in the last decade; in fact over a hundred houses have been built on suitable sites. This includes the 55 homes which have been built on the old Mowlem factory site.
  6. The application quotes ”local convenience store and newsagents and other local retail”; there is one shop (which also sells newspapers) and two takeaways.  There is no other local retail.
  1. SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS TO ITEMS IN THE APPLICATION
  1. Redrow Homes Village Consultation

The application stated that Redrow Homes will carry out a full consultation with all village residents. To SPC’s knowledge this has not happened. A post drop with some information was made just prior to Christmas 2016 to around 400 homes in the near vicinity of Blind Lane. But there are some 850-900 homes in Southwick and they all need to be consulted on this application.

  1. School Places.

The primary school capacity is believed to be around 202 students with spare capacity around 5 or 6 places. This has only been achieved with the installation of external cabins. The addition of children from another 100 or more homes will undoubtedly more than fill this one school and lead to very high pupil/teacher ratio unless additional capacity is provided. But where?

  1. Work Opportunities

There are very few work opportunities in Southwick. Developers should build in a large town which has both work opportunities and supporting infrastructure already in place to support such a large housing development.

  1. Bus Service.

In the application Public Transport is identified as being “good or sufficient to support amongst other things commuting to and from work”. However, in reality Southwick has a very poor bus service which hardly covers normal daytime employment, let alone shift pattern working, unusual work hours or Saturday/Sunday working. No buses run on a Sunday.

  1. Flooding.

A main concern of SPC and Parishioners is the risk of flooding, not only on the proposed site but consequential flooding, i.e. if measures are put into place to minimise flooding on this development site, there could be an adverse impact on neighbouring areas. (See Appendix 1 taken from the Environmental Agency’s web site which shows high risk flooding areas near to this site). SPC strongly suggests that an Escrow type fund is put into place so that any flooding or consequential flooding due to the development will compensate villagers experiencing damage from such flooding, also taking into account that heavy vehicles using Blind Lane or Wesley Lane as access to the site could cause underground damage to drains and guttering.

  1. Drainage and Sewage

It is understood that the drains and sewers of Southwick are old and when installed were designed for a village. Hence WC must ensure that additional/replacement pipework will readily cater for this application and more, taking into account the uncertainty that other applications are highly likely to follow this one if it is approved. It would also ensure that  disruption to Parishioners in the area would only occur once.

  1. Electricity and Gas

SPC has not studied the provision of additional electricity (sub-station) and gas (pipework) resources needed for this application, and futures ones, but obviously this does need to be considered and taken into account at an early stage.

  1. Traffic Recording on Blind Lane

SPC believes that the traffic counting exercise carried out on Blind Lane was inadequate and did not capture all access points for traffic using Hollisway, Blind Lane, Southfields, Wesley Lane, Lamberts March, etc. SPC requests that WC review the traffic counting measures used for this application and ensures that they are repeated to capture all traffic, especially when the Primary School is open, so that a full picture is established.

  1. Heavy Traffic through the Village.

SPC is already concerned about the constant flow of heavy vehicles travelling through Southwick, bearing in mind that Wynsome Street (C234) is a ‘C’ road and not an ‘A’ road’.

If this application is approved, it can only exacerbate the number of heavy lorries which would be travelling through Southwick to access the development site.

  1. Site Access.

There are already severe traffic issues on the narrow Blind Lane due to residents parking and school run drop-offs and pickups and the fact that Blind Lane is often used as a ‘short cut’ between Wynsome Street and Frome Road as well as between Frome road and Bradley road, especially when the traffic is heavy on the main roads or there is  accident/roadwork delays on the main road. Construction traffic should not be allowed along Blind Lane from Wynsome Street to service the development site. SPC considers that there should be NO access points to the development site on Blind Lane but that one or two access points should be on Wesley Lane. There are various alternative options, including the possibility of a Southwick bypass going from Dunkirk Business Park to Bradley. SPC considers that, if the application is approved, the best way to resolve this is to hold tri-party discussion between WC, SPC and Redrow Homes.

  1. CONCLUSION.

Southwick, defined by WC as a Category C small town/village, wants to remain Category C. SPC and Parishioners do not object to, and have supported, appropriate, sustainable, developments such as infill houses within the village boundaries. SPC would also support the provision of appropriate additional facilities such the building of another school, some extra small shops, a dentist or a doctor’s surgery. But SPC does not support this application.

The Clerk

Southwick Parish Council

For and on behalf of Southwick Parish Council

Approved by its Chairman Cllr. K. Noble

Signed by the Chairman: …………Mrs. K. Noble………………………………….

Dated: ……………21/2/2017…………………………………

Statement made by the Chair of the Parish Council at the start of the last Ordinary Meeting of Southwick Parish Council held on Tuesday 17th January 2017.

Chairman’s Special Announcement

Before the Open Forum starts it is important for me to say a few words about the purpose of this Parish Council meeting tonight because you may have been drawn to attend this meeting by some misleading information.

This is a normal monthly Parish Council meeting routinely set up by law to enable the Parish Council to carry out its lawful business as detailed on the Agenda.

It is NOT a Planning Meeting at which we can devote all the time hearing Parishioners views and reasoned arguments about development applications.

You will hear later in the meeting under item 14d that there will be such a Planning Meeting devoted to hearing the views of all Parishioners about the Redrow Homes Outline Planning Application delivered to us by Wiltshire Council on 12 January 2017.

I apologise if any of you thought that this was a Planning Meeting, but it was not of our doing.

The Parish Council also wishes to point out that it is NOT the duty of a Parish Council to STOP any or all planning applications. A Parish Council’s duty is to seek out the wishes of the majority of Parishioners, particularly for possibly contentious planning applications, as well as ensuring that the application makes sense, is sustainable to the Parish, and that the Parish Council comments passed back to Wiltshire Council about the application would satisfy the majority of Parishioners.

The Parish Council in this respect has a difficult task to do as it will NOT be able to please everyone, but we do need to hear your views with reasoned arguments regarding potentially contentious applications, and the Parish Meeting is one of the places where we can do this.

We appreciate that there is not a great deal of time set by Wiltshire Council to respond to this Redrow application and we have already requested from the Senior Planning Officer for an extension of the Consultation Expiry Date to 28th February and I can confirm that the Planning Officer has agreed to this request.

As tonight’s Agenda includes a lot of Parish Council Business, I will be restricting the Open Forum to 15 minutes as per the Agenda, but I would urge all of you to write to the Clerk as soon as possible if you have strong views about the Redrow application stating your reasoned argument for those views, as well as making those views and arguments known to Wiltshire Council.

Can I also draw your attention to the Wiltshire Council web site where there is a page devoted to “How do I comment on planning applications?” This page contains two important sections about what issues will be considered, and what will not be considered. Significantly,  you cannot bring matters that are not material to the application such as ‘loss of value’ and ‘loss of view’ as these are outside the boundaries of the planning process and are more civil matters between parties. There is also a link to the online system where you can post your comments.

Thank you for listening and I now adjourn the Parish Council Meeting to start the Open Forum for a maximum of 15 minutes.

Two Significant Dates

Wiltshire Council will close submissions to the Shlaa map in mid December 2016 and will report in mid January 2017 on any changes that they propose to make to the existing map.

Wiltshire Council has a statutory duty to consult The Parish Council and we currently have an adopted policy of not wishing to see any large housing development within our Village.

Unfortunately Planning Inspectors have recently within West Wilts granted permissions to build on green field sites because Wiltshire Council has not been able or willing at Public Enquiries to demonstrate that it has a five year housing land supply plan.

However you can be assured that we will continue to be vigilant and will work with others like "Save Our Southwick" to stop large scale housing developments encircling our village.

 

<< Previous 1 2 3 4 Next >>

Powered by CuteNews

Southwick


Southwick Parish Council's response to Wiltshire Council regarding the Redrow Homes Outline Planning Planning Application 16/12279/OUT 

  1. SUMMARY

This document expresses the concern of Southwick Parish Council and many of its Parishioners to the proposed large housing development of residential homes applied for by Redrow Homes on the Land to the South of Blind Lane.

This application specifically requires SPC to comment only on the content of this application which covers up to 100 new homes. However, SPC urges WC to take account of the possibility that this application is only the first phase of further applications which are likely to follow, either from Redrow Homes, or other developers, if this application proceeds to the next stage of approval.

  1. MAJOR REASONS FOR OBJECTION
  1. This extract was taken from Wiltshire Core Strategy Adopted January 2015:

“It is recognised that the villages surrounding Trowbridge, particularly Hilperton, Southwick, North Bradley and West Ashton, have separate and distinct identities as villages. Open countryside should be maintained to protect the character and identity of these villages as separate communities.”

  1. This extract was taken from Appendix 6 of Housing Land Supply Statement base date April 2016:

Housing already provided for

Area

Indicative requirement 2006-2026

Completions 2006-2016

 

Developable commitments 2016-2026

Indicative remaining requirement

Trowbridge

6,810

2,776

2,017

2,017

Trowbridge CA remainder

165

242

29

0

  1. Recently, WC has rejected applications for the following reason/s:

“Having regard to all the submissions and relevant policies, including the policies of the NPPF taken as a whole, and mindful of the nominal 5-year housing land supply shortfall, this application is considered to be an inappropriate, unsustainable form of development which would have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area and highway impacts cumulatively would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefit of providing additional dwellings in an open countryside location and the provision of employment created through construction processes. As such the proposal is not considered to represent sustainable development being contrary to CP1, CP2, CP51, CP57, CP60, and CP61 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy 2015 and the policies of the NPPF taken as a whole.”

  1. For these three reasons stated above, WC should reject this application. Southwick should not be the focus of large scale housing developments like this one which is wholly out of scale and a disproportionate addition to the existing village.
  1. SPC considers that the planning process used by WC does not take account of warning prospective developers, at the earliest opportunity, that they are wasting time and effort in pursuing an application which clearly will not succeed. However, this is outside the scope of this response, and SPC will write to WC separately on this subject.
  1. INCORRECT/MISLEADING STATEMENTS

The application includes a number of statements which either contain incorrect facts, or appear misleading.

  1. Post Office. There is no post office in Southwick. A postal facility is available for one day a week for two hours in the village hall.
  2. Railway. There is no rail station in Southwick. One has to drive into Trowbridge.
  3. Healthcare. There are no doctors’ surgeries or dentist or healthcare in Southwick. The nearest are in Trowbridge.
  4. Public House.  There is only one public house in Southwick.
  5. The applicant states that no houses have been built in Southwick in the last decade; in fact over a hundred houses have been built on suitable sites. This includes the 55 homes which have been built on the old Mowlem factory site.
  6. The application quotes ”local convenience store and newsagents and other local retail”; there is one shop (which also sells newspapers) and two takeaways.  There is no other local retail.
  1. SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS TO ITEMS IN THE APPLICATION
  1. Redrow Homes Village Consultation

The application stated that Redrow Homes will carry out a full consultation with all village residents. To SPC’s knowledge this has not happened. A post drop with some information was made just prior to Christmas 2016 to around 400 homes in the near vicinity of Blind Lane. But there are some 850-900 homes in Southwick and they all need to be consulted on this application.

  1. School Places.

The primary school capacity is believed to be around 202 students with spare capacity around 5 or 6 places. This has only been achieved with the installation of external cabins. The addition of children from another 100 or more homes will undoubtedly more than fill this one school and lead to very high pupil/teacher ratio unless additional capacity is provided. But where?

  1. Work Opportunities

There are very few work opportunities in Southwick. Developers should build in a large town which has both work opportunities and supporting infrastructure already in place to support such a large housing development.

  1. Bus Service.

In the application Public Transport is identified as being “good or sufficient to support amongst other things commuting to and from work”. However, in reality Southwick has a very poor bus service which hardly covers normal daytime employment, let alone shift pattern working, unusual work hours or Saturday/Sunday working. No buses run on a Sunday.

  1. Flooding.

A main concern of SPC and Parishioners is the risk of flooding, not only on the proposed site but consequential flooding, i.e. if measures are put into place to minimise flooding on this development site, there could be an adverse impact on neighbouring areas. (See Appendix 1 taken from the Environmental Agency’s web site which shows high risk flooding areas near to this site). SPC strongly suggests that an Escrow type fund is put into place so that any flooding or consequential flooding due to the development will compensate villagers experiencing damage from such flooding, also taking into account that heavy vehicles using Blind Lane or Wesley Lane as access to the site could cause underground damage to drains and guttering.

  1. Drainage and Sewage

It is understood that the drains and sewers of Southwick are old and when installed were designed for a village. Hence WC must ensure that additional/replacement pipework will readily cater for this application and more, taking into account the uncertainty that other applications are highly likely to follow this one if it is approved. It would also ensure that  disruption to Parishioners in the area would only occur once.

  1. Electricity and Gas

SPC has not studied the provision of additional electricity (sub-station) and gas (pipework) resources needed for this application, and futures ones, but obviously this does need to be considered and taken into account at an early stage.

  1. Traffic Recording on Blind Lane

SPC believes that the traffic counting exercise carried out on Blind Lane was inadequate and did not capture all access points for traffic using Hollisway, Blind Lane, Southfields, Wesley Lane, Lamberts March, etc. SPC requests that WC review the traffic counting measures used for this application and ensures that they are repeated to capture all traffic, especially when the Primary School is open, so that a full picture is established.

  1. Heavy Traffic through the Village.

SPC is already concerned about the constant flow of heavy vehicles travelling through Southwick, bearing in mind that Wynsome Street (C234) is a ‘C’ road and not an ‘A’ road’.

If this application is approved, it can only exacerbate the number of heavy lorries which would be travelling through Southwick to access the development site.

  1. Site Access.

There are already severe traffic issues on the narrow Blind Lane due to residents parking and school run drop-offs and pickups and the fact that Blind Lane is often used as a ‘short cut’ between Wynsome Street and Frome Road as well as between Frome road and Bradley road, especially when the traffic is heavy on the main roads or there is  accident/roadwork delays on the main road. Construction traffic should not be allowed along Blind Lane from Wynsome Street to service the development site. SPC considers that there should be NO access points to the development site on Blind Lane but that one or two access points should be on Wesley Lane. There are various alternative options, including the possibility of a Southwick bypass going from Dunkirk Business Park to Bradley. SPC considers that, if the application is approved, the best way to resolve this is to hold tri-party discussion between WC, SPC and Redrow Homes.

  1. CONCLUSION.

Southwick, defined by WC as a Category C small town/village, wants to remain Category C. SPC and Parishioners do not object to, and have supported, appropriate, sustainable, developments such as infill houses within the village boundaries. SPC would also support the provision of appropriate additional facilities such the building of another school, some extra small shops, a dentist or a doctor’s surgery. But SPC does not support this application.

The Clerk

Southwick Parish Council

For and on behalf of Southwick Parish Council

Approved by its Chairman Cllr. K. Noble

Signed by the Chairman: …………Mrs. K. Noble………………………………….

Dated: ……………21/2/2017…………………………………

Statement made by the Chair of the Parish Council at the start of the last Ordinary Meeting of Southwick Parish Council held on Tuesday 17th January 2017.

Chairman’s Special Announcement

Before the Open Forum starts it is important for me to say a few words about the purpose of this Parish Council meeting tonight because you may have been drawn to attend this meeting by some misleading information.

This is a normal monthly Parish Council meeting routinely set up by law to enable the Parish Council to carry out its lawful business as detailed on the Agenda.

It is NOT a Planning Meeting at which we can devote all the time hearing Parishioners views and reasoned arguments about development applications.

You will hear later in the meeting under item 14d that there will be such a Planning Meeting devoted to hearing the views of all Parishioners about the Redrow Homes Outline Planning Application delivered to us by Wiltshire Council on 12 January 2017.

I apologise if any of you thought that this was a Planning Meeting, but it was not of our doing.

The Parish Council also wishes to point out that it is NOT the duty of a Parish Council to STOP any or all planning applications. A Parish Council’s duty is to seek out the wishes of the majority of Parishioners, particularly for possibly contentious planning applications, as well as ensuring that the application makes sense, is sustainable to the Parish, and that the Parish Council comments passed back to Wiltshire Council about the application would satisfy the majority of Parishioners.

The Parish Council in this respect has a difficult task to do as it will NOT be able to please everyone, but we do need to hear your views with reasoned arguments regarding potentially contentious applications, and the Parish Meeting is one of the places where we can do this.

We appreciate that there is not a great deal of time set by Wiltshire Council to respond to this Redrow application and we have already requested from the Senior Planning Officer for an extension of the Consultation Expiry Date to 28th February and I can confirm that the Planning Officer has agreed to this request.

As tonight’s Agenda includes a lot of Parish Council Business, I will be restricting the Open Forum to 15 minutes as per the Agenda, but I would urge all of you to write to the Clerk as soon as possible if you have strong views about the Redrow application stating your reasoned argument for those views, as well as making those views and arguments known to Wiltshire Council.

Can I also draw your attention to the Wiltshire Council web site where there is a page devoted to “How do I comment on planning applications?” This page contains two important sections about what issues will be considered, and what will not be considered. Significantly,  you cannot bring matters that are not material to the application such as ‘loss of value’ and ‘loss of view’ as these are outside the boundaries of the planning process and are more civil matters between parties. There is also a link to the online system where you can post your comments.

Thank you for listening and I now adjourn the Parish Council Meeting to start the Open Forum for a maximum of 15 minutes.

Two Significant Dates

Wiltshire Council will close submissions to the Shlaa map in mid December 2016 and will report in mid January 2017 on any changes that they propose to make to the existing map.

Wiltshire Council has a statutory duty to consult The Parish Council and we currently have an adopted policy of not wishing to see any large housing development within our Village.

Unfortunately Planning Inspectors have recently within West Wilts granted permissions to build on green field sites because Wiltshire Council has not been able or willing at Public Enquiries to demonstrate that it has a five year housing land supply plan.

However you can be assured that we will continue to be vigilant and will work with others like "Save Our Southwick" to stop large scale housing developments encircling our village.

 

<< Previous 1 2 3 4 Next >>

Powered by CuteNews

Local travel news


The link below is to a Wiltshire Times webpage which has a map centred on Trowbridge but extends to Bath, Chippenham, Frome, Shepton Mallet and Warminster. There is a list of Latest Incidents.

Live traffic and travel news