Wiltshire Housing Site Allocations Plan · 2704 (977912) 2719 (977912) 2743 (1134431/1134428) 2967...

Wiltshire Housing SiteAllocations Plan

Submission draft plan

Consultation Statement Regulation 22 (1) (c) Appendices M - P

May 2018

Information about Wiltshire Council services can be made available on request in other languages including BSL and formats such as large print and audio. Please contact the council on 0300 456 0100, by textphone on 01225 712500 or by email on [email protected].

Wiltshire Council

21 Appendix M - Summary of all the representations related tothe site selection process that were received during theRegulation 19 consultation

21.1 This appendix provides a summary of the representations received in Plan order. The tableincludes the unique ID reference numbers ascribed to each consultee. Often a representationfrom a consultee presented a number of individual points (based on individual sites and/orelements of the Plan) and each of these comments have also been ascribed a uniquereference number.

21.2 The unique consultee ID and unique reference numbers found in this Appendix are set outas follows:

21.3 Consultee Unique ID - 7 digit number. In some cases there are two numbers this is whenthere is both a consultee and agent attributed to a representation.Comment Unique ID - 3 or 4 digit number. There maybe numerous comments from thesame consultee.

21.4 The list of main issues set out in Section 5 has been generated from the process of analysingevery representation and comment received. Rather than respond to every single pointmade by consultees, the Council has grouped the comments and presented them in planorder. What follows is a summary of the points raised by consultees based upon the areasof the Plan that they commented upon. At the end of each summary is the Council’s responseto the points made.

21.5 The summary of responses presented in Appendix M are as follows:

21.6 Part 1: Housing Delivery StrategyPart 2: East Wiltshire Housing Market AreaPart 3: Housing allocation H1.1: Empress Way, LudgershallPart 4: Housing allocation H1.2: Underhill Nursery, Market LavingtonPart 5: Housing allocation H1.3 Southcliffe, Market LavingtonPart 6: Housing allocation H1.4: East of Lavington School, Market LavingtonPart 7: North and West Housing Market AreaPart 8: Housing allocation H2.1: Elm Grove Farm, TrowbridgePart 9: Housing allocation H2.2: Land off the A363 at White Horse Business Park, TrowbridgePart 10: Housing allocation H2.3: Elizabeth Way, TrowbridgePart 11: Housing allocation H2.4: Church Lane, TrowbridgePart 12: Housing allocation H2.5: Upper Studley, TrowbridgePart 13: Housing allocation H2.6: Southwick Court, TrowbridgePart 14: Housing allocation H2.7: East of the Dene, WarminsterPart 15: Housing allocation H2.8: Bore Hill Farm, WarminsterPart 16: Housing allocation H2.9: Boreham Road, WarminsterPart 17: Housing allocation H2.10: Barters Farm, ChapmansladePart 18: Housing allocation H2.11: The Street, HullavingtonPart 19: Housing allocation H2.12: East of Farrells Field, Yatton KeynellPart 20: Housing allocation H2.13: Ridgeway Farm, CrudwellPart 21: Housing allocation H2.14: Court Orchard/ Cassways, BrattonPart 22: South Housing Market AreaPart 23: Housing allocation H3.1: Netherhampton Road, SalisburyPart 24: Housing allocation H3.2: Hilltop Way, SalisburyPart 25: Housing allocation H3.3: North of Netherhampton Road, SalisburyPart 26: Housing allocation H3.4: Land at Rowbarrow, Salisbury

• Wiltshire Housing Site Allocations Plan Regulation 22 (1) (c) Statement of Consultation • • Page 115

Part 27: Housing allocation H3.5: Clover Lane, DurringtonPart 28: Housing allocation H3.6: Larkhill Road, Durrington

21.7 Part 29: Implementation and Monitoring

21.8 Other procedural documents supporting the PlanPart 30: Sustainability AppraisalPart 31: Habitats Regulations AssessmentPart 32: Landscape AssessmentPart 33: Viability AssessmentPart 34: Duty to Cooperate StatementPart 35: Equality Impact Assessment

Page 116 • • Wiltshire Housing Site Allocations Plan Regulation 22 (1) (c) Statement of Consultation •

Table 21.1

Housing delivery strategy, site selection methodology and plan objectivesPart 1: 133 No. of

comments:142 (854597)419 (1122982)583 (393636)714 (1125714/404491)785 (378123)925 (1037118/1126480)1043 (393725)1169 (1126846)1450 (706891)1480 (706891)1641 (403792)1848 (1126111)2084 (556573/556956)2283 (1132230/1132220)2362 1132344/825048)2442 (449233/1122261)2584 (1133494/389561)2644 (1113871/1133715)2651 (983136)2654 (983136)2703 (977912)2708 (977912)2739 (1134382/404491)2966 (1135954/556489)2972 (395940)3002 (998345/1136047)3023 (382216)3043 (900160/900154)3046 (1136406/1136403)3058 (389564/389561)3071 (1100941/404491)3079 (840359/443671)3096 (397800/1138537)3151 (817896/817881)3171 (449270)3198 (861027/1136403)3214 (1138508)3257 (841197/397761)3289 (1138628/1103789)3322 (1138930)134 (1024488)1092 (1126886/1126888)2715 (977912)3173 (449270)

90 (1119698)418 (1138628/1103789)461 (400077)698 (1125766/1137501)774 (378123)924 (1037118/1126480)1039 (393725)1095 (1126899/1123010)1316 (1128412)1459 (900566/1125375)1635 (1119095/894742)1847 (1126111)2083 (556573/556956)2282 (1132230/1132220)2357 (1132344/825048)2398 (1132626/1126961)2583 (1133494/389561)2641 (824512/901379)2650 (983136)2653 (983136)2697 (1134169)2706 (977912)2731 (1134308/1134306)2893 (979508)2971 (395940)2974 (395940)3008 (998345/556489)3035 (1136406/1136403)3045 (1136406/1136403)3048 (1136406/1136403)3060 (389564/389561)3076 (840359/443671)3084 (1137312/1137310)3145 (1138002/1138006)3158 (1138132/1126888)3197 (861027/1136403)3213 (1138508)3256 (841197/397761)3288 (1138628/1103789)3320 (1138930)41 (1118090)490 (1125019)2388 (390498)3172 (449270)

42 (1118090)343 (857749)439 (1124912/1124938)599 (399075)715 (1125714/404491)810 (1120822)1033 (1124796/1124792)1094 (162663)1243 (1122130)1456 (706891)1493 (706891)1768 (556113)1939 (1131233)2281 (1132230/1132220)2320 (1126903)2392 (903251)2582 (1133494/389561)2636 (1133667/1133670)2649 (983136)2652 (983136)2655 (983136)2704 (977912)2719 (977912)2743 (1134431/1134428)2967 (395940)2973 (395940)3005 (840643/646956)3024 (382216)3044 (1136406/1136403)3047 (1136406/1136403)3059 (389564/389561)3075 (840359/443671)3083 (820746/1137249)3097 (893988)3157 (817896/817881)3187 (397159)3199 (861027/1136403)3230 (1138546/1133715)3258 (841197/397761)3312 (1132626/1126888)3329 (1138958)292 (924012)1822 (1130951)3085 (1137312/1137310)3150 (817896)

Comment ID

(Consultee/AgentID):


21.9 We received 133 representations on the housing delivery strategy, site selectionmethodology and plan objectives. The comments raised were varied, but in summarythe issues emanating from the representations related to the points below. These havebeen split into subheadings but it should be noted that many of these issues are interlinked:

21.10 Conformity with the Wiltshire Core Strategy and NPPF

The Objectively Assessed Needs of the County (as set out in the WCS(33) are not beingmet in accordance with paragraphs 14 and 47 of the Framework. A 5% uplift should beapplied.The Plan does not take into account the Wiltshire Core Strategy Partial review or newStrategic Housing Market Area evidence therefore it may be out of date quickly. It isusing out of date housing targets.The housing requirements set out in the Core Strategy should not be seen as a minimum,neither should they be seen as a ceiling for development through the plan period.Potential under delivery on allocated sites in the Core Strategy and made neighbourhoodplans should be addressed in the Housing Site Allocations Plan through the identificationof more sites.The Plan should cover a longer time frame of at least 10 years.The plan should also consider allocating sites for employment development as theWiltshire Core Strategy requires both. It should also consider sites for older person’saccommodation.The Plan should be supported by the Wiltshire Green Infrastructure Strategy which isas yet incomplete.

21.11 Flexibility or rigidity of the Plan and site selection process:

The methodology employed for allocating sites across the Housing Market Areas isunduly rigid and a more flexible approach should be taken to meeting indicative housingneeds across the County.Housing sites should be identified at sustainable locations in more areas, not just theidentified ‘areas of search’. The Plan should not exclude sustainable sites and landwithin areas of search where the indicative housing need has already been met.Suitable sites should be considered in any locations that are in line with the CoreStrategy’s spatial strategy.The Plan should also consider sites outside of the SHLAA/SHELAA.Where areas are constrained consideration should be given to providing the housingrequirement elsewhere in the wider HMA, for example, meeting some of the housingrequirement for Trowbridge in the surrounding large villages.Reserve sites should be included.The capacity of each allocation should not be treated as absolute.Smaller sites should be considered to build in more flexibility.

21.12 Strategic approach to the distribution of sites

In each HMA there were responses that called for more development in some areasand less development in others and which questioned the way that housing requirementswere rigidly applied to community areas and settlements.A review of the Green Belt should be carried out.Other towns in the North and West HMA should meet housing requirements forTrowbridge, which is constrained.

33 The evidence to support the Wiltshire Core Strategy set the OAN as 44,000 homes to be delivered from 2006-2026. However, theindicative requirement to be delivered by the Core Strategy is 42,000


Sites should be allocated in South Wiltshire to meet unmet housing need in the NewForest National Park.Sites should be allocated to meet unmet need in Swindon.Sites should be allocated in Chippenham.Land adjoining Shaftesbury in North Dorset should be considered for allocations.

21.13 Approach to Large Villages

Rural affordable housing needs are not being met.There is too much housing in Large Villages and the scale is too large and not in linewith the 10 dwellings set out in supporting text in the Wiltshire Core Strategy. It is notmodest development.Comments were also made that a consistent approach is not being taken to LargeVillages across the county, with allocations made at Large Villages in some communityareas, and not others. This also applied to the Local Service Centres with allocationsmade at Market Lavington but not at Cricklade.Comments were made that whole villages should not be ruled out of assessment.

21.14 Housing Land Supply and source of sites

Other sources of land supply should be considered. Derelict, underused and brownfieldland should be considered. Long term empty homes should be brought back into use.Too much reliance on the SHLAA which does not allow strategic decisions.The settlement boundary review should be used to allocate land and boost supply.The 5 year housing land supply is exceeded in each HMA.A 20% buffer should be applied to reduce the risk of shortfall.6 years supply should be provided to reduce the risk of under delivery.There is no supply of sites after 6 years.Neighbourhood plan allocations cannot be relied upon.A later base date should be used.A housing trajectory should support the plan. Further detail is required on the componentof supply.A number of comments were made on the use or not of a windfall allowances

21.15 Relationships with neighbourhood plans

The reliance on sites in neighbourhood plans creates uncertainty as the sites identifiedare not rigorously tested.Sites in areas with a made Neighbourhood Plan allocating sites should not be removedfrom the site selection process. For example, calls are made for allocating sites inPewsey, Devizes and Malmesbury despite there being made neighbourhood plans inplace.

21.16 Site selection methodology

Sites allocated for non-residential uses such as Principle Employment Sites should notbe excluded from the process.Comments made by the Environment Agency, Historic England and Highways Englandhave been incorporated into the methodology. A summary of these thematic issuescan be found in table 7.1.

21.17 These themes are covered under main issue 1 in Section 7 of the main report.

21.18 Council’s response to themes/issues raised:


21.19 The adopted Wiltshire Core Strategy sets out the housing requirement for Wiltshire until2026 and the distribution of this housing requirement by Community Area, PrincipalSettlement, Market Town and Local Service Centre. The draft Wiltshire Housing SiteAllocations Plan has been prepared in general conformity with the Wiltshire Core Strategyand delivers housing allocations in areas where the Core Strategy requirement is yet to bemet. Within this Plan there is no need to look beyond these identified areas of search.

21.20 The Local Plan Review has begun and will review the Wiltshire Core Strategy on the basisof revised housing evidence. This is based on an emerging joint framework with Swindonand new housing market area evidence and will address any wider, longer-term issuesrelated to housing delivery and ongoing local plan policy commitments.

21.21 The SHLAA/SHELAA provided a stock of available and developable sites and it has notbeen necessary to look beyond this evidence unless a clearly suitable site has been identifiedor submitted during a consultation exercise. Brownfield sites within settlement boundariescan already come forward through the provisions of national policy and the policies of theCore Strategy (the general presumption in favour of sustainable development).

21.22 Housing sites identified within made neighbourhood plans have been independently examinedand therefore provide a credible and reliable source of housing land supply.

21.23 The Plan offers sufficient certainty in terms of housing land supply and promotes allocationsin areas of the County that will further the area strategies of the Core Strategy. The plannedallocations are therefore considered to be one of a number of sources of supply. Moreover,a windfall allowance is already made in the Council's housing land supply calculations.

21.24 Proposed change(s) required to address themes/issues raised:

No changes proposed.


Table 21.2

East Wiltshire Housing Market AreaPart 2: 47No. of

comments:64 (1119082)291 (924012)519 (1125376)618 (1125727)1093 (1126886/1126888)1539 (1129236/1004509)2714 (977912)3002 (998345/1136047)3035 (1136406/1136403)3109 (549444/1136047)3125 (1137779/1137777)3196 (861027/1136403)3206 (863519/1128217)3211 (863519/1128217)225 (1123590)

62 (838183)284 (924012)425 (899720)521 (1125376)716 (1125714/404491)1478 (901977/901806)2666 (983136)2739 (1134382/404491)3004 (998345/1136047)3048 (1136406/1136403)3111 (549444/1136047)3153 (817896/817881)3205 (863519/1128217)3210 (863519/1128217)3349 (1110188)1701 (1129975)

129 (115636)116 (869060)293 (924012)520 (1125376)714 (1125714/404491)1459 (900566/1125375)2142 (1131855)2716 (977912)3003 (998345/1136047)3047 (1136406/1136403)3110 (549444/1136047)3143 (1138497/836762)3200 (861027/1136403)3207 (863519/1128217)3223 (397800/1138537)1698 (820230)

CommentID

(Consultee/ Agent ID):

21.25 A total of 47 representations relating to the East Wiltshire Housing Market Area werereceived. In summary, the issues emanating from the representations related to:

The distribution of housing in the East Housing Market Area.

More emphasis should be applied to allocating housing sites in Large Villages.

The Plan should make provision for anticipated under delivery on allocated sites withinboth the ‘made’ Devizes and Pewsey Neighbourhood Development Plans.

Alternatives should be considered to over-dependence on Tidworth and Ludgershall,to ensure flexible supply.

Affordability issues in rural communities are not addressed especially in the East HMAwhere no allocations are proposed at the large villages or market town of Marlborough.The imapct of not addressig rural affordbale housing need should be tested throughthe sustainability appraisal.

Sites should be allcoated at Large Villages in the East HMA in the same way they arein the North and West HMA.

21.26 Devizes Community Area

There have been insufficient attempts to coordinate the Plan and neighbourhood planningprocesses.

The Market Lavington Neighbourhood Plan is at a sufficiently late stage of preparationto let it allocate sites, not this Plan.

Devizes Neighbourhood Plan may under deliver.

Omission sites have been put forward in Market Lavington, Devizes, Great Cheverelland Bromham.


21.27 Marlborough Community Area

Land should be allocated at Broad Hinton to meet the needs of rural communities.

Omission sites have been identified in Aldbourne, Baydon, Fyfield and Marlborough.

21.28 Pewsey Community Area

Pewsey is the only Local Service Centre in area and should have new development.

Pewsey Neighbourhood Plan may under deliver.

Omission sites have been identified at Pewsey.

Request to amend site areas of SHLAA site references 1072 and 1083 to reflect omissionsite land at Swan Road, Pewsey.


The Wiltshire Core Strategy sets out the indicative housing requirement and distributionfor Wiltshire over the period 2006 to 2026.The Strategy is based upon housing deliverywithin Wiltshire’s 20 Community Areas and then broken down to provide an indicativehousing requirement to be delivered at: Principal Settlements, Market Towns and LocalService Centres.The Plan is in general conformity with the Wiltshire Core Strategy anddelivers housing allocations in areas where the indicative Core Strategy requirementsare yet to be met. The evidence suggests that there is no need to look beyond theidentified areas of search. Neither is there any evidence at this stage to considerallocating additional strategic sites in areas with a ‘made’ neighbourhood developmentplan in place, allocated sites in made neighbourhood plans in Pewsey and Devizes forpart of the housing land supply. The Local Plan Review process has begun and thiswill lead to a full review the Wiltshire Core Strategy on the basis of revised housingevidence.




Table 21.3

Housing allocation H1.1: Empress Way, Ludgershall Part 3:7No. of comments:

1287 (911081)3082 (758096/758092)

1036 (874600)2979 (395940)

953 (1126553)2697 (1134169)3201 (861027/1136403)

Comment ID

(Consultee / Agent ID):

21.31 A total of 7 representations relating to proposed allocation H1.1: Empress Way, Ludgershallwere received. The issues emanating from the representations related to:

A request to include additional detail within the policy to cover the potential for futuretransport links to be created to service the development;

A request to include additional detail within the Plan to cover the potential for impactson railway infrastructure and rail safety associated with increased pedestrian use ofcrossing points;

A request to include additional detail in the Plan to address the need to deliverimprovements to water infrastructure and control on odour impacts due to the proximityto the Sewage Treatment Works;

A request to add more detail into the Plan to address the need to safeguard PublicRights of Way;

Request to include additional detail regarding delivery of a school;

Concern about adverse effects local water resources;

Concern about adverse effects on biodiversity/green infrastructure associated withdevelopment of greenfield land;

Concern about adverse effects associated with the loss of Best and Most Versatile(Grade 3a) agricultural land; and

Support the need for landscape screening to ameliorate the impact of development onthe wider countryside.

21.32 Council’s response to themes/issues raised:The Council considers the approach taken with the identification of this site is based onreasonable evidence and in general conformity with the Wiltshire Core Strategy. In light ofthe issues raised the Council’s response is the following:

The Council relied upon the a methodology for calculating site densities set out withinthe Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA). In response torepresentations received, the issue of whether the assumptions regarding site densitieswere appropriate has been re-evaluated. In principle, the Council agree that theproposed site allocations should seek to make the best and most efficient use of landin line with national policy (see paragraph 17 of the National Planning PolicyFramework). Therefore, where appropriate, it is considered that raising the densityprofile of sites may be achievable, provided such action does not compromise socialand environmental objectives. In addition, raising site densities would also increasehousing delivery and thereby help support land supply commitments in each of Wiltshire’sthree HMAs over the period to 2026.


The Council is investigating the feasibility of bringing forward future transport linksbetween the proposed allocation/development and the local highway network. At thisstage it is considered that the need for identifying additional strategic networkimprovements will be investigated through the Local Plan Review process.

Any amendments in relation to impacts on railway infrastructure and rail safety wouldneed to be discussed and agreed between the site promoter and Network Rail. At thisstage, no evidence justifies an alteration to the existing rail crossing point.

It is recommended policy wording in relation to the delivery of water infrastructure andpotential odour assessment is added.

Potential adverse impacts of development of the site were considered through the siteassessment process. Although potential adverse impacts were identified, it is consideredthat these are not insurmountable and could potentially be mitigated. Furtherassessment of these issues will be undertaken as part of the planning applicationprocess if required at this stage.


Amend policy/supporting text in reference to water infrastructure/odour, schoolrequirements and rights of way. Details can be found in Appendix Q Schedule ofProposed Changes to the Pre-Submission Draft Plan.

21.34 The HRA update will inform any changes in relation to River Avon SAC (water abstraction)and Salisbury Plain SPA.

4 • • Wiltshire Housing Site Allocations Plan Regulation 22 (1) (c) Statement of Consultation •

Table 21.4

Housing allocation H1.2: Underhill Nursey, Market Lavington Part 4: 24 No. of

comments:289 (924012)556 (1125376/1125375)559 (1125376/1125375)1951 (1130978/1131263)2658 (983136)2661 (983136)2919 (1135495)3347 (1110188)

288 (924012)522 (1125376/1125375)558 (1125376/1125375)1735 (1130331)2657 (983136)2660 (983136)2697 (1134169)3202 (861027/1136403)

287 (924012)290 (924012)557 (1125376/1125375) 1734 (1104618)2656 (983136)2659 (983136)2662 (983136)2977 (395940)

Comment ID


21.35 A total of 24 representations relating to proposed allocation H1.2: Underhill Nursery, MarketLavington were received. The issues emanating from the representations related to:

The quanta of homes to be developed;

The need to extend the site area of the allocation to provide an alternative means ofaccess and deliver improved landscaping ;

The suitability of the location;

Potential conflict with the emerging Market Lavington Neighbourhood Plan;

The accuracy of the policy and supporting text;

Potential for surface water flooding;

The suitability of the site compared to alternative sites;

Request to include additional wording requiring education contributions;

Concern over archaeological potential;

Concern over landscape and visual impact; and

Concern over transport impacts.


21.37 The Council considers the approach taken with the identification of this site is based onreasonable evidence and in general conformity with the Wiltshire Core Strategy. In light ofthe issues raised the Council’s response is the following:

A Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment undertaken by TEP on behalf of the Councilindicates that by extending the area of the allocation would not generate adverse impactson the local landscape. Moreover, it is considered that a larger site area would enabledevelopment proposals to better incorporate landscape design objectives, such as theprovision of wide green corridors to provide an improved edge to the settlement. Anincreased site area will also offer confidence in terms of housing delivery for thecommunity area and make more efficient use of land.


The Council acknowledges and supports the Market Lavington Neighbourhood Planprocess. Indeed, the methodology employed to prepare the Housing Site AllocationsPlan respected neighbourhood planning across the County. Where it was clear thatneighbourhood plans had reached the formal consultation stage (34) a decision wasmade to not allocate housing sites. At the time the Plan was being prepared, theemerging Market Lavington Neighbourhood Plan was not sufficiently far advanced andhence the decision was taken to allocate sites for housing to further the objectives ofthe Wiltshire Core Strategy. However the comments of the Parish Council were takeninto consideration in the site assessment process; and encouragement to progress theneighbourhood plan has been consistently provided. The evidence that supports thePlan keeps the discussion open by stating that the situation may be reviewed shouldthe Market Lavington Neighbourhood Plan be submitted during the Examination of thePlan.

It is considered that sufficient sites have been allocated in the East HMA to be able tomaintain a 5-year housing land supply

Many sites have been considered through the site selection process. Sites have beenallocated that are considered to offer the greatest sustainability benefits, and all issuesincluding flooding have been taken into account, within the context of a housing deliverystrategy based on the housing requirement in each Housing Market Area.

Considerations such as the scale of development, sustainable location, access, andimpacts on highways, landscape, archaeology and flooding were taken into accountduring the site assessment process. The planning application process will also requirethat any necessary assessment is carried out and informs the proposals so thatrequirements can be met.

SA Objective 2 has been reviewed and it is considered unnecessary to amend, as theassessment balances the loss of agricultural land with the use of previously developmentland.

Surface water flooding is a known issue in Market Lavington and is considered capableof being addressed through detailed drainage design.

The Spring is being considered as an omission site, and as previously mentioned theallocations in Market Lavington may be reviewed if the Plan is submitted prior toexamination of the Plan.


Extend the site boundary to enable a suitable means of access delivered and landscapeobjectives to be met. The development of the site would benefit from the removal of abelt of Leylandii trees in order to enhance opportunities for strengthening the boundariesof the site with the planting of native species.

34 The Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012 (as amended), Regulation 16


Table 21.5

Housing allocation H1.3: Southcliffe, Market Lavington Part 5: 8 No. of comments:

805 (481043)2976 (395940)

2285 (924012)2697 (1134169) 3348 (1110188)

119 (1120651/1120649)807 (481043)3203 (861027/1136403)

Comment ID

(Consultee/Agent ID):

21.39 A total of 8 representations relating to proposed allocation H1.3 Southcliffe, MarketLavington were received. The issues emanating from the representations related to:

The quanta of homes to be developed;The site area of the allocation and request for alignment with the emerging policies ofthe neighbourhood plan;Potential for surface water flooding;Request to include additional wording requiring education contributions;Concern over landscape and visual impact; andConcern over transport impacts.

21.40 Council response

Considerations such as the impacts on highways, landscape and flooding were takeninto account during the site assessment process. None of the potential impacts werethought to be insurmountable. The planning application process will require that anynecessary assessment is carried out and informs proposals .Surface water flooding is a known issue in Market Lavington are capable of resolutionthrough a detailed drainage scheme.




Table 21.6

Housing allocation H1.4: East of Lavington School, Market Lavington Part 6: 10 No. of comments:

805 (481043)2665 (983136)3204 (861027/1136403)

804 (481043)2664 (983136) 2978 (395940)

286 (924012)2663 (983136) 2697 (1134169)3346 (1110188)

Comment ID


21.42 A total of 10 representations relating to proposed allocation H1.4: East of Lavington School,Market Lavington were received. The issues emanating from the representations relatedto:

The quanta of homes to be developed;The site area of the allocation and request for alignment with the policies of the emergingneighbourhood plan;The suitability of the site compared to alternative sites, such as at Devizes;Concern over impacts on biodiversity;Request to include additional wording requiring education contributions;Concern over landscape and visual impact, and potential for coalescence with WestLavington; andConcern over transport impacts and suitability of access.


The site assessment took place in the context of areas of search identified accordingto the housing requirement of each HMA. Within this context it was concluded that thehousing requirement at Devizes has been met through existing commitments;Considerations such as the impacts on highways, landscape and flooding were takeninto account during the site assessment process. None of the potential impacts areconsidered to be insurmountable based on evidence available at the time of assessment.The SA concluded that access via the school is likely to be problematic, however furtherwork with the site promoter has indicated a commitment to exploring possible options.


None.


Table 21.7

North and West Housing Market Area Part 7: 457 No. of

comments:24 (1115782)47 (1118224)50 (1118224)53 (1118606)68 (1119110)84 (1119432)100 (987736 / 846301)108 (112037)111 (899514)129 (1120660)150 (1121687)159 (402574)168 (391073)186 (1122860)205 (1122982)215 (1122860)256 (1122960)282 (1120376)343 (857749)354 (549888)357 (1124532)374 (402574)419 (1122982)439 (1124912/1124938)446 (1124959)480 (1125003)506 (1125261)545 (1125455)575 (556401)629 (391073)632 (391073)635 (391073)686 (1125761)706 (900566 /1125375)718 (1125820)752 (1138652)755 (1138652)781 (1126124)818 (1126254)873 (547867)922 (1126508)959 (840630)1010(1139654)1020 (1125612)1074 (1126841/1004509)1113 (487991)

13 (1102653)31 (1102653)49 (1118224)52 (1118224)59 (1118762)82 (1119288)96 (1119992)107 (895657)110 (899514)120 (1120653)132 (789551)158 (1121833)166 (1122195)179 (1122693)202 (1122960)209 (391073)255 (1122960)270 (897503)317 (1122860)353 (549888)356 (1124532)369 (1115782)399 (893748)428 (1124905)445 (1124959)462 (400077)505 (1125261)530 (1102653)552 (1125557)621 (1124905)631 (391073)634 (391073)654 (1125702)697 (1125761)713 (1125829)725 (1125928)754 (1138652)799 (1126111)815 (893828)826 (1126249)921 (1126508)955 (1126671)970 (1126736)1019 (1125612)1035 (1124796/1124792)1112 (487991)

5 (1105343)25 (1115782)48 (1118224)51 (1118224)54 (1118631)75 (1119264)95 (897503)102 (1120337)109 (899514)115 (1120545)130 (1120660)155 (549888)160 (402574)171 (550023)198 (893748)206 (1122982)254 (1122960)269 (1120376)295 (1124372)349 (549888)355 (549888)368 (1124560)397 (900022)426 (1124905)440 (1124908)461 (400077)498 (1105805)529 (1102653)549 (1124865/549147)602 (1125612)630 (391073)633 (391073)651 (1125690)688 (1125761)707 (900566/1125375)719 (1125864)753 (1138652)762 (1126050)806 (1126214)819 (1126254)888 (1054271)923 (1037118/1126480)967 (1054315)1015 (1126790)1021 (1125612)1076 (840630)

Comment ID



1114 (487991)1117 (487991)1120 (487991)1123 (487991)1145 (897565)1194 (1126986)1205 (1126753)1225 (1127022)1242 (836280/835942)1370 (1128696)1405 (1126945)1418 (1128743)1431 (1128759)1449 (704457)1480 (706891)1522 (556645/901806)1548 (1051839)1554 (1129290)1566 (1129302)1582 (1051839)1618 (1129612)1622 (1129612)1625 (1129612)1628 (1129612)1631 (1129612)1634 (1129612)1670 (381339)1674 (1129887)1682 (381814)1688 (1129933)1696 (1138653)1718 (704825)1723 (709291)1817 (702421)1820 (705359)1850 (1126111)1853 (1126111)1861 (547867)1864 (547867)1867 (547867)1921 (1106467)1963 (1131292)1969 (1127022)1984 (1131344)2063 (705056)2078 (1131654)2079 (1131654)2087 (1131667)2090 (1131667)2094 (1131696)2097 (1131696)2143 (1131734)2183 (1131913)2253 (704678)

1116 (487991)1119 (487991)1122 (487991)1144 (897565)1192 (1126986)1201 (403859)1210 (901852/901806)1241 (1127015)1245 (1117600)1385 (1128696)1409 (1128743)1422 (1128759)1448 (901801/901806)1472 (1128886)1503 (706891)1543 (390590/901806)1552 (1129290)1564 (1129295/1129296)1577 (1129302)1609 (556645 / 901806)1621 (1129612)1624 (1129612)1627 (1129612)1630 (1129612)1633 (1129612)1667 (402907)1673 (1129887)1681 (381814)1687 (1129933)1690 (1129933)1708 (1128190/863491)1722 (709291)1767 (5561130)1819 (702406)1849 (1126111)1852 (1126111)1860 (547867)1863 (547867)1866 (547867)1917 (1106467)1939 (1131233)1968 (1127022)1983 (1131344)2060 (705056)2076 (1131654)2080 (1131654)2085 (556573/556956)2089 (1131667)2093 (1131696)2096 (1131696)2111 (1131720/1131715)2162 (1131734)2247 (1132119)2264 (1132174)

1115 (487991)1118 (487991)1121 (487991)1136 (1126922)1163 (901946/901806)1195 (1127006)1208 (1127016)1233 (1102653)1243 (1122130)1372 (1128696)1407 (1128743)1420 (1128759)1446 (901829/901806)1451 (392243/901806)1495 (706891)1538 (1129228/901806)1551 (1129287/1004509)1562 (1129290)1568 (1129302)1605 (1129497 / 901806)1619 (1129612)1623 (1129612)1626 (1129612)1629 (1129612)1632 (1129612)1658 (901813/901806)1672 (381339)1675 (1129887)1684 (381814)1689 (1129933)1704 (404631/863491)1721 (709291)1766 (556113)1818 (1130943)1821 (1130946)1851 (1126111)1859 (547867)1862 (547867)1865 (547867)1909 (895670)1922 (1106467)1967 (1127022)1970 (1127022)2026 (393425/817881)2064 (705056)2079 (1131654)2080 (1131654)2088 (1131667)2092 (1131683)2095 (1131696)2105 (1131696)2150 (1131734)2184 (1131913)2263 (1132174)


2266 (1126756)2315 (711666)2343 (1132418)2378 (1132552)2381 (1132552)2386 (1132552)2390 (1132602)2399 (1132626/1126961)2402 (1132626/1126961)2416 (1132626/1126961)2461 (642979/1100945)2479 (1132963)2482 (899954)2524 (836764/836762)2551 (1116552)2573 (1133460)2589 (1133494/389561)2608 (1133638)2623(1137289/1137295)2642 (824512/901379)2647 (1113871/1133715)2668 (983136)2673 (983136)2676 (983136)2697 (1134169)2705 (977912)2711 (977912)2713 (977912)2722 (1134217/1005672)2735 (1134352/1124938)2741 (1134431/1134428)2750 (1068308)2815 (709293)2840 (1138316/1138317)2849 (1126922)2860 (1126922)2864 (1126922)2867 (1135059)2933 (701840)2949 (1135685)3010 (392552)3037 (1136436/1135353)3040 (556491/901380)3057 (389564/389561)3077 (840359/443671)3084 (1137312/1137310)3138 (1137830/1122261)3146 (1138002/1138006)3152(817896/817881)3159 (1138190)3181 (933220/1138250)3262 (841197/397761)3265 (841197/397761)3278 (1138699)

2265 (1132174)2292 (871876)2327 (1132392)2374 (1132530/1006176)2380 (1132552)2384 (1132580/550322)2389 (1132602)2396 (903251)2401 (1132626/1126961)2415 (1132626/1126961)2446 (711399/1132875)2478 (1132963)2481 (899954)2491 (1132963)2543 (1116552)2565 (1133460)2588 (1133494/389561)2607 (1133638)2617 (1113716)2636 (1133667/1133670)2646 (1113871/1133715)2653 (983136)2672 (983136)2675 (983136)2685 (1134103/931633)2702 (1134177/1126238)2710 (977912)2713 (977912)2720 (1134745)2732 (1134308/1134306)2740 (1134431/1134428)2743 (1134431/11344282813 (709293)2817 (709293)2849 (1126922)2852 (1126922)2862 (1126922)2866 (1126922)2908 (397127)2947 (1135685)3007 (840643/646956)3036 (1136436/1135353)3039 (1136436/1135353)3056 (389564/389561)3075 (840359/443671)3081 (1137004/1137062)3098 (1126042)3144 (1138002/1138006)3149 (1138113/899110)3156 (817896/817881)3174 (449270)3212 (1138508)3264 (841197/397761)3277 (1138699)

2291 (871876)2321 (1132392)2373 (1132552)2379 (1132552)2382 (1132552)2387 (1132552)2391 (1132602)2400 (1132626/1126961)2403 (1132626/1126961)2432 (1126922)2464 (642979/1100945)2480 (899954)2490 (1132963)2542 (1116552)2564 (1133465)2587 (1133494/389561)2592 (481059)2612 (1133652)2635 (1133667/1133670)2644 (1113871/1133715)2648 (1113871/1133715)2671 (983136)2674 (983136)2681 (1134057)2701 (1134177/1126238)2709 (977912)2712 (977912)2717 (977912)2726 (404224/1122261)2739 (1134382/404491)2742 (1134431/1134428)2751 (1068308)2816 (709293)2846 (1126922)2850 (1126922)2861 (1126922)2865 (1126922)2883 (1135124)2935 (701840)3000 (1136804/1138276)3011 (1138653)3038 (1136436/1135353)3055 (389564/389561)3071 (1100941/404491)3080 (1137004/1137062)3086 (1137322/1137324)3141 (1137984/1130975)3147 (1138002/11380063154 (817896/817881)3165 (1138190)3188 (397159)3263 (841197/397761)3276 (1138699)3279 (1138699)


3287 (1138699)3313 (1132626/1126888)3327 (1138939)7 (1106037)1763 (556113)

3281 (1138699)3307 (1138780)3323 (1138930)3368 (1146217)162 (1121891)2735 (1134352)

3280 (1138699)3296 (1138780)3321 (1138930)3354 (1119432)37 (903313)2944 (1069602)

21.45 A total of 457 representations relating to the North and West Housing Market Area werereceived. The issues emanating from the representations related to:

Housing Land Supply shortfall/oversupply in the North and West HMA;

Amount of land that is proposed to be allocated in the North and West HMA;

Potential shortfalls/oversupply based on Community Area indicative requirements;

Flexibility of supply and potential for alternative or additional sites;

Flexibility of the ‘areas of search’ used to define where allocations should be located;

Justification for removing certain settlements from the ‘areas of search’.

The need to provide suitable sites to meet shortfalls in neighbouring authorities;

Obstacles in delivery of sites which are relied upon in the North and West HMA;

The strategy to focus allocations at the Principal Settlements and Market Towns ratherthat smaller settlements;

Provision for affordable housing within the North and West HMA;

The strategy not to allocate land within the settlement boundary;

The strategy to focus proposed sites in the Trowbridge and Westbury area, rather thanaround junction 17 of the M4.

The role of, and reliance on neighbourhood plans to deliver supply in the North andWest HMA;

Strategic highways, infrastructure, flooding, education, landscape and ecologyimplications of allocations within the North and West HMA;

Concerns about coalescence between settlements;

Appropriate consideration of the need to protect the River Avon SAC within the contextof the proposed allocations at Warminster;

Lack of transport, economic and environmental modelling (GI Strategy and TransportStrategy);

The potential need for a Green Belt review in the north-west Trowbridge/Bradford onAvon area;

Correct title for the Trowbridge Bat Mitigation Strategy should be used within the Plan.



21.47 The Council considers the approach taken to the identification of this site is based onreasonable evidence and in general conformity with the Wiltshire Core Strategy. In light ofthe issues raised the Council’s response is the following:

Work is continuing on the Trowbridge Bat Mitigation Strategy and future developmentwill need to be in line with this strategy and support the provisions set out in the Plan.

New and improved walking and cycling routes to existing and planned local serviceswould encourage future residents to use sustainable forms of transport.

A refresh of the Trowbridge Transport Strategy has been undertaken to inform measuresto support the allocations in the draft Plan;

The Wiltshire Core Strategy sets out the indicative housing requirement and distributionfor Wltshire over the period – 2006 to 2026.The Strategy is based upon housing deliverywithin Wiltshire’s 20 Community Areas and then broken down to provide an indicativehousing requirements to be delivered at: Principal Settlements, Market Towns andLocal Service Centres.The Plan is in general conformity with the Wiltshire Core Strategyand delivers housing allocations in areas where the indicative Core Strategyrequirements are yet to be met. The evidence suggests that there is no need to lookbeyond the identified areas of search. The Local Plan Review process has begun andthis will lead to a full review the Wiltshire Core Strategy on the basis of revised housingevidence.

For Trowbridge it is anticipated that the delivery of housing on brownfield and greenfieldsites will occur simultaneously to help address the projected number of homes neededfor Trowbridge town set out within the Core Strategy (Core Policies 28 and 29). Thepotential risk of coalescence is recognised as a local issue in the Wiltshire Core Strategy(see paragraph 5.150) and has been taken account through the preparation of this Planduring site assessments under the landscape objective of the sustainability appraisal.


Ensure the correct title is used for the Trowbridge Bat Mitigation Strategy.

Add additional wording to adequately address the need to protect the River Avon SAC.

No further changes.


Table 21.8

Housing allocation H2.1: Elm Grove Farm,TrowbridgePart 8:34No. of

comments:127 (1120660)189 (1122860)1007 (1126635)1505 (1138653)2322 (1132392)2325 (1132392)2404 (1132626/1126961)2407 (1132626/1126961)2484 (1132963)3160 (1138190)3163 (1138190)

105 (1120337)156 (1121833)980 (1126635)1136 (1126922)1816 (901939/901806)2324 (1132392)2328 (1132392)2406 (1132626/1126961)2483 (1132963)2983 (395940)3162 (1138190)

8 (1106114)128 (1120660)626 (391073)1008 (1126635)1692 (1129933)2323 (1132392)2326 (1132392)2405 (1132626/1126961)2408 (1132626/1126961)2697 (1134169)3161 (1138190)3164 (1138190)

Comment ID


21.49 A total of 34 representations relating to proposed allocation H2.1: Elm Grove Farm,Trowbridge were received. The issues emanating from the representations related to:

Impacts on biodiversity (including protected bat habitats and other local wildlife);

Uncertainty of agricultural land quality;

The site, and land adjacent to the site, is prone to flooding;

Potential for harm to heritage assets (including Grade II listed farmhouse and nearbyformer farm worker cottages);

Loss of recreational space;

Loss of buffer/coalescence between Trowbridge and North Bradley;


Capacity of infrastructure providers including schools and health service;

Traffic concerns including impact of existing congestion, and connectivity with towncentre; and

Need for cycling and walking routes



Work is continuing on the Trowbridge Bat Mitigation Strategy and future developmentwill need to be in line with this strategy, alongside the provisions already set out in thePlan;


The proposed site allocation is located within flood zone 1. The Environment Agencyhas no objection in principle. Any proposals for development of this site should beinformed by a site specific flood risk and drainage assessment;

It is considered that any development of the site would not lead to a significantencroachment of further built form into the countryside;

The site would accommodate a new primary school to serve the area alongside newhousing appropriate contributions would be likely to be sought to help fund additionallocal school capacity.

Funding contributions may also be sought where needed to increase capacity at localGP surgeries and dentistry at the town.

New and improved walking and cycling routes to existing and planned localservices/employment would encourage future residents to use sustainable forms oftravel.

A refresh of the Trowbridge Transport Strategy has been undertaken to inform measureto support the allocations in the draft Plan.


Amend text to clarify that new cycling and walking routes should connect to adjoiningemployment; additional emphasis on flood risk and drainage requirements.

Insert text to require subsequent planning applications to be supported by a detailed,site specific heritage assessment.


Table 21.9

Housing allocation H2.2: White Horse Business Park,Trowbridge Part 9: 78 No. of

comments:79 (1119276)125 (1120660)170 (550023)279 (1120337)358 (1124532)362 (1106487)366 (1124560)507 (1125262)542 (1125430)605 (1125621)656 (1125429)723 (1125881)1207 (403859)1282 (1125498)1285 (1125498)1454 (403859)1458 (403859)1490 (1126962)1642 (403792)1832 (1130978/1130975)2375 (1132562)2383 (1132552)2410 (1132626/1126961)2413 (1132626/1126961)2986 (395940)3142 (1137984/1130975)

21 (1115490/1115452)124 (1120660)157 (1121833)195 (110487)352 (549888)361 (1124560)364 (1124560)407 (1138653)541 (1125430)582 (1125429)655 (1125429)658 (1125429)1204 (1125498)1281 (1125498)1284 (1125498)1453 (403859)1457 (403859)1489 (1126962)1492 (1126962)1694 (1129933)2269 (1132158)2377 (1132562)2409 (1132626/1126961)2412 (1132626/1126961)2489 (1132963)3139 (396076)

18 (1114350)103 (1120337)131 (1120664/1115452)188 (1122860)351 (549888)359 (1124532)363 (1124560)367 (1124560)508 (1125262)569 (1125262)624 (391073)657 (1125429)1203 (1125498)1232 (1126962)1283 (1125498)1452 (403859)1455 (403859)1488 (1126962)1491 (1126962)1691 (1129933)2182 (1131913)2376 (1132562)2385 (1132552)2411 (1132626/1126961)2485 (1132963)3074 (890227/1132859)

CommentID


21.53 A total of 78 representations relating to proposed allocation H2.2: Land off the A363 atWhite Horse Business Park, Trowbridge were received. The issues emanating from therepresentations related to:

The quanta of homes to be developed and the density of development;

The need/demand for the development;

The site area of the allocation;

Loss of buffer/coalescence between Trowbridge and North Bradley and loss of identityof North Bradley and Southwick;

Potential conflicts with the WCS;

The location of development within the allocation area, including whether the allocationis unduly restrictive to the north-east;

Negative impacts on property values;

The need to protect biodiversity (including protected bat habitat);

Uncertainty of agricultural land quality;


Concerns over increased pollution levels (including light and air pollution, and noisedisturbance);


Potential for harm to heritage assets (including listed buildings and cemetery);

Uncertainty over archaeological importance of the site;

Loss of land for recreation;


Sustainability of the site in terms of proximity to facilities and town centre services;

Concerns over safety of access and highways capacity; and

Concern over lack of local employment opportunities.



There are some factual corrections necessary to amend the site boundary;

It is considered that any development of the site would not lead to a significantencroachment of further built form into the countryside and would maintain the separateidentity of the village of North Bradley and Southwick;

Work is continuing on the Trowbridge Bat Mitigation Strategy and future developmentwill need to be in line with this strategy; and the provisions within the Plan;

The site is of a size which could deliver areas of public open space or green infrastructurewithin the site;

It is considered that the proposed density can be increased albeit this will still beconstrained in the light of heritage and ecological concerns;

Further heritage work has been undertaken for this allocation to ensure great weightis given to heritage assets present;

There is no consistent and up-to-date information relating to quality/grade of agriculturalland underlying the site;

It is unlikely that local air quality will be denigrated to the extent that this would impacton local biodiversity. The development at this site would likely generate increasedlevels of noise and light pollution associated with housing development which are notconsidered likely to be significant;

Any proposals for development of this site should be informed by a site-specific floodrisk assessment;


Funding contributions may be sought where needed to increase capacity at local GPsurgeries and dentistry at the town;

Opportunities to improve walking and cycling routes to existing and planned localservices would encourage future residents to use sustainable forms of transport;

The Council has prepared a refresh of the Trowbridge Transport Strategy which identifiesmeasures to support allocations

It is not the role of this site allocation plan to deliver strategic transport routes such asthe A350 improvement at Yarnbrook or West Ashton.


Amend site boundary to reflect site ownership.

Amend site capacity to ensure efficient use of land, consider with heritage andenvironmental concerns.

Amend text to reflect Heritage Impact Assessment and ensure that at the planningapplication stage, the layout and design of the site gives great weight to conservingheritage assets and their settings.

Give greater emphasis to flood and drainage requirements by requiring any subsequentplanning application to be supported by a Flood Risk Assessment and comprehensivedrainage strategy.


Table 21.10

Housing allocation H2.3: Elizabeth Way,Trowbridge Part 10: 77 No. of

comments:400 (893748)403 (893748)708 (1125773)803 (1126182)837 (1126276)934 (392036/1126545)959 (840630)986 (1125773)1012 (1126785)1096 (399816)1230 (1126182)1317 (897270)1320 (897270)1356 (399816)1549 (1129270)1910 (895670)1913 (895670)2119 (1131752/1131750)2347 (1132437)2420 (1126826)2423 (1126826)2438 (1132805)2597 (899448)2600 (899448)2895 (1135178)

184 (1122741)402 (893748)623 (391073)763 (1126050)836 (1126276)933 (392036/1126545)936 (392036/1126545)979 (897270)988 (1125773)1022 (1125612)1227 (549589)1292 (1126216)1319 (897270)1355 (399816)1494 (1128958)1909 (895670)1912 (895670)1915 (895670)2341 (1126903)2349 (1132437)2422 (1126826)2425 (1126826)2596 (899448)2599 (899448)2892 (1135178)3262 (841197/397761)

78 (1119270)401 (893748)513 (1125317)709 (1125772)835 (1126276)890 (1054271)935 (392036/1126545)973 (1126216)987 (1125773)1014 (1126789)1170 (1126945)1231 (1126182)1318 (897270)1354 (399816)1406 (1126945)1643 (403792)1911 (895670)1914 (895670)2126 (1131752/1131750)2348 (1132437)2421 (1126826)2424 (1126826)2595 (899448)2598 (899448)2667 (983136)2988 (395940)

CommentID


21.57 A total of 77 representations relating to proposed allocation H2.3: Elizabeth Way,Trowbridgewere received. The issues emanating from the representations related to:

The quanta of homes to be developed and the density of development;

The need/demand for the development;

Incorrect site area of the allocation;

Loss of buffer/coalescence between Trowbridge and Hilperton;

The suitability of the site compared to alternative sites/brownfield sites;

Lack of justification for the delay Trowbridge Ashton Park development;

Failure to declare vested interests;

Conflicts with the emerging Hilperton Neighbourhood Plan;

Uncertainty over the extent of what is described as ‘Hilperton Gap’;

Impacts on biodiversity (including wildlife species/habitat);


Unregistered land within the site;

Concerns over increased pollution levels (including light and air pollution, and noisedisturbance);


The need to undertake further heritage assessment to inform the principle, capacityand key design response/ principles to mitigate/minimise harm;


Loss of land for recreation and resulting implications for health and wellbeing ofcommunities;

Developer contributions for necessary supporting infrastructure;


Sustainability of the site in terms of proximity to facilities and town centre services;

Concerns over safety of access and highways capacity; and




The Council has refreshed the Trowbridge Transport Strategy which identifies measuresto support allocations;

There are some factual corrections necessary to amend the site boundary to align toElizabeth Way;

It is considered that any development of the site would not lead to a significantencroachment of further built form into the countryside and would maintain the separateidentity of the village of Hilperton;

The neighbourhood plan within the area is in conflict with the objectives of this plan asper Wiltshire Council representations to the Regulation 16 stage of the HilpertonNeighbourhood Plan;

It is considered that the density can be increased to maximise effective use of land;

The ‘Hilperton Gap’ is a locally used name for the area;

Brownfield sites within Trowbridge have been included in the windfall allowance as perTopic Paper 3;

It is unlikely that local air quality will be denigrated to the extent that this would impacton local biodiversity;


Work is continuing on the Trowbridge Bat Mitigation Strategy and future developmentwill need to be in line with this strategy as well as the provisions already made in thePlan;

An ecological assessment of the site would be required to support individual planningapplications;

All land within the proposed site boundary is on registered land with landowner consentas per Topic Paper 2;

Development at this site would likely generate increased levels of noise and light pollutionassociated with housing development which are not considered likely to be significant;

Any proposals for development of this site should be informed by a site-specific floodrisk assessment. Flood mitigation that takes place within the proposed site would alsohelp alleviate flooding issues on nearby land;

Further heritage work has been undertaken for this allocation to ensure great weightis given to heritage assets and appropriate reference made in the Plan;

The proposed site will accommodate sufficient public open space in accordance withpolicy. The site is of a size which could deliver areas of public open space or greeninfrastructure within the site;

Funding contributions may be sought where needed to increase capacity to providelocal infrastructure within the town. Opportunities to improved walking and cycling routesto existing and planned local services including the town centre, would encourage futureresidents to use sustainable forms of travel;

It is considered that suitable access and highway provisions can be made;

It is beyond the remit of this document to plan for future employment opportunities, thatsaid there are employment opportunities and land available to support employmentgrowth within the town.


Amend site boundary to align with Elizabeth Way Relief Road.

Amend site capacity to ensure efficient use of land.

Amend text to reflect Heritage Impact Assessment and to ensure the relationshipbetween development proposals and heritage assets is addressed through detaileddesign.

Greater emphasis to flood and drainage requirements.


Table 21.11

Housing allocation H2.4: Church Lane,Trowbridge Part 11:152No. of

comments:28 (1102653)101 (1120322)222 (1102653)348 (1122693)373 (1124567)419 (1122982)423 (1122982)432 (1124905)450 (1124959)504 (1117600)525 (1102653)528 (1102653)537 (1125430)574 (1117600)648 (1125656)653 (1125690)691 (1125761)822 (1126254)1103 (1126922)1133 (1126922)1175 (1126976)1375 (1128696)1380 (1128696)1413 (1128743)1425 (1128759)1466 (1128886)1469 (1128886)1479 (1128903)1484 (1128903)1487 (1128903)1557 (1129290)1570 (1129302)1575 (1129302)1923 (1106467)1931 (1106467)2068 (1117600)2102 (1131696)2147 (1131734)2331 (1132398)2334 (1132398)2365 (1102653)2433 (1126922)2544 (1116552)2615 (1133652)2622 (1133652)2845 (1126922)

15 (1102653)87 (1119574)180 (1122693)347 (1122693)372 (1124567)410 (1120653)422 (1122982)431 (1124905)449 (1124959)454 (1124959)524 (1102653)527 (1102653)536 (1125430)573 (1117600)636 (1125656)652 (1125690)690 (1125761695 (1125761)1056 (1126818)1132 (1126922)1135 (1126922)1200 (1127006)1377 (1128696)1412 (1128743)1424 (1128759)1429 (1128759)1468 (1128886)1471 (1128886)1483 (1128903)1486 (1128903)1556 (1129290)1563 (1129290)1572 (1129302)1918 (1106467)1929 (1106467)2067 (1117600)2099 (1131696)2144 (1131734)2330 (1132398)2333 (1132398)2342 (1132398)2430 (1126922)2439 (1126922)2613 (1133652)2620 (1133652)2844 (1126922)

9 (1106114)34 (1102653)165 (1102653)344 (1122693)371 (1124567)383 (1124567)421 (1122982)430 (1124905)435 (1124905)451 (1124959)523 (1102653)526 (1102653)535 (1125430)572 (1117600)627 (391073)649 (1125656)660 (1122982)692 (1125761)824 (1126254)1131 (1126922)1134 (1126922)1198 (1127006)1376 (1128696)1411 (1128743)1416 (1128743)1426 (1128759)1467 (1128886)1470 (1128886)1482 (1128903)1485 (1128903)1523 (1129173/402467)1560 (1129290)1571 (1129302)1644 (403792)1926 (1106467)1933 (1106467)2069 (1117600)2104 (1131696)2329 (1132398)2332 (1132398)2335 (1132398)2429 (1126922)2437 (1126922)2547 (1116552)2618 (1133652)2843 (1126922)

CommentID



2858 (1126922)2906 (1135254)3128 (1132566)3131 (1132566)3325 (1138955)

2863 (1126922)3024 (382216)3130 (1132566)3133 (1132566)

2859 (1126922)2984 (395940)3129 (1132566)3132 (1132566)

21.61 A total of 152 representations relating to proposed allocation H2.4: Church Lane,Trowbridgewere received. The issues emanating from the representations related to:



Harm to buffer/coalescence between Trowbridge and Southwick;

The need to protect biodiversity (including protected bat habitat);

Objection to loss of agricultural land;

Concerns over increased pollution levels (including air pollution and noise disturbance);


The need for a Heritage Impact Assessment to inform the principle, capacity and keydesign response/ principles to mitigate/minimise harm;

Potential for harm to heritage assets (including setting of St Johns Church and listedbuildings along the A361, Hall masters dwellings, 344 Frome Road and Rose Villa);


Potential loss of rural character of the Church Lane area, and impacts on rural views;

Potential negative impact on Southwick Country Park;

Concerns over safety of pedestrians and other road users;

Loss of land for recreation;

Capacity of infrastructure including schools and health services, and leisure;

Sustainability of the site in terms of proximity to facilities and town centre services; and

Concerns over safety of access and highways capacity.



Brownfield sites within Trowbridge have been included in the Windfall allowance as pertopic Paper 3;


The Council believe that the draft plan is in accordance with the WCS;

It is considered that any development of the site would not lead to a significantencroachment of further built form into the countryside and would maintain the separateidentity of the village of Southwick;

Work is continuing on the Trowbridge Bat Mitigation Strategy and future developmentwill need to be in line with this strategy alongside provision already made in the Plan;



It is unlikely that local air quality will be denigrated to the extent that this would impacton local biodiversity. The development at this site would likely generate increasedlevels of noise and light pollution associated with housing development which notconsidered likely to be significant. Mitigation measures would need to be developed inaccordance with national and local plan policy;


Further heritage work has been undertaken for this allocation to ensure great weightis given to heritage assets present and appropriate reference should be made in thePlan;

Natural England notes that the site appears to be a very well used area for recreation.Whilst this maybe the case, it is within private ownership and is available and deliverablein terms of the proposed housing allocation;

The site is of a size which could deliver areas of public open space or green infrastructurewithin the site;

Funding contributions may be sought where needed to increase capacity at local GPsurgeries and dentistry at the town.

Opportunities to improve walking and cycling routes to existing and planned localservices would encourage future residents to use sustainable forms of travel.

The Council has refreshed the Trowbridge Transport Strategy which identifies measuresto support the allocations.


Amend site boundary to include land between the current boundary and the river toensure land can be used to mitigate bat impacts.

Amend text to reflect Heritage Impact Assessment and to ensure design and layoutgives great weight to conserving the significance of heritage assets and their settings.

Give greater emphasis to flood and drainage.


Table 21.12

Housing allocation H2.5: Upper Studley,Trowbridge Part 12: 77No. of

comments:207 (1122982)424 (1122982)434 (1124905)452 (1124959)500 (1125248)659 (1122982)694 (1125761)823 (1126254)833 (1125248)964 (1126711)1197 (1127006)1373 (1128696)1381 (1128696)1415 (1128743)1427 (1128759)1555 (1129290)1561 (1129290)1574 (1129302)1919 (1106467)1930 (1106467)2145 (1131734)2164 (1126221)2167 (1126221)2170 (1126221)2905 (1135254)

181 (1122693)345 (1122693)433 (1124905)448 (1124959)455 (1124959)628 (391073)693 (1125761)821 (1126254)832 (1125248)838 (1125248)1001 (1125632)1291 (1126711)1379 (1128696)1414 (1128743)1423 (1128759)1430 (1128759)1559 (1129290)1573 (1129302)1657 (395553/901806)1927 (1106467)1934 (1106467)2163 (1126221)2166 (1126221)2169 (1126221)2548 (1116552)3042 (381339)

10 (1106114)208 (1122982)429 (1124905)436 (1124905)453 (1124959)622 (1125632)689 (1125761)696 (1125761)831 (1125248)834 (1125248)1000 (1125632)1199 (1127006)1378 (1128696)1410 (1128743)1417 (1128743)1428 (1128759)1558 (1129290)1569 (1129302)1576 (1129302)1924 (1106467)1932 (1106467)2148 (1131734)2165 (1126221)2168 (1126221)2545 (1116552)2985 (395940)

CommentID


21.65 A total of 77 representations relating to proposed allocation H2.5: Upper Studley,Trowbridgewere received. The issues emanating from the representations related to:



The need to protect biodiversity (including Ancient Woodland and local wildlife species);


Loss of open countryside, hedgerows and trees;

The site’s partial location within flood zone 2/3 and proximity to a main river (LambrokStream), and the need for a sequential approach to development within the site;

Concerns about increase of flood risk and ground water levels;

Potential for harm to heritage assets (including ancient hedgerows and field setting forlisted buildings);

Archaeological importance of the site;


Concerns over landscape impacts including views o the appraoch to Trowbridge andacross the fields;

Contributions towards delivery of the Trowbridge Recreation Management MitigationStrategy;

Capacity of infrastructure providers including schools and health service.


Sustainability of the site in terms of proximity to facilities and town centre services; and

Concerns over achievability of access and highways capacity.



Brownfield sites within Trowbridge have been included in the windfall allowance as perTopic Paper 3;

Sufficient consultation has occurred in the process to date.Wiltshire Council has followedplanning regulations and its Wiltshire Council Statement of Community Involvement(SCI);

There is no known ancient woodland surrounding the site;

Work is continuing on the Trowbridge Bat Mitigation Strategy and future developmentwill need to be in line with this strategy and the provisions already in the Plan.




Further heritage work has been undertaken for this allocation to ensure great weightis given to heritage assets present and appropriate reference should be made in thePlan.

It is considered that any development of the site would not lead to a significantencroachment of further built form into the countryside and would maintain the separateidentity of the village of Southwick;

Funding contributions may be sought where needed to increase capacity at local GPsurgeries and dentistry at the town.


Opportunities to improve walking and cycling routes to existing and planned localservices would encourage future residents to use sustainable forms of travel; and

The Council has refreshed the Trowbridge Transport Strategy which identifies measuresto support the allocations.


Amend site capacity to ensure efficient use of land

Amend text to give greater emphasis to flood and drainage requirements.


Table 21.13

Housing allocation H2.6: Southwick Court,Trowbridge Part 13: 321No. of

comments:36 (1117629)58 (1118631)86 (1119574)104 (1120337)121 (1120653) 135 (1105805) 190 (1122860)272 (1120653)312 (1122860)329 (1121687)404 (1122926)411 (1124853)414 (1124853)417 (1124853) 427 (1124905)470 (1124995)473 (1124995)516 (1121943)532 (1125418)538 (1125430)584 (1121943)587 (1121943) 590 (1121943)681 (1120653)684 (1120653)786 (1126137)789 (1126137)792 (1126137)795 (1126137)943 (1125371)946 (1125371)1125 (1126925)1128 (1126925)1185 (1126992) 1189 (1126992)1268 (1128249) 1271 (1128249) 1274 (1128249) 1366 (1128709)1371 (1128696) 1525 (1126754)1528 (1126754)1531 (1126754)1534 (1126754)1537 (1126754)1645 (403792)1685 (381814)

27 (1102653)57 (1118631)80 (1119276)89 (1119640)114 (1120523)123 (1120660) 182 (1122693)271 (1120653)280 (1120337)315 (1122860)350 (549888) 406 (1122926)413 (1124853)416 (1124853)420 (1122982) 469 (1124995) 472 (1124995)515 (1121943)531 (1125418)534 (1125418)540 (1125430)586 (1121943)589 (1121943)680 (1120653)683 (1120653) 784 (1126137) 788 (1126137)791 (1126137)794 (1126137)942 (1125371)945 (1125371)948 (11253711127 (1126925)1130 (1126925)1187 (1126992)1217 (1127043) 1270 (1128249) 1273 (1128249)1365 (1128709)1368 (1128709)1421 (1128759)1527 (1126754)1530 (1126754) 1533 (1126754)1536 (1126754)1567 (1129302)1683 (381814)

11 (1106114)56 (1118631)72 (1119171)88 (1119601)113 (1120523)122 (1120660)149 (1121678) 200 (1122926)273 (1120653)314 (1122860)346 (1122693)405 (1122926)412 (1124853)415 (1124853) 419 (1122982)447 (1124959)471 (1124995)474 (1124995)517 (1125371)533 (1125418)539 (1125430)585 (1121943)588 (1121943)625 (391073)682 (1120653)687 (1125761) 787 (1126137) 790 (1126137) 793 (1126137)820 (1126254)944 (1125371)947 (1125371)1126 (1126925) 1129 (1126925)1186 (1126992)1196 (1127006) 1269 (1128249) 1272 (1128249)1364 (1128709)1367 (1128709)1408 (1128743)1526 (1126754) 1529 (1126754)1532 (1126754)1535 (1126754)1553 (1129290)1671 (381339)

CommentID



1693 (1129933) 1799 (1126137)1802 (1126137) 1805 (1126771) 1808 (1126771)1835 (1105334) 1839 (1130993) 1854 (1126184)1857 (1126184) 1895 (1127014)1898 (1127014)1901 (1127014) 1920 (1106467)1965 (1127014) 1997 (1131414)2000 (1131414) 2098 (1131696) 2103 (1131696)2146 (1131734)2196 (1126189) 2199 (1126189) 2290 (1128249)2448 (1132724)2451 (1132724)2454 (1132724)2457 (1132724)2460 (1132724)2470 (1132928) 2494 (1133026) 2497 (1133026) 2500 (1133076)2531 (1133364) 2546 (1116552) 2566 (1133460)2569 (1133460)2572 (1133460)2577 (1133485) 2580 (1133485) 2765 (1134495)2768 (1134495) 2904 (1135254)2921 (1126309) 2924 (1126309)2927 (1126309)3078 (840359/443671)3101 (1137560/1137556)3104 (1137560/1137556)3107 (1137560/1137556)3136 (1119640)3267 (1138693) 3270 (1138693) 3273 (1138693) 3282 (1138699) 3285 (1138699)

1797 (1126137)1801 (1126137)1804 (1126771) 1807 (1126771)1834 (1105334)1838 (1130993)1841 (1130993) 1856 (1126184) 1894 (1127014)1897 (1127014)1900 (1127014) 1903 (1127014) 1928 (1106467) 1996 (1131414)1999 (1131414) 2091 (1131676)2101 (1131696)2112 (1131696)2181 (1131913)2198 (1126189) 2284 (1105334)2414 (1132626/1126961)2450 (1132724)2453 (1132724)2456 (1132724) 2459 (1132724) 2469 (1132928) 2472 (1132928)2496 (1133026) 2499 (1133076) 2530 (1133364) 2533 (1133364) 2550 (1116552)2568 (1133460)2571 (1133460)2576 (1133485) 2579 (1133485) 2764 (1134495)2767 (1134495) 2839 (1127011)2920 (1126309)2923 (1126309)2926 (1126309)2987 (395940)3100 (1137560/1137556)3103 (1137560/1137556)3106 (1137560/1137556)3135 (1119640) 3266 (1138693)3269 (1138693) 3272 (1138693)3275 (1138693) 3284 (1138699) 3316 (1138930)

1695 (1129933)1800 (1126137) 1803 (1126137)1806 (1126771)1833 (1105334) 1836 (1105334)1840 (1130993)1855 (1126184)1858 (1126184)1896 (1127014)1899 (1127014)1902 (1127014)1925 (1106467) 1966 (1127014) 1998 (1131414)2039 (1127011)2100 (1131696) 2109 (1131722)2149 (1131734)2197 (1126189) 2200 (1126189) 2319 (1132380)2449 (1132724) 2452 (1132724)2455 (1132724)2458 (1132724) 2468 (1132928) 2471 (1132928)2495 (1133026) 2498 (1123921) 2501 (1133076)2532 (1133364)2549 (1116552) 2567 (1133460)2570 (1133460) 2575 (1133485) 2578 (1133485)2609 (1133638) 2766 (1134495)2818 (1126309)2918 (1133638) 2922 (1126309) 2925 (1126309)2956 (1135801)3099 (1137560/1137556)3102 (1137560/1137556)3105 (1137560/1137556)3134 (1119640) 3137 (1119640) 3268 (1138693) 3271 (1138693) 3274 (1138693) 3283 (1138699) 3315 (1138930)


3318 (1138930) 3328 (1138958)3331 (1138958)3341 (1138984)3344 (1138984)3366 (1119640)

3317 (1138930) 3326 (1138958) 3330 (1138958) 3340 (1138984)3343 (1138984)3361 (1118606)

3319 (1138930) 3329 (1138958) 3333 (1138856) 3342 (1138984)3345 (1138984)

21.69 A total of 321 representations relating to proposed allocation H2.6: Southwick Court,Trowbridge were received. The issues emanating from the representations related to:

The quanta of homes to be developed and density of development;

The site area and scale of the allocation;



Potential conflicts with the emerging North Bradley NDP and Southwick NDP;

Loss of buffer/coalescence between Trowbridge and Southwick and loss of identity ofSouthwick;

The need for the allocation in light of expected increases in rate delivery of Ashton Park;

Lack of need for housing at Southwick;

Need for biodiversity protection and enhancement (such as at Lambrok Stream corridor,protected bat species etc.);

The site, and land adjacent to the site, is prone to flooding. Need to assess flood riskand take a sequential approach to development with the site with an appropriate bufferto areas of flood risk;

Drainage problems historically across the site;



Potential for harm to heritage assets (including Grade II* listed Southwick Court and IIlisted buildings, such as St Johns Church).

Protection of ancient hedgerow and post-medieval earthworks and water meadows;


Concern about the impacts of additional use of Southwick Country Park;

Loss of open space;

Capacity of infrastructure providers including schools and health service; and

Concerns over highways capacity and impact.




All known alternative sites have been assessed in accordance to the methodology asset out in Topic Paper 2 and the Trowbridge Community Area Topic Paper;

Work is continuing on the Trowbridge Bat Mitigation Strategy and future developmentwill need to be in line with this strategy and provisions to protect bat species havealready been made in the Plan;

The Council believe that the draft plan is in accordance to WCS Core Policies 29, 50,51 and 58;

The neighbourhood plans within the area are not at a sufficiently advanced stage ofpreparation and therefore as per the methodology cannot be relied upon;

Brownfield sites within Trowbridge have been included in the Windfall allowance as perTopic Paper 3;

Level of development at Trowbridge is derived from the Wiltshire Core Strategy and donot present a disproportionate level of development, as Trowbridge is a PrincipalSettlement;

There is an identified indicative residual requirement for the Trowbridge to be deliveredduring the Plan period. In accordance to the methodology therefore, the Plan will needto allocate additional land to help meet an indicative residual requirement;

Sufficient consultation has occurred in the process to date.Wiltshire Council has followedplanning regulations and its Statement of Community Involvement (SCI);


The supporting text is proposed to be amended in light of the comments from theEnvironment Agency (EA) that request enhancement to Lambrok Stream corridor toimprove habitat for biodiversity, with an undeveloped buffer should also be left alongthe edge of the site and the indicative flood zone 2/3;



There is no evidence to suggest that development of the site for housing could not besupported by suitable and timely investment into water supply infrastructure as well assewage infrastructure to cope with demand;


Further heritage work has been undertaken for this allocation to ensure great weightis given to heritage assets present and appropriate references are made in the Plan;

Any development of the site would not lead to a significant encroachment of furtherbuilt form into the countryside and would maintain the separate identity of the villageof Southwick;

Funding contributions may be sought where needed to increase capacity at local GPsurgeries and dentistry at the town;

Opportunities to improved walking and cycling routes to existing and planned localservices would encourage future residents to use sustainable forms of travel;

The Council has refreshed the Trowbridge Transport Strategy which includes measuresto support the allocations in the Plan.


Amend text to reflect Heritage Impact Assessment and ensure appropriate considerationis given to the significance of heritage assets and their settings;

Amend text to require an undeveloped buffer to be left along the edge of the site andthe indicative flood zone 2/3 and that the development would need to enhance theLambrok Stream corridor to improve habitat for biodiversity.


Table 21.14

Housing allocation H2.7: East of the Dene, Warminster Part 14:64No. of

comments:1500 (706891)1509 (706891)1512 (706891)1515 (706891)1542 (704465)1660 (1129823)2044 (701827)2047 (701827)2294 (1132219)2297 (1132219)2493 (1132219)2504 (1132219)2507 (1132219)2909 (397127)2912 (397127)2915 (397127)3242 (645345/1138525)3245 (645345/1138525)3248 (645345/1138525)3251 (645345/1138525)3254 (645345/1138525)

1447 (706936)1508 (706891)1511 (706891)1514 (706891)1524 (1129196)1646 (403792)2043 (701827)2046 (701827)2270 (704409)2296 (1132219)2299 (1132219)2503 (1132219)2506 (1132219)2868 (1135059)2911 (397127)2914 (397127)3241 (645345/1138525)3244 (645345/1138525)3247 (645345/1138525)3250 (645345/1138525)3253 (645345/1138525)

1310 (1128369)1501 (706891)1510 (706891)1513 (706891)1516 (706891)1544 (1129255)2042 (701827)2045 (701827)2048 (701827)2295 (1132219)2298 (1132219)2502 (1132219)2505 (1132219)2729 (645345/389644)2910 (397127)2913 (397127)2989 (395940)3243 (645345/1138525)3246 (645345/1138525)3249 (645345/1138525)3252 (645345/1138525)2735 (1134352)

CommentID


21.73 A total of 64 representations relating to proposed allocation H2.7: East of The Dene,Warminster were received. The issues emanating from the representations related to:

The need for the development and the relationship of housing requirements with theWest Warminster Urban Extension (WWUE);


The suitability of parts of the site to be developed;

The planning history of the site;

Conformity with the adopted Development Plan;

The need to protect biodiversity (River Avon SAC and SSSI, local wildlife);

The loss of greenfield land;

Flooding issues on the site and in the local area and the lack of SFRA Level 2 or SurfaceWater Management Plan;

Potential harmful impacts on heritage assets (including Bishopstrow Conservation Areaand nearby listed buildings);

Disagreement over potential landscape impacts;

Concern over infrastructure capacity (including schools);


The sustainability of the site;

Concerns over highways and access impacts; and




In order to provide surety of housing land supply in the North and West HMA land isrequired to be allocated at Warminster, being that it is one of the higher order MarketTowns with a wide range of facilities, services and employment opportunities.

Assessment of the site and its constraints has led to the conclusion that developmentshould be located primarily within the northwest part of the site, where landscape andconservation impacts can be more effectively mitigated;

Further heritage work has been undertaken for this allocation to ensure great weightis given to heritage assets present and appropriate references made in the Plan;

Additional wording is proposed to be added to the supporting text to ensure that thepolicy adequately addresses the need to protect the River Avon SAC;

The proposed allocation is located within flood zone 1. The Environment Agency hasno objection in principle. Any proposals for development of this site should be informedby a site specific flood risk assessment which should inform design, layout and anymitigation measures required;

While local school capacity is noted as problematic, primary school expansion ispossible.

Evidence indicates that the local highways network is capable of accommodating thenumber of dwellings proposed and that access could be achieved.

Due to the location at a Market Town and the proximity of the site to existing busnetworks the site is considered to be in a reasonably sustainable location.


Amend text to reflect Heritage Impact Assessment to ensure appropriate considerationis given to the significance of heritage assets and their settings.

Give greater emphasis to flood and drainage requirements through site specificassessments.


Table 21.15

Housing allocation H2.8: Bore Hill Farm, Warminster Part 15: 7 No. of comments:

3140 (1137935/556489)3061 (1137935/556489)

1661 (1129823)2990 (395940)

1603 (556400/901806)2735 (1134352)3062 (1137935/556489)

Comment ID


21.77 A total of 7 representations relating to proposed allocation H2.8: Bore Hill Farm,Warminsterwere received. The issues emanating from the representations related to:



The need to protect biodiversity (River Wylye SAC and SSSI);

Potential for negative public health impacts due to proximity to the biodigester and A36;

Suitability of the site for residential development due to proximity to the biodigester andA36;

Concerns over landscape impacts; and

Potential for connection to onsite renewable energy from the adjoining biodigester.



The level of homes proposed is considered reasonable given the mix of uses on thesite and its local context.

Additional wording is proposed to be added to the supporting text for Warminster toensure that the policy adequately addresses the need to protect the River Wylye SACand SSSI;

Greater emphasis can be placed on the need to consider noise and odour in developingfuture design and layout. Therefore development of the site is unlikely to lead to anysignificant negative impacts on public health;

Site area should be increased to reflect land ownership;

Evidence suggests that the site is developable from a landscape perspective; and

Development proposals which seek to incorporate design measures to reduce energydemand will be supported under WCS Core Policy 41.



Amend site boundary to reflect land available for development; give greater emphasisto issues relating to sites proximity to A36 and biodigestion, and flood and drainage,and biodiversity requirements.


Table 21.16

Housing allocation H2.9: Boreham Road, Warminster Part 16:5 No. of comments:

2735 (1134252)2271 (704409)2991 (395940)

1521 (556098/901806)2869 (1135059)

Comment ID


21.81 A total of 5 representations relating to proposed allocation H2.9: Boreham Road,Warminsterwere received. The issues emanating from the representations related to:



The status of the site given the recent appeal that has been allowed;

The need to retain the site for agriculture;

The need to protect biodiversity (River Wylye SAC, SSSI and local wildlife) and retentionof a buffer strip;

Reference to within the Plan to heritage assets;

Concerns over highways, access and parking.


21.83 The Council considers the approach taken with the identification of this site is based onreasonable evidence and in general conformity with the Wiltshire Core Strategy. The sitehas planning permission secured by Appeal for 35 self build homes. Approximate numberswould allow for 35 dwellings to be considered.


Amend text to give greater emphasis to heritage assets, biodiversity and flood anddrainage requirements.


Table 21.17

Housing allocation H2.10: Barters Farm, Chapmanslade Part 17:9 No. of comments:

2431 (691512)2436 (691512)3189 (397159)

1565 (1129300/1129296)2435 (691512)2992 (395940)

1089 (1126867)2434 (691512)2443 (1132855)

Comment ID


21.85 A total of 9 representations relating to proposed allocation H2.10: Barters Farm,Chapmanslade were received. The issues emanating from the representations related to:




Retention of a public right of way along northern boundary;

Concerns over drainage; and

Provision of affordable housing.



It is considered that the number of dwellings proposed is acceptable as the site is bothavailable and deliverable and the housing numbers would contribute to the over-allsupply required;

Clarification should be given about the need to retain the public right of way;

The proposed site allocation is located within flood zone 1. The Environment Agencyhas no objection in principle. Any proposals for development of this site should beinformed by a site specific flood risk and drainage assessment; and

The number of dwellings proposed would allow for affordable housing units.


Amend text to reflect public rights of way on site and to give greater emphasis to floodand drainage requirements.


Table 21.18

Housing allocation H2.11:The Street, HullavingtonPart 18: 33No. of

comments:1386 (1128720)1402 (1128729)1419 (1128755)2025 (393425/817881)2394 (903251)2537 (1133384/825048)2540 (1133384/825048)2830 (1133467)2833 (1134740)2836 (1134741)2980 (395940)

1216 (393425/817881)1401 (1128725)1404 (1128741)1440 (1128799)2268 (849874)2536 (1133384/825048)2539 (1133384/825048)2624 (1133467)2832 (1134739)2835 (1134741)2838 (1134742)

1018 (1126792)1391 (1128722)1403 (1128733)1432 (1128763)2267 (849874)2535 (1133384/825048)2538 (1133384/825048)2563 (1133467)2831 (1134739)2834 (1134740)2837 (1134742)

Comment ID

(Consultee /Agent ID):

21.89 A total of 33 representations relating to proposed allocation H2.11:The Street, Hullavingtonwere received. The issues emanating from the representations related to:


The site area of the allocation and area of land identified for the school expansion;

Potential for the site to come forward through the emerging Hullavington NeighbourhoodPlan;


Concern on the impact of proposal on biodiversity;

Impacts on local water infrastructure capacity and supply;

Impacts on local drainage infrastructure;

Request to include additional detail regarding expansion of school;

Concerns over highways and access and parking;

Potential impacts on Junction 17 of the M4.



The site assessment process (stage 4) gives justification as to the size of the site;

The Council welcomes the progress of the neighbourhood plan and its compatibilitywith the proposed allocation. The potential to extend the allocation can be exploredthrough that process. However reference to a buffer to the watercourse should beremoved;


Through the site assessment process and as evidenced in Chippenham CommunityArea Topic Paper all reasonable alternatives have been considered;

There are no biodiversity or geological designations within or in immediate proximityto the site and potential adverse effects are minor with potential for mitigation. Thepotential for reptiles, nesting birds and badgers can be considered through an ecologicalassessment required to inform a future planning application.

There is no capacity at the Hullavington sewage treatment works. Capacity appraisalswould be needed in respect of both water supply and sewage infrastructure. However,there is no evidence to suggest that development of the site could not be supported bysuitable and timely investment into water supply infrastructure and sewage infrastructure;

Any proposals for development of this site should be informed by a site-specific floodrisk assessment and consideration given to Groundwater Protection Zones;

Following further discussion with Highways England to overcome their objection thedevelopment is unlikely to have a harmful impact on Junction 17 of the M4;

As stated in para 5.106 of the Plan access would be from The Street / Norton Roadand would require highway improvement works to the existing junction layout andvisibility splays associated with The Street / Norton Road junction; and

The site area for the school should be corrected.


Amend supporting text to correct reference to school area, remove land to the north ofthe proposed allocation and give greater emphasis to flood and drainage requirements.


Table 21.19

Housing allocation H2.12: East of Farrells Field,Yatton KeynellPart 19 88No. of

comments:39 (1117869)899 (1126445)902 (1126445)911 (1126488) 1300 (1126488)1883 (1131172)2023 (1131470)2071 (1131617)2123 (1131760)2133 (1131832)2277 (1132255)2509 (1133063)2513 (903251) 2516 (1126401)2626 (1133656) 2629 (1133656)2670 (983136) 2693 (1134147)2696 (1134147)2779 (1134567)2825 (1134708)2879 (1135124)2884 (1135124)2929 (1126714)2932 (1126714)2938 (1135674)2981 (395940)3357 (1139017) 3360 (1139309)

16 (1114552)551 (1124865/549147)901 (1126445)910 (1126488) 913 (1126488)1639 (1129642)2022 (1131470)2070 (1131611) 2122 (1131760)2125 (1131760) 2276 (1132255)2508 (1133063)2511 (1133063)2515 (1126401)2625 (1133656)2628 (1133656)2669 (983136) 2692 (1134147)2695 (1134147)2778 (1134567)2824 (1134708)2827 (1134708)2882 (1135124)2928 (1126714)2931 (1126714)2937 (1135674)2961 (1135851)3356 (1139017)3359 (1139017)

12 (1109996)126 (987736/846301)900 (1126445)909 (1126488)912 (1126488)1613 (1129609) 2021 (1131470)2024 (1131470)2121 (1131760)2124 (1131760)2275 (1132255)2278 (1132255)2510 (1133063)2514 (1126401)2517 (1126401) 2627 (1133656) 2630 (1133656)2690 (1134147)2694 (1134147)2777 (1134567)2780 (1134567)2826 (1134708)2880 (1135124) 2885 (1135124) 2930 (1126714)2936 (1135674)2939 (1135674)3355 (1139017)3358 (1139017) 3362 (397149)

CommentID


21.93 We received 88 representations relating to H2.12: East of Farrells Field,Yatton Keynell.The comments raised were varied, but in summary the issues emanating from therepresentations related to:


The quanta of homes to be developed ;

The need/justification for housing at Yatton Keynell;

Whether a neighbourhood plan should instead be the mechanism to allocate housingsites;

Impacts on biodiversity;

Support for woodland corridor as footpath wildlife corridor;

Location of existing pipeline apparatus on the site;


Concerns over highways safety risk and increased traffic;


Potential cost implications for surface water drainage solutions;

Concern over coalescence with Tiddleywink and Cold harbour;

Concerns over potential detrimental visual impacts and reduction of landscape quality;

Capacity and potential benefits for the school and GP practice;


Preference for access from the B4039 rather than through Farrell’s Field;

Site lies in Groundwater Source Protection Zone;

Potential impacts on Junction 17 of the M4; and

Lack of engagement with the Plan process;



No neighbourhood area has been designated to allow for the preparation of aneighbourhood plan and therefore as per the methodology cannot be relied upon;

There is an identified indicative residual requirement for the Chippenham CommunityArea to be delivered during the Plan period. In accordance with the methodologytherefore, the Plan will need to allocate additional land to help meet an indicative residualrequirement;

Environment Agency has no objection subject to comments from Drainage Authority(Wiltshire Council);

Sufficient consultation has occurred in the process to date.Wiltshire Council has followedplanning regulations and complied with its Statement of Community Involvement (SCI);

The woodland/wildlife corridor should be removed from the allocation to correctly reflectland ownership;

The pipeline through the site will be accounted for and the masterplan of the site shouldapply statutory easements;

The proposed site allocation is located within flood zone 1. The Environment Agencyhas no objection in principle. Any proposals for development of this site should beinformed by a site-specific flood risk assessment;

Any development of the site would not lead to a significant encroachment of furtherbuilt form into the countryside and through sensitive design can be accommodatedappropriate to its local context;


Appropriate contributions would be likely to be sought to help fund additional localschool and health care capacities;

Any planning application would have to address any highway concerns; and

Following further discussion with Highways England the development is unlikely to havea harmful impact on Junction 17 of the M4.


Amend site boundary to move track from proposed site boundary and amend text togive greater emphasis to flood and drainage requirements.


Table 21.20

Housing allocation H2.13: Ridgeway Farm, CrudwellPart 20:242No. of

comments:849 (1126295)867 (1126302)891 (1126419)894 (1126419)1004 (1126672)1055 (1126811)1294 (1128343)1297 (1128343)1506 (1129122)1520 (1132949/1129139)1581 (1129320) 1593 (1129432) 1607 (1129532) 1614 (1129610) 1617 (1129610) 1638 (1129633) 1665 (1129836) 1676 (1129909) 1679 (1129909) 1707 (391297) 1761 (1130479) 1868 (1131070) 1871 (1131070) 1936 (1131233) 1941 (1131243) 1944 (1131243) 1949 (1131251) 1953 (1131251) 1976 (1131326) 1979 (1131326) 2006 (1131422) 2009 (1131422) 2108 (1131712) 2127 (1131826) 2131 (1131826) 2135 (1131833) 2138 (1131833) 2141 (1131833) 2173 (1131898) 2176 (1131898) 2180 (1131905) 2194 (1131925) 2204 (1131946) 2207 (1132008) 2210 (1132008) 2213 (1132007) 2217 (1132024) 2255 (1132154) 2258 (1132154)

620 (1125644) 866 (1126302) 869 (1126302) 893 (1126419) 1003 (1126672) 1006 (1126672)1293 (1128343)1296 (1128343)1340 (1128466)1518 (1132949/1129139)1580 (1129320) 1592 (1129432) 1595 (1129432) 1610 (1129532) 1616 (1129610) 1637 (1129633) 1664 (1129836) 1668 (1129853) 1678 (1129909) 1703 (1130026) 1760 (1130479) 1814 (1130710) 1870 (1131070) 1935 (1131233) 1938 (1131233) 1943 (1131243) 1948 (1131251) 1952 (1131251) 1955 (1131274) 1978 (1131326) 2005 (1131422) 2008 (1131422) 2107 (1131712) 2118 (1131739) 2130 (1131826) 2134 (1131833) 2137 (1131833) 2140 (1131833) 2172 (1131898) 2175 (1131898) 2179 (1131905) 2187 (1131925) 2203 (1131946) 2206 (1132008) 2209 (1132008) 2212 (1132007) 2216 (1132024) 2254 (1132154) 2257 (1132154)

386 (1124620) 850 (1126295) 868 (1126302) 892 (1126419) 956 (1126672) 1005 (1126672) 1058 (1126831) 1295 (1128343) 1298 (1128343) 1517(1132949/1129139)1579 (1129320) 1591 (1129432) 1594 (1129432) 1608 (1129532) 1615 (1129610) 1636 (1129633) 1663 (1129836) 1666 (1129836) 1677 (1129909) 1699 (1129967) 1710 (1130083) 1762 (1130479) 1869 (1131070) 1872 (1131127) 1937 (1131233) 1942 (1131243) 1945 (1131251) 1950 (1131251)1954 (1131274) 1977 (1131326) 2004 (1131422) 2007 (1131422) 2010 (1131422) 2110 (1131712) 2128 (1131826) 2132 (1131826) 2136 (1131833) 2139 (1131833) 2171 (1131894) 2174 (1131894) 2178 (1131905) 2185 (1131914) 2202 (1131946) 2205 (1132007) 2208 (1132008) 2211 (1132008) 2214 (1132007) 2218 (1132024) 2256 (1132154)

CommentID



Housing allocation H2.13: Ridgeway Farm, CrudwellPart 20:242No. of

comments:2261 (1132165)2274 (1132247)2287 (1132276) 2344 (1132429) 2426 (1132711)2462 (1132907)2467 (1132907) 2475 (1132949) 2519 (1133304) 2522 (1133304) 2527 (1133360) 2552 (1133425) 2555 (1133425) 2773 (1134553) 2776 (1134561) 2783 (1134590) 2787 (1134604) 2790 (1134617) 2806 (1134632) 2809 (1134642)2819 (1134691/861292)2822 (1134748) 2842 (1134824) 2854 (1134824) 2857 (1134910) 2877 (1135102) 2886 (1135127) 2942 (1135683) 2958 (1135814) 2962 (1135849) 2965 (1135864)

2260 (1132165) 2273 (1132247)2286 (1132276) 2289 (1132276) 2395 (903251) 2445 (1132869) 2465 (1132907) 2474 (1132949) 2518 (1133304) 2521 (1133304) 2526 (1133360) 2529 (1133360) 2554 (1133425) 2772 (1134553) 2775 (1134553) 2782 (1134590) 2785 (1134604) 2789 (1134604) 2805 (1134632) 2808 (1134632) 2811 (1134642 2821 (1134746) 2841 (1134824) 2853 (1134824) 2856 (1134910) 2876 (1135102) 2881 (1135127) 2941 (1135683) 2957 (1135814) 2960 (1135849) 2964 (1135864) 3306 (1138853)

2259 (1132154) 2262 (1132165)2285 (1132276) 2288 (1132276) 2345 (1132429) 2444 (1132869) 2463 (1132907) 2473 (1132949) 2476 (1132949) 2520 (1133304) 2523 (1133360) 2528 (1133360) 2553 (1133425) 2771 (1134553) 2774 (1134553) 2781 (1134590) 2784 (1134590) 2788 (1134604) 2801 (1134623) 2807 (1134632) 2810 (1134642) 2820 (1134691/861292)2823 (1134748) 2847 (1134824) 2855 (1134910) 2875 (1135161) 2878 (1135102) 2887 (1135127) 2943 (1135683) 2959 (1135849) 2963 (1135864) 2982 (395940)

21.97 A total of 242 representations relating to proposed allocation H2.13: Ridgeway Farm,Crudwell were received. The issues emanating from the representations related to:


The quanta of homes/scale if development;

The need/justification for housing at Crudwell;


Whether a neighbourhood plan should instead be the mechanism to allocate housingsites;

Concern about local surface water drainage capacity;

Effects of development on surface water flow and flooding;


Potential loss of views across open farmland in a conservation area;

Unsuitability of access to village services via Public Right of Way (PROW) which isoften waterlogged;

Impact of development on capacity of local services and infrastructure (such as thelocal school which is on a constrained site);

Concerns over highways safety and increased traffic;

Poor public transport;

Potential impacts on Junction 17 of the M4; and




The neighbourhood plan is not at a sufficiently advanced stage of preparation andtherefore as per the methodology cannot be relied upon;

There is an identified indicative residual requirement for the Malmesbury CommunityArea to be delivered during the Plan period. In accordance with the methodologytherefore, the Plan will need to allocate additional land to help meet an indicative residualrequirement;

The proposed site allocation is located within flood zone 1. The Environment Agencyhas no objection in principle subject to comments from Drainage Authority. Any proposalsfor development of this site should be informed by a site specific flood risk assessment;

There is no evidence to suggest that development of the site for housing could not besupported by suitable and timely investment into water supply infrastructure as well assewage infrastructure to cope with demand given current capacity issues which needto be appraised further by Wessex Water;

The site is not within the Crudwell Conservation Area;

Any development of the site would not lead to a significant encroachment of furtherbuilt form into the countryside and a sensitive approach should be taken to design andlayout including strategic landscaping. It is considered that the site boundary shouldbe extended to the field boundary to the north to allow for a strong landscapingframework pn the northern boundary;

The school is currently full but expansion is considered possible through the planningapplication process. At this stage there is no known reason why permission could notbe achieved, appropriate contributions would be likely to be sought to help fund additionallocal school capacity;

The proposed extension to the Public Right of Way (PROW) would be maintained inaccordance with regulation;


Following further discussion with Highways England the development is unlikely to havea harmful impact on Junction 17 of the M4;

The site is within walking distance of the services and facilities within the village butpart of the route lacks a footway, as does existing housing in the immediate vicinity ofthe site, which is being addressed by the existing permission for part of the site;

There are no highway objection to the deliverability of this proposed allocation; and

Consistent with the Wiltshire Core Strategy, large villages are appropriate locations fordevelopment in the rural areas.


Amend site boundary to allow for landscaping and amend supporting text to give greateremphasis to flood and drainage requirements.


Table 21.21

Housing allocation H2.14: Court Orchard/ Cassways, BrattonPart 21 214No. of

comments:33 (1126059)502 (1125255)545 (1125408)563 (1125255)566 (1125255)578 (1125261)581 (1125261)701 (1125770)704 (1125770)733 (1125387)764 (1126059)811 (1126224)862 (703974)870 (1126317)904 (1126224)928 (1126059)931 (1126059)939 (1126059)957 (1125693)963 (1126678)981 (1126766)991 (1125408)994 (1125408)1016 (1126784)1025 (1124313)1028 (1124313)1167 (1126059)1243 (1122130)1279 (1126678)1322 (1126766)1325 (1126766)1328 (1126764)1465 (901952/901806)1476 (705001)1611 (1129546)1711 (704825)1719 (704825)1725 (704825)1728 (704825)1731 (704825)1736 (704825)1746 (704825)1749 (1126760)1752 (704825)1755 (704825)1758 (704825)1971 (1127957)

19 (1126059) 499 (1125220) 514 (1125357) 562 (1125220) 565 (1125255) 577 (1125261) 580 (1125261) 700 (1125770) 703 (1125770) 710 (1125789) 760 (1126008) 801 (1126183) 861 (703974) 864 (703974) 903 (1126224) 906 (1126224) 930 (1126059) 938 (1126059) 941 (1126059) 962 (1126215) 977 (1126750) 990 (1125408) 993 (1125408) 1002 (1126760) 1024 (1124313) 1027 (1124313) 1111 (1126059) 1228 (1127957) 1278 (1126678) 1290 (1126215) 1324 (1126766) 1327 (1126764) 1331 (1126764) 1475 (705001) 1578 (692980) 1659 (1129817) 1717 (704825) 1724 (704825) 1727 (704825) 1730 (704825) 1733 (704825) 1745 (704825) 1748 (1126760) 1751 (1126760) 1754 (704825) 1757 (704825) 1787 (704825)

4 (1105335)201 (1126059)512 (1125261)561 (1125220)564 (1125255)576 (1125261)579 (1125261)650 (1124313)702 (1125770)705 (1125770)734 (1125387)769 (1126059)860 (703974)863 (703974)889 (1126410)905 (1126224)929 (1126059)932 (1126059)940 (1126059)961 (1126678)971 (1126734)982 (1126764)992 (1125408)995 (1125408)1023 (1124313)1026 (1124313)1029 (1124313)1220 (705001)1277 (1126678)1280 (1126678)1323 (1126766)1326 (1126764)1329 (1126764)1474 (705001)1477 (705001)1612 (1129546)1716 (704825)1720 (704825)1726 (704825)1729 (704825)1732 (704825)1737 (704825)1747 (704825)1750 (704825)1753 (704825)1756 (704825)1759 (704825)

CommentID



1972 (1127957)1790 (704825)1793 (1126766)1796 (704825)1957 (1131280)1960 (1126059)1974 (1127957)2003 (1126750)2056 (1131542)2059 (1131542)2245 (1132119)2249 (1132119)2252 (1132119)2302 (1125770)2358 (704313)2367 (1132525)2370 (1132525)2559 (1133437)2562 (1133437)2633 (1133661)2686 (1134131)2689 (1134131)2732 (1134308/1134306)3292 (1136156)3314 (1138914)

1789 (704825)1792 (1126766)1795 (704825)1956 (1131280)1959 (1131280)1973 (1127957)2002 (1126750)2055 (1131542)2058 (1131542)2244 (1132119)2248 (1132119)2251 (1132119)2301 (1125770)2304 (1125770)2360 (704313)2369 (1132525)2372 (1132525)2561 (1133437)2632 (1133661)2684 (1134131)2688 (1134131)2888 11375573190 (397159)3294 (1136156)

1788 (1126766) 1791 (1126766) 1794 (704825) 1837 (1130991) 1958 (1131280) 1961 (1126059) 1975 (1127957) 2054 (1131542) 2057 (1131542) 2243 (1132119) 2246 (1132119) 2250 (1132119) 2300 (1125770) 2303 (1125770) 2359 (704313) 2368 (1132525) 2371 (1132525) 2560 (1133437) 2631 (1133661) 2634 (1133661) 2687 (1134131) 2691 (1134131) 2993 (395940) 3293 (1136156)

21.101 A total of 214 representations relating to proposed allocation H2.14: CourtOrchard/Cassways, Bratton were received. The issues emanating from the representationsrelated to:

The need and justification for development within Bratton;

The quanta of homes to be developed / proposed density;



The potential for alternatives to be sought through a neighbourhood plan;

Conformity with the adopted Development Plan;

Inaccuracies in the data used in the assessment;

Impacts on biodiversity (including Salisbury Plain SPA, local SSSIs, wildlife species)

The need to retain the site for agriculture;

Land stability;

Impacts on air quality / noise pollution;

Effects of development on surface water flow and flooding;


Potential for harmful impacts on heritage assets (including Bratton Conservation Area,local archaeology and historic landscape);

Disagreement over potential landscape impacts and ability to mitigate impacts, includingfrom higher ground and the White Horse /Bratton Camp;

Concern about impacts on amenity of adjoining residents;

The need to preserve existing public rights of way that adjoin the site;

Impact of development on capacity of local services and infrastructure (including schools,healthcare);


Concerns over highways, access and parking.




The Plan has been developed in conformity with the WCS, and its approach to allocatingat large villages is in conformity with the WCS’s Plan led approach to delivery of housing.

In order to provide surety of housing land supply in the North and West HMA land isrequired to be allocated at some large villages. The Westbury Community Arearemainder was considered as an area of search as there is an indicative residualrequirement for the area, and the most suitable site has been identified as the allocationsite.

There is not a well progressed neighbourhood plan in the village and the Council isunable to rely on a neighbourhood plan to deliver allocation(s).

The density of the site at 40 dwellings is considered to be reasonable given theconstraints of the site. However, the promoters of the site have carried out furtherdetailed assessment and potential layouts which show that 35 dwellings may be morereadily accommodated.

Evidence suggests that the site is developable from a landscape perspective, and thatpotential impacts on biodiversity and heritage can be mitigated within the site.

Evidence also suggests that air and noise pollution arising would not be a barrier todevelopment of the site, and that access is achievable from Westbury Road.

Evidence indicates that there are sufficient local services available to supportdevelopment.

Potential impacts on amenity of existing residents cannot be determined at this stage.Detailed design and layout of a future planning application will need to demonstratethat the site will be laid out in a manner which preserves amenity.


The Plan requires that improved connections to adjoining public rights of way BRAT24and BRAT25 should be facilitated through any subsequent development proposals.


Amend the capacity of the site to 35 dwellings from 40 dwellings and amend supportingtext to give greater emphasis to flood and drainage requirements.


Table 21.22

South Housing Market AreaPart 22490No. of

comments:83 (1106218)141 (854597)146 (1121618)152 (447313)174 (1122535)193 (447691)197 (1122902)214 (446026)218 (1123267)227 (1123646)230 (1123667)233 (1123667)236 (1123646)239 (1123646)242 (1123399)245 (1123399)248 (1123399)261 (1105345)265 (1124133)277 (466628)298 (1124180)301 (1124180)304 (1124180)308 (1121429)311 (1124064)318 (1122902)312 (1122902)324 (448144)328 (862429)332 (862429)335 (862429)376 (390915)385 (447590)409 (1124540)458 (446464)478 (1105345)485 (1125007)488 (1125007)492 (1125050)509 (1125265)518 (1124364)571 (446465)637 (1125438)640 (1125438)643 (1125438)646 (1125438)662 (1124540)

66 (1119095/894742)138 (466628)145 (446472)148 (448144)173 (1106381)191 (1124558)196 (862429)210 (1122659)217 (1123267)221 (1123400)229 (1123667)232 (1123667)235 (1123646)238 (1123646)241 (1123646)244 (1123399)247 (1123399)260 (1120170)264 (1124064)276 (1124219)294 (1124309)300 (1124180)303 (1124180)306 (1121429)310 (1124064)316 (1122902)320 (1122902)323 (448144)326 (448144)331 (862429)334 (862429)370 (1124562)379 (473545)398 (1124760)457 (446464)477 (1105345)483 (1124998)487 (1125007)491 (1106218)497 (1125224)511 (1125268)560 (446465)606 (1125626)639 (1125438)642 (1125438)645 (1125438)661 (1124540)

60 (1118793)133 (1120822)144 (1121429)147 (1121643)164 (1121931)176 (1122629)194 (447691)203 (447691)216 (1123223)220 (1123399)228 (1123667)231 (1123667)234 (1123667)237 (1123646)240 (1123646)243 (1123399)246 (1123399)253 (1123223)262 (1122629)275 (1124180)278 (466628)299 (1124180)302 (1124180)305 (1124133)309 (1121429)313 (1122902)319 (1122902)322 (1122902)325 (448144)330 (862429)333 (862429)365 (1123578)377 (1118211)388 (979503)444 (448368)476 (1105345)479 (1105345)486 (1125007)489 (1125007)495 (899851)510 (1125268)555 (1125096)597 (1125594)638 (1125438)641 (1125438)644 (1125438)647 (1125438)

CommentID



663 (1124540)667 (1124540)675 (446026)712 (1106030)721 (448231)727 (1125964)730 (1125986)745 (1123135)748 (1123135)751 (1123135)761 (1126905)796 (378123)812 (1126228)829 (1126265) 842 (1125265)845 (1125265) 851 (1125268)854 (11252689858 (1125356)875 (1126328/326118)887 (1126383) 898 (1126342)915 (1125356) 918 (1125356) 937 (1125432) 958 (1126683) 976 (1126323)997 (1125096) 1009 (862429) 1017 (1125373)1032 (1126797) 1038 (393725)1042 (393725) 1075 (1126851) 1080 (1126871) 1083 (1126871) 1090 (1126843) 1101 (1126914) 1150 (1126946) 1174 (1126946) 1179 (1126987) 1184 (1126987)1212 (1127034) 1218 (1127005) 1224 (1127054) 1236 (1127967) 1239 (1127967) 1247 (458507)1250 (458507) 1253 (458507)1266 (1126268) 1289 (1126692) 1313 (1126323) 1332 (1126763)

666 (1124540)669 (1124540)679 (902116)720 (448231)726 (1125964)729 (1125986)732 (1125988)747 (1123135)750 (1123135)759 (1126905)780 (378123)800 (466447)828 (1126265)841 (1125265)844 (1125265)847(1125265)853 (1125268)856 (1125268)872 (1126319)883 (1126342)897 (1126342)914 (1125356)917 (1125356)920 (1125356)952 (446834)966 (1126718)996 (1125096)999 (1125096)1013 (1126779)1031 (1126797)1037 (393725) 1041 (393725) 1063 (898778)1079 (1126871)1082 (1126871)1085 (1126944)1100 (1126914)1148 (1126943)1165 (1120809)1178 (446889) 1183 (1126987)1211 (1126977)1214 (1127034)1223 (1127054)1235 (1125482)1238 (1127967)1244 (1127962)1249 (458507)1252 (458507) 1255 (458507) 1288 (1126692)1312 (1126323)1315 (1126323)1334 (1126763)

665 (1124540)668 (1124540)676 (446026)717 (1125847)724 (1125899)728 (1125964)731 (1125986)746 (1123135)749 (1123135)756 (1126905)774 (378123)798 (1126176)825 (1125482) 830 (1126265)843 (1125265)846 (1125265) 852 (1125268) 855 (1125268)859 (1126268)879 (1126328/326118)896 (1126342)908 (1126187)916 (1125356)919 (1125356)949 (862429) 960 (1126692)984 (1126763) 998 (1125096)1011 (1126779)1030 (1126795)1034 (1126797)1040 (393725) 1062 (898778) 1078 (1126871) 1081 (1126871)1084 (1126871)1091 (1126725)1147 (1126943)1164 (1126801)1177 (1126969)1181 (1126987)1188 (1126977) 1213 (1127034)1222 (1127054)1234 (1125482)1237 (1127967)1240 (1126300)1248 (458507)1251 (458507)1254 (458507) 1267 (1126268)1311 (1126323)1314 (1126323)1333 (1126763)


1336 (1126763)1339 (1126763)1346 (1126779)1349 (1126779)1352 (1126779)1362 (1124065) 1382 (825522)1497 (446038) 1584 (1119095/894742)1598 (1126176) 1601 (1126176) 1648 (1129695)1705 (1126719)1739 (1130378/1122261)1772 (556113) 1785 (556113) 1815 (1130720/894742)1886 (447415)1889 (1127005)1907 (477226) 1940 (468232) 1980 (1126300) 1985 (1131395)2027 (1131477)2051 (1131544/1131505)2081 (1131660) 2151 (1131878)2154 (1131878)2157 (1131878)2160 (1131878)2221 (1125984)2230 (408500)2305 (1132344/825048)2308 (1132344/825048)2311 (1132344/825048)2314 (1132344/825048)2392 (903251)2441 (1132344/825048)2619 (900160/900154)2718 (977912) 2786 (446826)2793 (1134607)2796 (1134607) 2799 (1134611)2803 (1134611)2871 (467669)2889 (446149) 2894 (979508)3008 (998345/556489)3015 (900160/900154)3025 (900160/900154) 3029 (1136367)3032 (1136367) 3043 (900160/900154)

1335 (1126763) 1338 (1126763) 1345 (1126779) 1348 (1126779) 1351 (1126779) 1361 (1124065) 1374 (1126801) 1496 (446038)1499 (446038)1597 (1126176) 1600 (1126176) 1635 (1119095/894742)1650 (905964)1709 (1130070)1770 (556113) 1780 (556113) 1809 (1126757)1885 (447415) 1888 (447415)1893 (392667) 1916 (447918) 1947 (1130616) 1982 (1126300) 2016 (1131457) 2050 (1131544/1131505)2053 (1131544/1131505)2120 (1131754/1131747)2153 (1131878) 2156 (1131878) 2159 (1131878) 2220 (391071) 2227 (1125984) 2283 (1132230/1132220)2307 (1132344/825048)2310 (1132344/825048)2313 (1132344/825048)2366 (1132230/1132220)2591 (1133523) 2640 (1133686) 2966 (1135954/556489)2738 (1134260/1131505)2792 (1134607) 2795 (1134607) 2798 (1134611) 2802 (1134611) 2870 (467669) 2873 (467669) 2891 (446149) 2946 (893417) 3014 (900160/900154)3022 (900160/900154)3028 (1136367)3031 (1136367) 3034 (1136367)

1337 (1126763)1341 (1126779)1347 (1126779)1350 (1126779)1360 (1124065)1363 (1124065)1384 (825522)1498 (446038) 1596 (1126176)1599 (1126176)1602 (1126176)1649 (1129720)1706 (1126719)1768 (556113)1775 (556113) 1786 (556113) 1884 (447415)1887 (447415)1890 (1127005)1908 (477226) 1946 (1130616)1981 (1126300)2011 (1131426)2049 (1131544/1131505)2052 (1131544/1131505)2086 (1131666/1131662)2152 (1131878)2155 (1131878)2158 (1131878)2161 (1131878)2222 (1125984)2231 (408500) 2306 (1132344/825048)2309 (1132344/825048) 2312 (1132344/825048) 2355 (445966)2396 (903251)2590 (1133523)2637 (1133686)2736 (1134260/1131505)2791 (446826) 2794 (1134607)2797 (1134607)2800 (1134611)2804 (1134611)2872 (467669)2890 (446149) 2907 (1135279)3013 (900160/900154)3016 (900160/900154)3027 (1136367) 3030 (1136367)3033 (1136367)3049 (900160/900154)


3065 (1136627/1136618)3070 (1136804/836252)3112 (835920/438199) 3115 (835920/438199)3118 (835920/438199) 3121 (835920/438199)3230 (1138546/1133715)1763 (556113)3335 (1123514)

3064 (1136627/1136618)3068 (1136804/836252)3090 (395552/817881)3114 (835920/438199)3117 (835920/438199)3120 (835920/438199)3123 (393560/1131505)22 (1115637)3324 (393855)3337 (1123514)

3063 (1136627/1136618)3067 (1136806/1136797)3073 (1136804/836252)3113 (835920/438199)3116 (835920/438199)3119 (835920/438199)3122 (393560/1131505)3329 (1138958)3026 (457823)3336 (1123514)

21.105 A total of 490 representations relating to the South Wiltshire Housing Market Area werereceived. The issues emanating from the representations related to:

Insufficient sites are allocated in the Housing Market Area (HMA) to maintain a 5-yearhousing land supply and further allocations should be made.

Objections to majority of the housing requirement focusing on three sites in Harnhamand Netherhampton – smaller sites should be allocated instead to aid delivery andallocations should be distributed through the HMA.

Concerns over potential impacts of development on ecology, including Sites of SpecialScientific Interest (SSSIs), the River Avon and Salisbury Plain.

The residual requirement for the South Wiltshire HMA should increase to reflect thatthe Churchfields and Central Car Park sites are unlikely to be developed within the planperiod.

21.106 Salisbury

The Plan provides for a surplus of about 600 houses for Salisbury/Wilton, which is notjustified;

The number of homes allocated at Netherhampton Road is too high;

Allocations at Netherhampton Road would be detrimental to the visual approach to thecity, Salisbury’s important landscape, and the cathedral, as well as surface water floodingconcerns;

Netherhampton Road could not be developed until the end of the Plan period, or after2026;

Highways Agency considers transport network improvements are necessary toaccommodate development at Salisbury as development will impact on the A36 andthere is a need for an up to date Salisbury Transport Strategy.

21.107 Amesbury, Bulford and Durrington

Comments relate to Durrington not being suitable for further housing including due tolack of services;

The approach to allocate two sites in Durrington and none in Amesbury is questioned;


The cumulative impact of the military rebasing is not taken into account.

21.108 Large villages

Not allocating sites in any Large Villages is inconsistent with approach in the North &West HMA. More sites should be allocated in rural villages.

Object to Shrewton, Idmiston and Mere being discounted as locations for housingallocations.

The Council should allocate additional land in the Amesbury Community Area.

The residual Southern Wiltshire Community Area requirements rely on strategiccommitments which appear ambitious in yield and delivery timing


21.110 The Council considers the approach taken with the identification of the sites is based onreasonable evidence and in general conformity with the Wiltshire Core Strategy. In light ofthe issues raised the Council’s response is the following:

It is considered that sufficient sites have been allocated in the South HMA to improvehousing land supply.

Many sites have been considered through the site selection process at Amesbury,Bulford and Durrington. In terms of local context, the Army Basing Programme isrecognised as being a factor likely to put pressure on local services and facilities.However, this important Programme will be delivering necessary infrastructure to supportmilitary families in line with Core Policy 37 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy and amaster-planned approach. As such, the Basing Programme has been considered asoperating outwith the requirements being addressed through the Wiltshire Housing SiteAllocations Plan. Therefore, on the basis of evidential assessments, sites have beenallocated that are considered to offer the greatest sustainability benefits to the localarea. Such benefits include improvements to local infrastructure and services.

The situation in the South HMA is different to that in the North and West HMA - it is notconsidered that allocations should be made in Large Villages, see relevant communityarea topic papers;

It is considered that sufficient sites have been allocated in the Amesbury CommunityArea to meet housing requirements;

The ‘more sustainable’ sites identified by the site assessment methodology in this areaof search were at Durrington. However, due to the role of Amesbury as a Market Townwithin this Community Area, a site at Amesbury that was assessed as ‘less sustainable’was considered for allocation and subsequently rejected due to the impact of noisefrom the A303 and the available evidence at the time that indicated the land was likelyto be included in the plans to widen the A303;

The potential effects of site allocations on ecology has been considered through theSustainability Appraisal and Habitats Regulations Assessment and significant effectsare considered able to be mitigated adequately;


Reasons for not allocating sites at Shrewton, Idmiston and Mere are presented in therelevant Community Area Topic Papers;

The level of housing allocations in Salisbury/Wilton is considered necessary to makeup for lack of delivery within the Plan period on other strategic sites in Salisbury;

The number of homes allocated on the Netherhampton Road site is consideredacceptable and will allow for significant sustainability benefits to be delivered on-site;

Potential visual and surface water impacts have been considered through the siteselection process and are not considered so significant to mitigate that measures arenot achievable to reduce any effects;

It is considered that the majority of the Netherhampton Road site is deliverable withinthe Plan period;

The Salisbury Transport Strategy is being refreshed and will include measures tomitigate the effects of proposed housing allocations in Salisbury.The Highways Agencyare involved in that refresh;

Housing requirements in the Southern Wiltshire Community Area take into accountdevelopable commitments which are considered will be delivered in the Plan periodand therefore there is no outstanding requirement in this community area.




Table 21.23

Housing allocation H3.1: Netherhampton Road, SalisburyPart 23: 289No. of

comments:32 (1116908)69 (446039)92 (403805)151 (899859)183 (1122632)219 (1123379)251 (1122632)258 (1122587)281 (1124300)327 (1120809)338 (1120809)341 (1120809)460 (446464)484 (1123408)567 (1125575)594 (1124364)608 (1125626)611 (1125626)757 (1126905)774 (378123)797 (1126119)813 (1126228)839 (1126280)876 (1126328/326118)968 (1126730)974 (1126730)1052 (393725)1064 (898778)1067 (898778)1087 (1126865)1106 (1125563)1109 (1125563)1137 (1125794)1140 (1125794)1143 (1126359)1173 (1126846)1206 (1126834)1226 (1125160)1258 (445982)1301 (447657)1304 (447657)1344 (1106010)1359 (1126359)1393 (1126846)1396 (1126846)1436 (1126918)

30 (1116631)46 (1118211)91 (1119713)117 (1120594)175 (1122652)211 (446026)250 (1122632)257 (1122587)261 (1105345)297 (1124300)337 (1120809)340 (1120809)380 (1118211)482 (1124998)554 (1123977)593 (1124364)607 (1125626)610 (1125626)711 (1125794)770 (1126040)783 (1126119)810 (1120822)827 (1126264)871 (378123)965 (1126730)972 (1126730)978 (1126219)1054 (393725)1066 (898778)1069 (898778)1105 (1125563)1108 (1125563)1124 (1128746)1139 (1125794)1142 (1125794)1171 (447787)1202 (1126918)1219 (1126772)1257 (445982)1299 (447657)1303 (447657)1342 (1106010)1358 (1126359)1392 (1126846)1395 (1126846)1399 (1106010)

3 (1104997)40 (1118090)73 (1119180)93 (402956)163 (1121929)185 (1122587)249 (1122632)252 (1122632)259 (1122587)296 (1124300)336 (1120809)339 (1120809)342 (1120809)468 (1123964)547 (1123977)592 (1124364)603 (1123046)609 (1125626)674 (1125563)765 (1123501)777 (1126103)802 (1126187)817 (1126248)865 (378123)880 (378123)969 (1126730)975 (1126730)1053 (393725)1065 (898778)1068 (898778)1104 (1125563)1107 (1125563)1110 (1125563)1138 (1125794)1141 (1125794)1146 (1126511)1182 (1125989)1215 (1126977)1256 (445982)1259 (445982)1302 (447657)1315 (1126323)1357 (1126359)1369 (1126511)1394 (1126846)1397 (1126846)

CommentID



1437 (1126918)1441 (447893)1444 (447943)1462 (1126772)1481 (1125160)1586 (1106010)1654 (905964)1714 (1126717)1743 (1130390)1811 (841393/558013)1843 (1131000)1846 (1131014)1875 (899628/899623)1878 (899628/899623)1881 (899628/899623)1988 (446468)1992 (1131400)1995 (1131404)2017 (1131457)2030 (1131477)2034 (1131488)2072 (1131624)2075 (1131630)2115 (1131555)2177 (1125482)2190 (1125482)2228 (1125984)2316 (1132372)2336 (1132344/825048)2339 (1132344/825048)2350 (1132344/825048)2356 (1126178)2427 (1132740)2488 (1132978)2602 (1133628)2605 (1133628)2699 (1133531)2723 (445981)2747 (1134443)2752 (1134443)2898 (1135230)2950 (408128)2996 (395940)3051 (900160/900154)3168 (873511)3233 (1138534)3236 (1138534)3239 (1138534)3308 (1138819)3311 (1138819)3339 (1138982)

1439 (1126918)1443 (447943)1461 (1126772)1464 (1126772)1540 (1129241/901806)1653 (905964)1702 (1125649)1742 (1130390)1810 (1126757)1842 (1131000)1845 (1131014)1874 (899628/899623)1877 (899628/899623)1880 (899628/899623)1891 (1131188)1991 (1131399)1994 (1131400)2014 (1131426)2028 (1131477)2033 (1131488)2036 (1131504)2074 (1131630)2114 (1131555)2231 (408500)2189 (1125482)2225 (1125984)2279 (1132230/1132220)2318 (1132372)2338 (1132344/825048)2346 (1132428)2353 (445966)2393 (903251)2487 (1132978)2601 (1133628)2604 (1133628)2698 (1133531)2721 (445981)2746 (1134443)2749 (1134443)2896 (1135230)2902 (1135230)2954 (408128)3050 (900160/900154)3167 (873511)3170 (873511)3235 (1138534)3238 (1138534)3297 (1138813)3310 (1138819)3334 (1138982)

1438 (1126918)1442 (447893)1445 (447943)1463 (1126772)1504 (402734)1647 (403792)1680 (1129911)1715 (1126717)1744 (1130390)1813 (1126757)1844 (1131000)1873 (899628/899623)1876 (899628/899623)1879 (899628/899623)1882 (899628/899623)1990 (1131397)1993 (1131400)2012 (1131426)2019 (1131457)2032 (1131488)2035 (1131504)2073 (1131624)2106 (1131705)2129 (1135876)2188 (1125482)2223 (1125984)2241 (1126757)2317 (1132372)2337 (1132344/825048)2340 (1132344/825048)2351 (445966)2363 (1126178)2486 (1132978)2556 (1133436)2603 (1133628)2606 (1133628)2700 (1133531)2727 (448417)2748 (1134443)2753 (1134443)2900 (1135230)2952 (408128)3012 (900160/900154)3166 (873511)3169 (873511)3234 (1138534)3237 (1138534)3240 (1138534)3309 (1138819)3332 (1138954)


21.112 A total of 289 representations relating to proposed allocation H3.1: Netherhampton Road,Salisbury were received. The issues emanating from the representations related to:

The scale of the allocation;

Concern that further greenfield development would be required because of delaysbringing forward central brownfield sites;

The need and justification for the development;

Concerns that the site could not be developed until the end of the Plan period, or after2026;

Objections to majority of housing requirement allocated at Harnham and Netherhampton.

The suitability of the site compared to alternative sites, including smaller sites;

Potential detriment to the visual approach to the city, Salisbury’s important landscape,and the cathedral spire;

Development on land that currently separates Salisbury from Netherhampton;

Potential for harm to Cranborne Chase AONB setting;

Concerns that development on higher land will harm landscape;

The need for a Green Infrastructure Strategy;

Surface water flooding concerns;

The need to protect biodiversity (including River Nadder SAC and SSSI);

The need for transport network improvements to address impacts on the A36;

The need for an up to date to the Salisbury Transport Strategy;

Potential adverse impacts of added congestion on local road networks;

Uncertainty over deliverability of bus service to serve the site;

Improvements needed to existing sewage and water infrastructure;

Impacts of reduced air quality and impact on public health, including impacts on the AirQuality Management Area (AQMA) in Salisbury;

Uncertainty over archaeological sensitivity of the site;

Lack of doctors surgery and pharmacy and need for additional GPs;


Lack of guidance regarding the requirement for approval of a masterplan;

Need for new primary school capacity; and


Lack of need for more employment land as Harnham already has unoccupiedemployment land.



Delays in delivering the Churchfields strategic allocation is recognised in the Plan andfor that reason, other site allocations are required;

Many sites have been considered through the site selection process - sites have beenallocated that are considered to offer the greatest sustainability benefits;

The level of housing allocations in Salisbury/Wilton is considered necessary to makeup for lack of delivery within the plan period on other strategic sites in Salisbury;

The number of homes allocated on the Netherhampton Road site is consideredacceptable and will allow for significant sustainability benefits to be delivered on-site;

Potential visual and surface water impacts have been considered through the siteselection process and are not considered so significant that mitigate measures are notachievable to reduce any effects;

It is considered that the majority of the Netherhampton Road site is deliverable withinthe plan period;


Negotiations are being held with local public transport providers and it is consideredthat this site can be served by frequent and reliable bus services;

It is considered that water and sewerage infrastructure in the area can be adequatelyenhanced to deal with the additional housing allocated on this site;

It is considered that impacts on local air quality can be adequately mitigated - this siteis in reasonable proximity to the range of services and facilities in Salisbury city centre,and whilst vehicle usage is likely to increase in the area, mitigation measures arepossible, for example through increasing and improving existing public transportaccessibility along Netherhampton Road and through the refresh of the SalisburyTransport Strategy;

Regarding views towards the cathedral spire, development on this site will be restrictedto below the 75m contour line and the site is large enough to accommodate a significantamount of Green Infrastructure, open space and landscaping in the design and layoutthat will help reduce the impacts of the site;

The site has high potential for archaeology however this is a very large site and theexact extent of archaeological works is not certain. It is possible that the area ofarchaeological interest only covers a section of this site. Assessment and preservationin situ would be required and is considered possible;


The edge of the Cranborne Chase AONB lies approx. 2km south-west of this site. Nosignificant impacts on the AONB are considered likely from development of this site.Keeping development below the 75m contour will allow development to relate to thevalley floor and provide a sufficient visual buffer to the open countryside withoutimpinging on the setting of the AONB;

The plan policy for this site requires provision of sufficient healthcare capacity to meetthe need created by the development. This is likely to be through agreed developercontributions;

The plan policy requires at least 1.8ha of land for a two-form entry primary school alongwith playing pitches as well as provision for school development to ensure needgenerated by development is met.


Add text to Policy H3.1 to clarify that the masterplan should be approved as part of theplanning application process.

Amend text to give greater emphasis to flood and drainage requirements, as well asbiodiversity.


Table 21.24

Housing allocation H3.2: Hilltop Way, SalisburyPart 24: 8No. of comments:

1046 (393725)2997 (395940)

17 (1114697)2038 (1131509/1131505)3176 (873511)

14 (1113883)1651 (905964)3175 (873511

Comment ID


21.116 A total of 8 representations relating to proposed allocation H3.2: Hilltop Way, Salisburywere received. The issues emanating from the representations related to:

The site has now had outline planning permission granted for 10 dwellings;

Potential harm to the local landscape and skyline; and

Highways and access concerns.


The Council considers the approach taken with the identification of this site is basedon reasonable evidence and in general conformity with the Wiltshire Core Strategy.




Table 21.25

Housing allocation H3.3: North of Netherhampton Road, SalisburyPart 25: 145No. of

comments:81 (1113687)177 (1122629)266 (1119762)459 (446464)553 (1123977)591 (1124364)612 (1125626)615 (1125626)758 (1126905)775 (1126092)877 (1126328/326118)1050 (393725)1071 (898778)1086 (1126725)1176 (1126846)1191 (1126918)1263 (1120809)1307 (447657)1343 (1126779)1388 (1126846)1398 (1106010)1434 (1126918)1652 (905964)1738 (1130390)1812 (1126757)2015 (1131426)2029 (1131477)2117 (1131555)2193 (1125482)2226 (1125984)2233 (899628/899623)2236 (899628/899623)2239 (899628/899623)2280 (1132230/1132220)2361 (1126178)2512 (903251)2594 (394962)2728 (448417)2756 (1134443)2759 (1134443)2901 (1135230)2953 (408128)3108 (841393/558013)3179 (873511)3218 (1138534)3221 (1138534)3302 (1138819)3338 (1138982)

74 (1119180) 118 (1120591) 263 (1122629) 307 (1121429) 548 (1123977) 570 (446465) 596 (1124364) 614 (1125626) 617 (1125626) 771 (1126040) 840 (1120809) 1049 (393725) 1070 (898778)1073 (898778)1172 (447787) 1190 (1125989) 1262 (1120809) 1306 (447657) 1309 (447657)1387 (1126846) 1390 (1126846) 1433 (1126918) 1585 (1106010) 1713 (1126717) 1741 (1130390) 2013 (1131426) 2020 (1131457) 2116 (1131555) 2192 (1125482) 2224 (1125984) 2232 (899628/899623)2235 (899628/899623)2238 (899628/899623)2242 (1126757) 2354 (445966) 2428 (1132740) 2593 (394962) 2725 (445981)2755 (1134443) 2758 (1134443) 2899 (1135230) 2951 (408128) 2998 (395940) 3178 (873511) 3217 (1138534) 3220 (1138534) 3301 (1138819) 3304 (1138819)

70 (446039)94 (1119762) 212 (446026)267 (1119762) 475 (1123964) 568 (446465)595 (1124364) 613 (1125626) 616 (1125626) 766 (1123501) 814 (1126228) 881 (378123) 1051 (393725) 1072 (898778) 1149 (1126943) 1180 (1126987) 1261 (1120809) 1305 (447657)1308 (447657) 1353 (1106010) 1389 (1126846) 1400 (1106010) 1435 (1126918) 1712 (1126717) 1740 (1130390) 1989 (446468) 2018 (1131457) 2031 (1131477) 2191 (1125482) 2195 (1125482) 2229 (1125984) 2234 (899628/899623)2237 (899628/899623)2240 (1126757) 2352 (445966) 2364 (1126178) 2557 (1133436) 2724 (445981) 2754 (1134443) 2757 (1134443) 2897 (1135230) 2903 (1135230) 2955 (408128)3177 (873511) 3216 (1138534) 3219 (1138534) 3222 (1138534) 3303 (1138819)774 (378123)

CommentID



21.119 A total of 145 representations relating to proposed allocation H3.3: North of NetherhamptonRoad, Salisbury were received. The issues emanating from the representations relatedto:

The scale of development and size of the site;


The need to protect biodiversity (including River Nadder SAC and SSSI, local wildlifesites);

Improvements that are needed to existing sewage and water infrastructure;

Potential risk of surface water flooding;

Potential detriment to the visual approach to the city and views of the cathedral;


The need for transport network improvements to address impacts on the A36;

The need for an up to date Salisbury Transport Strategy;

The need for a Green Infrastructure Strategy;

Concerns about increase in pollution levels, including noise and air quality);

The dependency of the site on delivery of H3.1 to deliver social and community facilitiese.g. primary school; and

The potential in combination impacts of allocations at Netherhampton Road on localinfrastructure, services and facilities.



It is considered that water and sewerage infrastructure in the area can be adequatelyenhanced to deal with the additional housing allocated on this site;

It is considered that all development can take place within Flood Zone 1 and that asufficient buffer can be put in place between development and Flood Zone 2. Mitigationmeasures to deal with surface water on the site are achievable;

The area is sensitive in terms of the setting to the Cathedral and views towards it.Proposals would need to be sensitively designed taking into account the objectives ofthe City of Salisbury Conservation Area Management Plan to afford weight to thesignificance of the asset and minimise harm.The Council has now undertaken a heritageimpact assessment (as well as the requirement for detailed site specific heritageassessment). Proposals would need to provide for a high quality, sustainabledevelopment that enhances an important approach to the City;



Negotiations are being held with local public transport providers and it is consideredthat this site can be served by frequent and reliable bus services;

It is considered that H3.1 is deliverable and that a new primary school on that site isachievable which will also serve the needs of this site;

It is considered that the pressures that development of both Netherhampton Road sitesplace on local infrastructure, services and facilities can be mitigated through arequirement for adequate developer contributions to meet the needs created by bothdevelopments. This will include direct provision of some facilities on site, together withcontributions towards other infrastructure away from the sites.


Amend text to reflect heritage impact assessment and to give greater emphasis to floodand drainage requirements, as well as biodiversity.


Table 21.26

Housing allocation H3.4: Land at Rowbarrow, SalisburyPart 26: 31No. of

comments:213 (446026)878 (1126328/326118)1048 (393725)1655 (905964)1824 (1130961/556489)1827 (1130961/556489)1830 (1130961/556489)2760 (1134443)2763 (1134443)2999 (395940)

85 (925022)772 (1126040)1047 (393725)1604 (1119095/894742)1823 (1130961/556489)1826 (1130961/556489)1829 (1130961/556489)2558 (1133436)2762 (1134443)2770 (1134443)

1266 (1126268)767 (1123501)882 (378123)1088 (1126725)1656 (905964)1825 (1130961/556489)1828 (1130961/556489)1831 (1130961/556489)2761 (1134443)2769 (1134443)3180 (873511)

Comment ID

(Consultee /Agent ID):

21.123 A total of 31 representations relating to proposed allocation H3.4: Land at Rowbarrow,Salisbury were received. The issues emanating from the representations related to:

Scale/quantum of development;

The southern part of the site is located within the boundary of Woodbury Ancient VillagesScheduled Monument;

The site has high archaeological potential; and

Concerns regarding impact on views towards the cathedral spire and Old Sarum.

Available land is incorrectly identified, and should exclude exclude landscape bufferfrom adjoining development.



A small section of the site, in the southern corner, is located within the boundary ofWoodbury Ancient Villages Scheduled Monument. Development will not take place inthis part of the site on higher ground and the setting of the Scheduled Monument is nota primary contributor to its significance;

It is considered that the archaeological value of this site can be maintained.The southernpart of the site which contains the Scheduled Monument will not be developed andthere will be a full archaeological assessment prior to any future planning application;

Regarding views towards Salisbury Cathedral, it is considered that significant effectscan be avoided. In combination with heritage assessment, development will need totake place within a strong landscape framework that maintains views towards thecathedral spire and this is considered possible.



Amend site boundary to reflect land available for development and exclude the woodlandbuffer surrounding the neighbouring development.

Amend text to provide clarity about landscape requirements and how heritage matterswill be addressed.


Table 21.27

Housing Allocation H3.5: Clover Lane, DurringtonPart 27 12No. of comments:

496 (1125173)1102 (1126914)638 (1133686)2994 (395940)

494 (1123429)664 (1124540)1986 (1131395)2677 (983136)

154 (447313)544 (899941)1584 (1119095)2639 (1133686)

Comment ID

(Consultee/Agent ID)

21.127 A total of 12 representations relating to proposed allocation H3.5 Clover, Lane, Durringtonwere received. The issues emanating from the representations related to:

Concerns over the achievability and suitability of access via Clover Lane;

Request to review the boundary of the site allocation due to inconsistency in mapspresented in the Plan and Community Area Topic Paper.

Concerns about impact on highways network;

The need to protect biodiversity (River Avon SAC and SSSI);

Recommendations and requirements in relation to foul drainage and water managementdue to the site’s relationship with the Source Protection Zone (groundwater);

Concerns about potential for harm to heritage assets (including Commonwealth WarGraves Commission Cemetery, Conservation Area);


Concern about landscape, loss of pasture land; and

Concern over lack of facilities and employment in Durrington.

21.128 Council's response to themes / issues raised:

21.129 The Council considers the approach taken with the identification of this site is based onreasonable evidence and in general conformity with the Wiltshire Core Strategy. In light ofthe issues raised the Council's response is the following:

Development should be delivered according to the policy and taking account of issuesraised during site assessment and consultation, including impacts on the River AvonSAC and SSSI, water infrastructure and drainage. The planning application processwill also require that any necessary assessment is carried out and informs the proposalsso that requirements can be met.

The site allocation boundary needs to be corrected to align with the map shown in theAmesbury Community Area Topic Paper.

The allocation assumes that development will be configured to ensure that existingrights of access to the paddock are maintained, and promoters confirm that this is thecase.


The promoters of the site are working with the relevant parties to achieve access viaClover Lane.

Considerations such as the impacts on highways, landscape, flooding and local serviceswere taken into account during the site assessment process. None of the potentialimpacts were thought to be insurmountable based on evidence available at the time ofassessment.

21.130 Proposed changes required to address themes / issues raised:

Amend allocation boundary to correct mapping error.

Amend text to provide greater clarity on heritage matters; flood risk, drainage andgroundwater; and biodiversity.


Table 21.29

Housing Allocation H3.6: Larkhill Road, DurringtonPart 28 5 No. of comments:

1590 (1119095/894742672 (11245402995 (395940)

153 (447313)1987 (1131395)

Comment ID

(Consultee/Agent ID)

21.131 A total of 5 representations relating to proposed allocation H3.6: Larkhill Road, Durringtonwere received. The issues emanating from the representations related to:

The quanta of homes to be developed and housing density;


Concerns about precedent being set for development south of Larkhill Road;

The need to protect biodiversity (River Avon SAC, SSSI and local wildlife);

Concern about potential harm to heritage assets (Durrington Walls);


Concern about adverse impacts on highways and public safety due to traffic and parking;and

Recommendations and requirements in relation to foul drainage and water managementdue to the site's relationship with the Source Protection Zone (groundwater).


Consideration has been made of the request to include additional land within theallocation but as the land is within the settlement boundary and is constrained by itscurrent use as a car park it is not proposed to include it;

It is considered that sufficient sites have been allocated in the South HMA to improvehousing land supply;

Development south of Larkhill Road should only come forward through an allocationvia this Plan or a neighbourhood development plan, as the undeveloped land is outsidethe settlement boundary;

Considerations such as the impacts on highways, landscape, flooding and local serviceswere taken into account during the site assessment process. None of the potentialimpacts were thought to be insurmountable based on evidence available at the time ofassessment.

Development should be delivered according to the policy and taking account of issuesraised during site assessment and consultation, including impacts on the River AvonSAC and SSSI, water infrastructure and drainage, and the layout and density ofdevelopment. The planning application process will also require that any necessaryassessment is carried out and informs the proposals so that requirements can be met.

21.133 Proposed change(s) required to address themes / issues raised:


Amend text to give greater emphasis to flood and drainage requirements, as well asbiodiversity.


Table 21.30

Implementation and MonitoringPart 29: 5 No. of comments:

678 (378123)677 (378123)2707 (977912)

673 (378123)2643 (382305)

Comment ID


21.134 A total of 5 representations relating to Implementation and Monitoring were received.The issues emanating from the representations related to:

The flexibility and contingency of the Plan to ensure development needs are met;Reviewing housing delivery against objectively assessed need.The need for a clear monitoring/review mechanism is required.Absence of up to date Annual Monitoring Report (AMR);Inadequacies of monitoring the effectiveness of Wiltshire Core Strategy (WCS) policies;Monitoring impacts and mitigation of effects on the New Forest Special Protection Area(SPA).



The WCS was adopted on 20 January 2015.The housing requirement contained in theWCS represents the only up to date housing requirement for Wiltshire. This is therequirement against which the land supply is assessed. Wiltshire Council monitorshousing annually and produces both housing land availability reports and housing landsupply statements.In order to present a position that represented the anticipated housing land supply atthe point of examination as closely as possible and to conform to national policy onevidence (National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 158), the Council estimatedthe 2017 base date housing land supply position in order to inform the Plan.Investigate the issues raised in relations to the New Forest SPA.

21.137 Proposed change(s) required to address themes / issues raised:



Table 21.31

Sustainability AppraisalPart 30: 207No. of

comments:195 (1106487)259 (1122587)499 (1125220)528 (1102653)532 (1125418)558 (1125376/1125375)650 (1124313)832 (1125248)838 (1125248)878 (1126328/326118)900 (1126445)912 (1126488)968 (1126230)974 (1126230)1025 (1124313)1032 (1126797)1136 (1126922)1504 (402734)1584 (1119095/894742)1629 (1129612)1691 (1129933)1727 (704825)1796 (704825)1903 (1127014)1966 (1127014)2026 (393425/817881)2115 (1131555)2123 (1131760)2279 (1132230/1132220)2306 (1132344/825048)2309 (1132344/825048)2313 (1132344/825048) 2389 (1132602)2404 (1132626/1126961) 2516 (1126401)2537 (1133384/825048)2540 (1133384/825048)2658 (983136)2669 (983136)2674 (983136)2702 (1134177/1126238)2819 (1134691/861292)2890 (446149)2898 (1135230)2901 (1135230)2937 (1135674)3050 (900160/900154)

185 (1122587)258 (1122587)336 (1120809)521 (1125376/1125375)531 (1125418)545 (1125408)590 (1121943)831 (1125248)834 (1125248)877 (1126328/326118)880 (378123)911 (1126488)929 (1126059)972 (1126230)1023 (1124313)1029 (1124313)1135 (1126922)1495 (706891)1551 (1129287/1004509)1606 (1129527/901806)1690 (1129933)1724 (704825)1787 (704825)1883 (1131172)1965 (1127014)2025 (393425/817881)2114 (1131555)2117 (1131555)2252 (1132119)2302 (1125770)2308 (1132344/825048)2311 (1132344/825048) 2366 (1132230/1132220) 2403 (1132626/1126961)2510 (1133063)2536 (1133384/825048)2539 (1133384/825048)2628 (1133656)2664 (983136)2673 (983136)2701 (1134177/1126238) 2722 (1134217/1005672)2889 (446149)2896 (1135230)2900 (1135230)2931 (1126714)3021 (382216)

135 (1105805)257 (1122587)265 (1124133)500 (1125248)529 (1102653)533 (1125418)572 (1117600)780 (378123)833 (1125248)840 (1120809)879 (1126328/326118)910 (1126488)913 (1126488)969 (1126230)975 (1126230)1028 (1124313)1040 (393725)1216 (393425/817881)1540 (1129241/901806)1590 (1119095/894742) 1671 (381339)1702 (1125649)1764 (556113)1798 (1130564/1120649)1910 (895670)1973 (1127957)2085 (556573/556956)2116 (1131555)2220 (391071)2280 (1132230/1132220) 2307 (1132344/825048)2310 (1132344/825048) 2337 (1132344/825048) 2401 (1132626/1126961)2405 (1132626/1126961) 2535 (1133384/825048)2538 (1133384/825048) 2606 (1133628)2659 (983136)2671 (983136)2694 (1134147)2715 (977912)2825 (1134708) 2891 (446149)2899 (1135230)2902 (1135230)3016 (900160/900154)

Comment ID



3067 (1136806/1136797)3098 (1126042) 3103 (1137560/1137556) 3110 (549444/549441) 3115 (835920/438199)3121 (835920/438199)3144 (1138002/ 1138006)3154 (817896/ 817881) 3174 (449270)3200 (861027/1136403)3203 (861027/1136403) 3216 (1138534)3219 (1138534)3222 (1138534)3226 (1138534)3235 (1138534)3238 (1138534)3243 (645345/1138525)3246 (645345/1138525) 3249 (645345/1138525) 3252 (645345/1138525) 3256 (841197/397761)

3078 (840359/443671)3100 (1137560/1137556)3109 (549444/549441)3113 (835920/438199)3119 (835920/438199)3132 (1132566)3153 (817896/ 817881) 3172 (449270)3195 (1136806/1138320)3202 (861027/1136403) 3206 (863519/1128217)3218 (1138534)3221 (1138534)3225 (1138534)3228 (1138534)3237 (1138534)3240 (1138534)3245 (645345/1138525) 3248 (645345/1138525) 3251 (645345/1138525)3254 (645345/1138525)3355 (1139017)

3074 (890227/)1132859 3099 (1137560/1137556)3106 (1137560/1137556) 3111 (549444/549441) 3117 (835920/438199)3122 (393560/1131505)3150 (817896/ 817881)3171 (449270)3189 (397159) 3201 (861027/1136403) 3204 (861027/1136403) 3217 (1138534)3220 (1138534)3224 (1138534)3227 (1138534)3236 (1138534)3239 (1138534)3244 (645345/1138525)3247 (645345/1138525) 3250 (645345/1138525) 3253 (645345/1138525) 3262 (841197/397761)

21.138 A total of 207 representations relating to the Sustainability Appraisal were received. Theissues emanating from the representations related to:

Ensuring that the level of effect (harm) on the significance of heritage assets and theirsetting has been considered;Assessment of other ‘reasonable alternative’ sites that are not adjacent to the settlementboundary;Assessment of other sites not considered because they are in areas with no outstandingindicative requirement;Assessment of other ‘sustainable sites’ in areas where there is no outstanding indicativerequirement to make up for under delivery in Trowbridge;Decisions to not assess sites in Large Villages has not been tested by the SA; andThe lack of updated transport strategies for Trowbridge and Salisbury does not allowfor an accurate assessment of effects of sites in those settlements



It is considered that the SA has undertaken a thorough and consistent assessment ofthe effects of each site on heritage assets using the most up-to-date evidence andinformation. It is considered reasonable to recommend, in some instances, that furtherHeritage Impact Assessment is undertaken before a planning application is submitted;The Council’s Site Selection Process Methodology sets out the reasons why sites thatare not adjacent to a settlement boundary, and not in an ‘Area of Search’, have not


been considered further, and are therefore not considered to be ‘reasonable alternatives’for the purposes of the SA;The decision not to allocate sites in Large Villages in the East HMA is explained in theCouncil’s Site Selection Process Methodology, on the basis of a high level of existinghousing supply in that HMA, and it is not considered necessary to assess that decisionin the SA.


Changes have been made to the sustainability appraisal report as a result of therepresentations and these are highlighted in the revised sustainability appraisal report.


Table 21.32

Habitats Regulations AssessmentPart 31: 45No. of

comments:1112 (487991)1233 (1102653)2039 (1127011)2104 (1131696)2163 (11262212290 (1128249)2643 (382305)2818 (1126309)3018 (382216)3042 (381339)3079 (840359/443671)3114 (835920/438199)3120 (835920/438199)3234 (1138534)3255 (1138571/438199)

876 (1126328/326118)1121 (487991)1797 (1126137)2103 (1131696)2112 (1131696)2284 (1105334)2498 (1123921)2668 (983136)2918 (1133638)3020 (382216)3077 (840359/443671)3112 (835920/438199)3118 (835920/438199)3233 (1138534)3242 (645345/1138525)

575 (556401)1115 (487991)1245 (1117600)2091 (1131676)2109 (1131722)2170 (1126221)2306 (1132344/825048)2648 (1113871/1133715)2894 (979508)3019 (382216)3076 (840359/443671)3101 (1137560/1137556)3116 (835920/438199)3138 (1137830/1122261)3241 (645345/1138525)

Comment ID


21.142 A total of 45 representations relating to the Habitats Regulations Assessment werereceived. The issues emanating from the representations related to:

Issues and uncertainty concerning impacts on the Bath and Bradford Bats Special Areaof Conservation (SAC);

Disagreement over the degree of potential harm to the Bath and Bradford Bats SAC;

Concerns about the implications of the Bath and Bradford Bats SAC on the deliverabilityand development trajectories of sites;

Issues and uncertainty concerning impacts on the River Avon Special Area ofConservation (SAC), related to forecasting of growth and the Nutrient ManagementPlan (NMP), and impacts of water abstraction;

Recommendation from the EA for a specific policy relating to the River Avon SAC;

Disagreement over the degree of potential harm to the River Avon SAC;

Issues and uncertainty concerning impacts on the Salisbury Plain Special ProtectionArea (SPA);

Disagreement over the degree of potential harm to the Salisbury Plain SPA; and

Cross boundary issues concerning the New Forest Special Protection Area (SPA);



An Addendum to the HRA has been produced which addresses the comments raised.



Further detail can be found in the Addendum to the HRA.


Table 21.33

Landscape AssessmentPart 32: 10No. of comments:

995 (1125408)2303 (1125770)3122 (393560/1131505)

878 (1126328/326118)1786 (556113)3104 (1137560/1137556)

876 (1126328/326118)1765 (556113)3078 (840359/443671)3249 (645345/1138525)

Comment ID


21.146 A total of 10 representations relating to the Landscape Assessment were received. Theissues emanating from the representations related to:

Concerns about appropriateness of vantage points from which sites were assessed;

Potential inaccuracies within the Landscape Assessment;

Concerns about consistency between the Landscape Assessment and the SustainabilityAppraisal, the County Landscape Character Assessment, previous planning history;and in relation site H3.4 a previous Development Brief prepared for the site;

There is a need for specific heritage impact assessment, as well as LandscapeAssessment.

21.147 Council response to themes / issues raised:

The TEP assessment has endeavoured to consider viewpoints at a range of distancesand the wider landscape settings;

The landscape assessment is consistent across sites and in line with the LandscapeInstitute's best practice guidance.




Table 21.34

Viability AssessmentPart 33: 36No. of

comments:1032 (1126797)1037 (393725)1341 (1126779)1811 (841393/558013)1881 (899628/899623)2111 (1131720/1131715)2163 (1126221)2392 (903251)2674 (983136)3115 (835920/438199)3121 (835920/438199)3262 (841197/397761)

934 (392036/1126545)1036 (874600)1122 (487991)1604 (1119095/894742)1823 (1130961/556489)2052 (1131544/1131505)2126 (1131752/1131750)2388 (390498)2673 (983136)3040 (556491/901380)3119 (835920/438199)3255 (1138571/438199)

135 (1105805)1034 (1126797)1038 (393725)1519 (1129146/901806)1816 (901939/901806)1994 (1131400)2120 (1131754/1131747)2312 (1132344/825048)2400 (1132626/1126961)3012 (900160/900154)3117 (35920/438199)3251 (645345/1138525)

Comment ID


21.149 A total of 36 representations relating to the Viability Assessment were received. The issuesemanating from the representations related to:

Inconsistency in the approach to seeking developer contributions for education;The need for viability testing on the impacts on railway infrastructure; andOverall approach to developer contributions and relationship with CiL.

21.150 Council's response to themes /issues raised:

The Council has appropriately tested viability in line with national guidance and clearlyset out the approach in the viability assessment.


None.


Table 21.35

Duty to Cooperate StatementPart 34: 11No. of comments:

1687 (1129933)2828 (1134720)2966 (1135954/556489)

873 (547867)2419 (558939)2894 (979508)3040 (556491/901380)

292 (924012)1687 (1129933)2828 (1134720)2966 (1135954/556489)

Comment ID


21.152 A total of 11 representations relating to the duty to cooperate were received. A summaryof comments received under the duty to cooperate can be found table 2 of the main statement.

21.153 Further to this a number of parish councils commented that Wiltshire Council did not consulteffectively with neighbourhood planning groups.

An Addendum has been produced to the Duty to Cooperate Statement which sets out the details ofissues raised by prescribed bodies and neighbouring authorities and the Council response to them.


Table 21.36

Equality Impact AssessmentPart 35:1No. of

comments:99 (1120148)Comment ID


21.154 A total of 1 representation relating to the Equality Impact Assessment was received whichreferred to national guidance.

21.155 Council's response to themes / issues raised:

An Equality Impact Assessment has been prepared in accordance with nationalguidance.


None.


22 Appendix N - Table of 'omission sites' that were promoted byrespondents to the Regulation 19 consultation

22.1 Appendix N

22.2 Omission Sites

22.3 Several responses proposed alternative land for allocation in the draft Plan. These siteshave been grouped together and defined as ‘omission sites’ and take one of three forms:

Omission sites in areas of search where housing allocations are not currently beingsought.

Omission sites that have already been assessed in areas of search where housingallocations are being sought, where new evidence has been submitted or they havebeen resubmitted through representations.

Omission sites that are new sites that have not previously been assessed in areas ofsearch where housing allocations are being sought (these sites have been assignedsite references beginning with OM).


Table 22.1

East Housing Market Area

Council response

Omissionsites thatare NEW

Omissionsitesalready

Omissionsites inareas of

Consultee ID(consultee / Agent)Rep number

sites in

assessed in

searchareas of

areas of

wheresearch

search

housingwhere

where

allocationshousing

housing

are NOTbeingsought.

allocationsare beingsought.

allocationsare beingsoughtwhere newevidencehas beensubmittedor theyhave beenresubmittedthroughrepresentations

Devizes

The local housing needs ofDevizes has been addressedthrough a series of allocations

Land atCoateBridge,

Consultee ID:861027 / 1136403Rep No: 3196, 3200

in the made Devizes

Devizes(SHELAAsite 693a).

Neighbourhood Plan. Whilstthese sites await planningpermission, we have noevidence at this stage to saythat there is any encumbranceto development. The Counciltherefore fully anticipates thesesites will deliver housing withinthe remaining plan period.


Land atRoundwayPark,Consultee ID:

397800 / 1138537Rep No: 3096, 3223

in the made Devizes

Devizes

Neighbourhood Plan. Whilst

(SHELAAsite 549aand/or 549b)

these sites await planningpermission, we have noevidence at this stage to saythat there is any encumbranceto development. The Counciltherefore fully anticipates thesesites will deliver housing withinthe remaining plan period.



Land east ofWindsorDrive,Consultee ID:

900566 / 1125375Rep No:1459

in the made Devizes

Devizes

Neighbourhood Plan. Whilst

(SHELAAsites 624and 524)

these sites await planningpermission, we have noevidence at this stage to saythat there is any encumbranceto development. The Counciltherefore fully anticipates thesesites will deliver housing withinthe remaining plan period.


Greenacres,Green Lane,Devizes(SHELAAsite 3259)

Consultee ID:901997 / 901806Rep No: 1478

in the made DevizesNeighbourhood Plan. Whilstthese sites await planningpermission, we have noevidence at this stage to saythat there is any encumbranceto development. The Counciltherefore fully anticipates thesesites will deliver housing withinthe remaining plan period.

Devizes Community Area Remainder

There is no strategic priority toidentify sites at Large Villagesin the East Housing MarketBreach

Close,Bromham(SHELAAsite 668)


Area as the objective to providesurety of housing supply islargely met in the East HMAand development in LargeVillages should be of a scale tomeet local needs.

Further assessment has beencarried out. The SA scoring forarchaeological potential has

Land at theSpring,Market

Consultee ID:1125376 / 1125375Rep No: 519-522,556-559, 618

changed and the siteLavingtonprogressed to stage 4 of the(SHELAAmethodology. The site wassite 3268) –removed at stage 4 of thenewmethodology as developmentevidencewould lead to the loss of landhas beenthat contributes to the ruralprovided oncharacter at this approach toarchaeologicalthe village and measures topotential on

the site andflood risk

achieve heritage objectives andmitigate surface water flooding


(if possible) would limit thedevelopable area, further detailcan be found in the communityarea topic paper.

There is no strategic priority toidentify sites at Large Villagesin the East Housing Market

Land atWestburyRoad, GreatConsultee ID:

977912Rep No: 2708, 2714

Area as the objective to provideCheverell surety of housing supply is(part ofSHELAA site541)

largely met in the East HMAand development in LargeVillages should be of a scale tomeet local needs.


Land atSandleazeFarm,

Consultee ID:1136406 / 1136403Rep No: 3035,3047, 3048

Area as the objective to provide

Worton(SHELAAsite 1068)

surety of housing supply islargely met in the East HMAand development in LargeVillages should be of a scale tomeet local needs.

There is no strategic priority toidentify sites at Large Villagesin the East Housing MarketMulberry

Lodge,Rowde(SHELAAsite 3367)




Land offLavingtonLane, West

Consultee ID:394670Rep No: 1057,1059-1061


Lavington(SHELAAsite 711)



Land northof BlackberryLane,



Potterne (Nolocation planprovided)



Marlborough

The residual requirement isvery low and the Plan will notneed to allocate additional landto help meet an indicativeresidual requirement.

Elcot Lane,Marlborough(SHELAAsite 660)



The TileFactory,Elcot Lane,Marlborough(No SHELAAreference)

Consultee ID:1137779 / 1137777 Rep No: 3125


Land atManton Estate(PACFarms),Marlborough(SHELAAsite 3560)


Marlborough Community Area Remainder


Land atLottageFarm,

Consultee ID:863519 / 1128217Rep No: 3205-3211


Aldbourne(SHELAAsite 3485)



Land atRussleyGreen,

Consultee ID:863519 / 1128217Rep no: 3205-3211


Baydon(SHELAAsite 3188)



Land atBroad Hinton(SHELAAsite 3207)




In line with the Core Strategyallocations are not being madeat Small Villages

Land atRiverdellFarm, FyfieldConsultee ID:

1138497 / 836762Rep No: 3143

(LandincludingSHELAA site3344)


Land rear ofPenllyne,NewtonConsultee ID:

893988Rep No: 3097

Area as the objective to provideRoad, surety of housing supply isRamsbury(SHELAAsite 1087)

largely met in the East HMAand development in LargeVillages should be of a scale tomeet local needs.

Pewsey

The local housing need ofPewsey has been addressedthrough a series of allocations

Land atSwan Road,Pewsey


in the made Pewsey

(SHELAAsites 1083and 1072)

Neighbourhood Plan. TheCouncil therefore fullyanticipates these sites willdeliver housing within theremaining plan period.

The local housing need ofPewsey has been addressedthrough a series of allocations

Land at theformerPewsey


in the made PewseyHospital

Neighbourhood Plan. The(broadly

Council therefore fullyaligns withSHELAA653)

anticipates these sites willdeliver housing within theremaining plan period.

The local housing need ofPewsey has been addressedthrough a series of allocationsLand at

Astley Close,Pewsey(SHELAAsite 1300)

Consultee ID:983136Rep No: 2666

in the made PewseyNeighbourhood Plan. TheCouncil therefore fullyanticipates these sites willdeliver housing within theremaining plan period.

Pewsey Community Area


There is no strategic priority toidentify sites at Large Villagesin the East Housing MarketBrowns

Lane, GreatBedwyn(SHELAAsite 552)




Saddler’sWay,Burbage(SHELAAsite 665)


Area as the objective to providesurety of housing supply islargely met in the East HMAand development in LargeVillages should be of a scale tomeet local needs. In addition,the Burbage NeighbourhoodDevelopment Plan wassubmitted in June 2017 andhas also considered how thecommunity wish to addresslocal housing need.


Table 22.2

North and West Housing Market Area

Council response





sites in

assessed in

searchareas of

areas of

wheresearch

search

housingwhere

where

allocationshousing

housing

are NOTbeingsought.



Bradford on Avon

The indicative residualrequirement for Bradford onAvon to be delivered during the

LandbetweenCemetary


Plan period has been met.This

and Woolley

includes the strategic allocationidentified through the WCS forland at Kingston Farm.

Street,Bradford onAvon (southhalf ofSHELAA site3102a)

The indicative residualrequirement for Bradford onAvon to be delivered during the

Land atUpperBearfield


Plan period has been met.ThisFarm,

includes the strategic allocationidentified through the WCS forland at Kingston Farm.

Bradford onAvon(SHELAA287)

Bradford on Avon Community Area Remainder

The indicative residualrequirement for Bradford onAvon Community Area

Formertannery site,Holt(SHELAAsite 253)

Consultee ID:1129146 / 901806Rep No: 1519 Remainder to be delivered

during the Plan period has


been met. The Plan will notneed to allocate additional landto help meet an indicativeresidual requirement inBradford on Avon CommunityRemainder.

The indicative residualrequirement for Bradford onAvon Community Area

Land atMelkshamRoad, Holt


Remainder to be delivered

(SHELAAsites 3308aand 3308b)

during the Plan period hasbeen met. The Plan will notneed to allocate additional landto help meet an indicativeresidual requirement inBradford on Avon CommunityRemainder.

Calne

The indicative residualrequirement for the MarketTown of Calne to be delivered

Land Northof Low Lane,Calne (Land


during the Plan period hasincluding

been met. Therefore, the PlanSHELAA

will not need to allocateadditional land to help meet anindicative residual requirement.

sites 451,489, and 488and 495 inpart)


Land atWenhill,CalneConsultee ID:

1124796 / 1124792Rep No: 1033, 1035

during the Plan period has(SHELAA

been met. Therefore, the Plansites 709,3311, 3312and 3251)



Land offAbberdLane/land


during the Plan period hassouth of

been met. Therefore, the PlanSpitfire


Road, Calne(SHELAAsites 488and 489)


Land off LowLane, Calne(Land




been met. Therefore, the Planwill not need to allocateadditional land to help meet anindicative residual requirement

includingSHELAA site487)


Land atSandpitLane, Calne


during the Plan period has(No locationplanprovided)

been met. Therefore, the Planwill not need to allocateadditional land to help meet anindicative residual requirement.

Calne Community Area Remainder

The indicative residualrequirement for CalneCommunity Area Remainder to

Land northof Old Road,Derry Hill(SHELAAsite 3302)


be delivered Plan period hasbeen met. Therefore, the Planwill not need to allocateadditional land to help meet anindicative residual requirement.

Corsham

The indicative residualrequirement for the MarketTown of Corsham to be

Land northof PotleyLand/Leafield


delivered during the Plan periodIndustrialhas been met. Therefore, theEstate,Plan will not need to allocateadditional land to help meet anindicative residual requirement.

Corsham(SHELAAsite 3149)

The indicative residualrequirement for the Market Tonof Corsham to be delivered

Land northof Bradfordroad,


during the Plan period hasCorsham(SHELAAsite 3250)

been met. Therefore, the Planwill not need to allocateadditional land to help meet anindicative residual requirement.

Corsham Community Area Remainder

The indicative residualrequirement for the CorshamCommunity Area Remainder to

Land southof WestwellsRoad,


be delivered during the PlanNeston(SHELAAsite 9999)

period has been met.Therefore, the Plan will not


need to allocate additional landto help meet an indicativeresidual requirement.

The indicative residualrequirement for the CorshamCommunity Area Remainder toFormer

ColerneAirfield(SHELAAsite 3253)


be delivered during the Planperiod has been met.Therefore, the Plan will notneed to allocate additional landto help meet an indicativeresidual requirement.

Chippenham

The draft Wiltshire Housing SiteAllocations Plan does not coverthe Principal Settlement ofChippenham.

Land atForest Farm,Chippenham(SHELAAsite 494)


The draft Wiltshire Housing SiteAllocations Plan does not coverthe Principal Settlement ofChippenham.

Land atShotwell,Chippenham(SHELAAsite 454b)


Chippenham Community Area Remainder

The local housing needs ofChristian Malford has beenaddressed through a series of

Land to thesouth of LyeCommon, at


allocations in the madeChristian MalfordNeighbourhood Plan.

ChristianMalford(OM018)

The site was originallydiscounted as it was notavailable. New evidence

SHELAA site3129,Hullavington


suggests it is available

– newevidence onavailability.

therefore further assessmenthas been carried out. The sitehas been assessed and ruledout at Stage 4 of the siteselection methodology becausethe smaller site options at thevillage would seem to have lessoverall sustainability benefitthan the larger site optionsconsidered, further detail canbe found in the community areatopic paper.


Combined, this is a new siteand further assessment hasbeen carried out. The site has

Land to rearof Newton,Hullavington

Consultee ID:1129527/ 901806Rep No: 1606

been assessed and ruled outSHELAA

at Stage 2a of the site selectionsites 1112

methodology because onelandowner did not agree to theproposal.

and 690 -new heritageevidence(OM017)

This is a new site, and furtherassessment has been carriedout. The site has been

Land atHullavingtonAirfield(OM011)

Consultee ID:393425/ 817881Rep No: 2026

assessed and ruled out atStage 3 of the site selectionmethodology.

The large village of SuttonBenger is ruled out of theassessment process at Stage

Land atSutton Lane,Sutton


2B. Housing sites are not beingBenger(SHELAAsite 600)

identified in Sutton Benger dueto recent growth and schoolcapacity.

The large village of SuttonBenger is ruled out of theassessment process at StageLand at High

Street,SuttonBenger(OM019)


2B. Housing sites are not beingidentified in Sutton Benger dueto recent growth and schoolcapacity.

No new evidence to assess.The large village of SuttonBenger is ruled out of the

SHELAA site3549, SuttonBenger


assessment process at Stage2B due to recent growth andschool capacity.

Further assessment has beencarried out. The site has beenassessed and ruled out at

Land east ofYattonKeynell offB4039(OM015)


Stage 3 because theassessment process identifiedmajor adverse effects on builtheritage and impact on theAONB.


The site is not adjacent to thesettlement boundary for YattonKeynell and would therefore notbe assessed according to thesite assessment methodology.

Land atTiddleywink,YattonKeynell (partof SHELAAsite 3264)


Malmesbury

The indicative residualrequirement at Malmesbury tobe delivered during the Plan

Land atWhychurchfarm to the


period has been met in part due

south ofto the allocation of housing

Filands,through the made Malmesbury

Malmesbury(SHELAAsite 649)

Neighbourhood Plan.Therefore, the Plan will notneed to allocate additional landto help meet an indicativeresidual requirement.

The indicative residualrequirement at Malmesbury tobe delivered during the Plan

Landadjacent toWaitrose,


period has been met in part due

Malmesbury(NoSHELAA)

to the allocation of housingthrough the made MalmesburyNeighbourhood Plan.Therefore, the Plan will notneed to allocate additional landto help meet an indicativeresidual requirement.

Malmesbury Community Area Remainder

Housing in Ashton Keynes hasbeen allocated by the AshtonKeynes Neighbourhood Plan.

Land atCotswoldCommunity,Consultee ID:

824512 / 901379Rep No: 2642

AshtonKeynes(SHELAAsite 484)

Housing in Ashton Keynes hasbeen allocated by the AshtonKeynes Neighbourhood Plan.

Land atDairy FarmBungalow,Consultee ID:

1037118 / 1126480Rep No: 923

AshtonKeynes(SHELAAsite 702)

New evidence on accessmeans further assessment hasbeen carried out.The amended

Street FarmPaddocks,The Street,



site is ruled out at Stage 2a asthe site area that falls outsidethe settlement boundary is

Oaksey(SHELAAsite 3349) –new accessevidence

below the threshold of 5 unitstherefore do not take forwardfor further consideration.

Housing in Great Somerfordhas been allocated by theGreat SomerfordNeighbourhood Plan.

Land atBroadfieldFarm, GreatSomerford



The site has been assessedand ruled out at Stage 4. Thesite appears reasonably

Land atTunersLane,Crudwell(OM014)


well-located to village serviceshowever there is uncertaintythat the carriageway is suitablefor increased numbers ofvehicles or that routes forpedestrians and cyclists aredeliverable. There are alsopotential issues with respect toheritage and proximity to theconservation area.

Melksham

The indicative residualrequirement for Melksham andBowerhill village to be delivered

Land northof WoodrowRoad,


during the Plan period hasMelkshambeen met. Therefore, the Plan(Landwill not need to allocateadditional land to meet anindicative residual requirement.

includingSHELAA site3107)


Land atUpside Park,Melksham(SHELAAsite 264)


during the Plan period hasbeen met. Therefore, the Planwill not need to allocateadditional land to meet anindicative residual requirement.


Land to thenorth west ofMelksham/land


during the Plan period hassouth of


WoodrowRoad (SHELAAsites 1027and 715)

been met. Therefore, the Planwill not need to allocateadditional land to meet anindicative residual requirement.


Land Southof BathRoad, WestConsultee ID:

400077Rep No: 461, 462

during the Plan period hasof Carnation

been met. Therefore, the PlanLane(SHELAAsite 3331)

will not need to allocateadditional land to meet anindicative residual requirement.


Old LovesFarm,Bowerhill(SHELAAsite 3345)

Consultee ID:400077Rep No: 462, 1538



Land west ofSemingtonRoad,


during the Plan period hasMelksham(SHELAAsite 728)

been met. Therefore, the Planwill not need to allocateadditional land to meet anindicative residual requirement.


Land southof Bowerhill(Part ofSHELAA site1006)




Land atBoundaryFarm, West



of Western

been met. Therefore, the Plan

Way,

will not need to to allocateadditional land to meet anindicative residual requirement.

Melksham(Landincludingpart ofSHELAA site3105d)



Land southof the A365at


during the Plan period hasRoundponds

been met. Therefore, the PlanFarm,

will not need to to allocateadditional land to meet anindicative residual requirement.

Shurnhold,Melksham(Part ofSHELAA site3352)

Melksham Community Area Remainder

The indicative residualrequirement for the MelkshamCommunity Area Remainder to

LandAdjacent toAtworthConsultee ID:

556645 / 901806Rep No: 1522

be delivered during the PlanBusiness period has been met.Park(SHELAAsite 311)

Therefore, the Plan will notneed to allocate additional landto meet an indicative residualrequirement.


Land toSouth ofprospectConsultee ID:

1134177 / 1126238Rep No: 2702

be delivered during the PlanFields, period has been met.Atworth(SHELAAsite 317)


The indicative residualrequirement for the MelkshamCommunity Area Remainder toLand north

of the Lye,Seend (Nolocation planprovided)


be delivered during the Planperiod has been met.Therefore, the Plan will notneed to allocate additional landto meet an indicative residualrequirement.

The indicative residualrequirement for the MelkshamCommunity Area Remainder toNorth of

Pound Lane,Semington(SHELAAsite 328)

Consultee ID:1132602Rep No: 2389,2390, 2391



The indicative residualrequirement for the MelkshamCommunity Area Remainder toLand to the

south east ofSemington(NoSHELAA)




Land northof StGeorge’sConsultee ID:

1132580 / 550322Rep No: 2384

be delivered during the PlanRoad, period has been met.Semington(SHELAAsite 331)


The indicative residualrequirement for the MelkshamCommunity Area Remainder toLand off First

Lane,Whitley(SHELAAsite 3459)



Trowbridge

Site already assessed and nonew evidence given.

Land southof GreenLane Wood,Consultee ID:

391073, 550023,1126922Rep No: 630, 171,2852

Trowbridge(SHELAAsite 256) –no newevidencegiven.


Land northof GreenLane Wood,

Consultee ID:391073,111387/113715,55023/1126922Rep No: 631, 2648,171, 2852

Trowbridge(SHELAAsite 292).


Land atWest AshtonRoad,

Consultee ID:391073, 1126922Rep No: 633, 2852 Trowbridge

(SHELAA


site 3247) -no newevidencegiven.


Land atLower BissFarm,


Trowbridge(SHELAAsite 261) –no newevidencegiven.

This site was assessed andruled out at Stage 2 due tobeing a Principal EmploymentSite.

Land at BissFarm(formerly theWest Ashton


RoadEmploymentSite),Trowbridge(SHELAAsite 3247) –newevidenceabout itsstatus as aPrincipalEmploymentSite.

This site was assessed andruled out at Stage 2 due tobeing within the settlementboundary.

DistrictCouncilOffices,Bradley

Consultee ID:1126922, 391073,1126922Rep No: 1136, 634,2852

Road,Trowbridge(SHELAAsite 1018)


Land andbuildings,Trowbridge(SHELAAsite 198)



TrowbridgeGardenCentre(SHELAAsite 200)




The Stables,Trowbridge(SHELAAsite 247)


The majority of SHELAA site248 is allocated in the Planwithin H2.1 Elm Grove Farm

DrynhamRoad,Trowbridge


apart from a small section ofland not controlled by the landowner.

(SHELAAsite 248)(1.68 ha notyetaccountedfor)

This site was assessed andruled out at Stage 2 due tobeing within the settlementboundary. No new evidencehas been submitted.

Bowyers(OM020)

Consultee number1124560 and1126922 Rep No:364 and 2852


East Wing(OM021)



TrowbridgeHospital(OM022)



MargaretStancombeSchool(OM023)



Virgin site(OM024)



AshtonStreetCentre(OM025)


Trowbridge Community Area


The indicative residualrequirement for the TrowbridgeCommunity Area Remainder to

Land at theGrange,DevizesConsultee ID:

1138113 / 899110Rep No: 3149

be delivered during the PlanRoad, period has been met.Hilperton(SHELAAsite 291)



Land to therear of theLion andConsultee ID:

1126922Rep No: 1136

be delivered during the PlanFiddle, period has been met.Hilperton(SHELAAsite 645)



Land to therear of 118TrowbridgeConsultee ID:

1126922Rep No: 1136

be delivered during the PlanRoad, period has been met.Hilperon(SHELAAsite 646)



Land to therear of 116TrowbridgeConsultee ID:

1126922Rep No: 1136

be delivered during the PlanRoad, period has been met.Hilperton(SHELAAsite 647)



Land atMaxcroftFarm,


be delivered during the Plan

Hilperton(SHELAAsite 3541)

period has been met.Therefore, the Plan will notneed to allocate additional landto meet an indicative residualrequirement.


The indicative residualrequirement for the TrowbridgeCommunity Area Remainder toLand at

Marsh Road,Hilperton(SHELAAsite 290)



The indicative residualrequirement for the TrowbridgeCommunity Area Remainder toLand off

SouthwickRoad, NorthBradley (NoSHELAA)

Consultee ID:1138002 / 1138006Rep No: 3144 checkorginal rep



Land southof BlindLane,Consultee ID:

840359 / 443671Rep No: 3075, 3077

be delivered during the PlanSouthwick period has been met.(Part ofSHELAA site3271)



Land atWynsomeStreet,Consultee ID:

977912Rep No: 2713

be delivered during the PlanSouthwick period has been met.(SHELAAsite 327 andpart of 315)


The indicative residualrequirement for the TrowbridgeCommunity Area Remainder toLand at 100

Frome Road,Southwick(SHELAAsite 3341)



Royal Wootton Bassett


The indicative residualrequirement for Royal WoottonBassett to be delivered during

LowerWoodshaw,Royal


the Plan period has been met.Wootton

Consultee ID:1133494/389561Rep No: 2589


Bassett(SHELAAsite 507)


Landimmediatelynorth of the


the Plan period has been met.

railway line

Therefore, the Plan will not

off Bincknoll

need to allocate additional landto meet an indicative residualrequirement.

Lane atWoodshaw,RoyalWoottonBassett (partof SHELAA3357)


Land northof BincknollLane,


the Plan period has been met.Woodshaw /



Land to theeast of RoyalWoottonBassett (partof SHELAA3357)


Land atMarsh Farm,RoyalWoottonBassett(SHELAA499)


the Plan period has been met.Therefore, the Plan will notneed to allocate additional landto meet an indicative residualrequirement.


Land northof CopedHall, SwindonConsultee ID:

1100941 / 404491Rep No: 3072


the Plan period has been met.Therefore, the Plan will notneed to allocate additional landto meet an indicative residualrequirement.

Road / Landnorth ofSwindonRoad, RoyalWoottonBassett(west part ofSHELAA3366)



Land northof SwindonRoad, Royal

Consultee ID:1134282 / 404491Rep No:2739

the Plan period has been met.WoottonTherefore, the Plan will notBassett (eastneed to allocate additional landto meet an indicative residualrequirement.

part ofSHELAA3366)


Land atWhitehillLane, RoyalConsultee ID:

642979 / 1100945Rep No: 2461, 2464

the Plan period has been met.Wootton

Therefore, the Plan will notBassett(SHELAA3161)

need to allocate additional landto meet an indicative residualrequirement.

Royal Wootton Bassett and Cricklade Community Area Remainder

The indicative residualrequirement for the RoyalWootton Bassett and CrickladeLand at

HorseyDown,


Community Area Remainder to

Cricklade(SHELAA3088)



BrookHouse,



Cricklade(NoSHELAA)


The indicative residualrequirement for the RoyalWootton Bassett and Cricklade

Land at TheForty,Cricklade(SHELAAsite 701)


Community Area Remainder tobe delivered during the Planperiod has been met.Therefore, the Plan will notneed to allocate additional landto meet an indicative residualrequirement.



Hook Street,Lydiard



Tregoze(SHELAA2042)



Land atPound Farm,Lyneham(SHELAA3126)




Land offCalne Road,Lyneham(SHELAA3356)




Land offVictoriaDrive,


Community Area Remainder toLyneham be delivered during the Plan(part of period has been met.SHELAA3406 and476)



ChippenhamRoad,



Lyneham(SHELAA3496)




WidhamFarm,Purton (SHELAA442)


ConsulteeID: 1133494 /389561Rep No: 2588


Warminster

New site that is taken forwardfor assessment. The site isruled out as a possible

Land at BrickHill, BathRoad,Warminster(OM005)


allocation at stage 4 as it isfound to have 6 moderateadverse effects which would beproblematic to mitigate.Therefore, the site is identifiedas ‘less sustainable’.There areenough ‘more sustainable’ (and'less sustainable' sites with 5 orless moderate adverse effects)at Warminster and so this siteis ruled out.

New access evidenceassessed. Site is taken forwardfor further assessment andruled out as a possibleallocation at Stage 3.

Land onUpper MarshRoad,Warminster(SHELAA


site 239) –new accessevidence

This site is assessed and ruledout at Stage 2 due to beingwithin the amended settlementboundary.

93 BathRoad,Warminster(SHELAA


site 3516) –within newsettlementboundary

The site is already a strategicallocation within the WCS. Anacceptable capacity for the site

Increasecapacity withinthe West


has been agreed through theendorsed masterplan for thesite.

WarminsterUrbanExtension(SHELAAsites 730,


791, 273,277, 743,3084)

New site that is taken forwardfor assessment. The site isruled out as a possible

Land to thesouth ofBoreham


allocation at stage 3 as there

Road,Warminster(OM006)

are 3 major adverse effectsidentified and likely to arisefrom development of this site.Therefore, the site is notconsidered further.

Warminster Community Area

Assessed new evidence andconsidered that the decision toscore site 612 as ‘major

Land atChitterneRoad,


adverse’ against SA objective

Codford

1 is correct. Major adverse

(SHELAA

effects are identified associated

site 612) -

with the River Avon SAC,

new

therefore the site is notconsidered further in the siteselection process.

evidence reseweragetreatmentinfrastructurethat wouldnotdischargeunacceptablephosphateconcentrationsand notautomaticallyruling outsites acertaindistancefrom theRiver AvonSAC.

The site has been appraisedand ruled out at stage 2a as itis considered that there is

Land atCodford(OM012)


insufficient access to the site.The site is accessed via anarrow track (with Public Rightof Way along) off the highway.Therefore, there is noappropriate vehicular access tothe site.


This is a new site and has beenassessed. The site is ruled outat Stage 3. Major adverseLand west of

Greenlands,Heytesbury(OM004)


effects are identified associatedwith the River Avon SAC,therefore the site is notconsidered further in the siteselection process.

The site is in the opencountryside. The site is in useby the military and therefore notavailable for development.

Knook MoDCamp(OM026)


This site is at a Small Villageand would therefore not beconsidered as a potentialhousing site according to thesite assessment methodology.

SydenhamsYard,MaidenBradley,Warminster(OM027)


This site is in the OpenCountryside and wouldtherefore not be considered as

Land to theeast ofBishopstrow


a potential housing siteaccording to the siteassessment methodology.

Road,Bishopstrow(OM028)

Westbury

The indicative residualrequirement for Westbury to bedelivered during the Plan period

Land atStorridgeRoad,


has been met. Therefore, theWestbury

Plan will not need to allocateadditional land to meet anindicative residual requirement.



Land atWarminsterRoad,


has been met. Therefore, theWestbury(SHELAAsite 3375)


The indicative residualrequirement for Westbury to bedelivered during the Plan periodLand within

Westburytown

Consultee ID:1134308 / 1134306Rep No: 2731,2732, 2734

has been met. Therefore, thePlan will not need to allocateadditional land to meet anindicative residual requirement.



Land atBrattonRoad,


has been met. Therefore, theWestbury(SHELAAsite 3404)



FairdownAvenue,Westbury(SHELAAsite 272)




Mane Way,Westbury(SHELAAsite 3205)




Land atWestburyLeigh,


has been met. Therefore, theWestbury


(SHELAAsites 3375,3337 andpart of 622)


Land to thenorth ofSand HoleConsultee ID:

836764 / 836762Rep No: 2524

has been met. Therefore, theLane,Plan will not need to allocateadditional land to meet anindicative residual requirement.

Westbury(SHELAAsite 3223)


Land at SlagLane/land atFrogmoreConsultee ID:

901852 / 901806Rep No: 1210

has been met. Therefore, theRoad,Plan will not need to allocateadditional land to meet anindicative residual requirement.

Westbury(SHELAAsite 3218)


Land atShallowaggonLane,


has been met. Therefore, the



Westbury(SHELAA3445)


TurnpikeField, OldDilton Lane,


has been met. Therefore, theWestbury(SHELAA3375)



Land westof DartmoorRoad,Westbury

Consultee ID:983136 RepNo: 2673


Westbury Community Area

The site is fully within Brattonsettlement boundary and istherefore excluded from the siteselection process and removedat Stage 2a of the process.

Land at PearTreeOrchard,Bratton(OM007)

Consultee ID:1125770Rep No: 701-705,2300-2304, 1718,2247

The site is taken forward forfurther assessment followingthe submission of new access

Land southof WestburyRoad,


evidence. Access to the site is

Bratton(SHELAAsite 738)

considered to be achievablealthough delivering acceptablesight lines would requiresignificant engineeringoperations.However, development at twosites in Bratton would notreflect modest growth, thereforethe least sustainable site (thissite) is rejected at Stage 4 ofthe process.

This site is at a Small Villageand would therefore not beconsidered for allocation, in line

Land atHawkeridgeVillage(SHELAAsite 338)


with the Wiltshire Core Strategyand the site assessmentmethodology.


Table 22.3

South Housing Market Area

Council response





sites in

assessed in

searchareas of

areas of

wheresearch

search

housingwhere

where

allocationshousing

housing

are NOTbeingsought.



Amesbury, Bulford and Durrington

New evidence submittedrelating to noise impact of theA303. Following furtherLand north

of LondonRoad,


assessment it is considered

Amesbury(SHELAAsite 3379)

that there is no need to alter theoriginal assessment. Noiseimpacts remain problematicand difficult to mitigate.The siteis ruled out at stage 4 of thesite selection process.


This site is identified as aPrinciple Employment Site andis located within Amesbury

Re-use ofemploymentsite Minton


settlement boundary.Distribution Therefore, it is removed atPark for Stage 2a of the site selectionmixed use process. Any futuredevelopment,Amesbury(OM016)

consideration would be as partof the Local Plan Reviewprocess.

The site was originally removedat Stage 2a as it is designatedas Open Space by the savedpolicy R10 of the SalisburyDistrict Local Plan 2011.

Land to theeast ofNetheravonRoad,Durrington(SHELAAsite 3410)


The rationale for allocating partof the site is explained inevidence and the draft Plan.

Land to therear ofDurrington

Consultee ID:1119095 / 894742Rep No: 1584 / 66

The primary issues relate to theManorimpact on Durrington Manor(SHELAAand the Conservation Area, assitewell as the harmful extensionof the urban area of the villageinto sensitive open countryside.

S98)Entiretyof S98,Durrington

Consideration has been madeof the request to includeadditional land within the

Land to therear of theVets

Consultee ID:1119095 / 894742Rep No: 1590 / 66

allocation and Wiltshire Council

(adjacent to

concluded that it would not be

SHELAA site

appropriate to do this;The landis within the settlementboundary.

3179);request to beincorporatedinto theproposedallocationH3.6

This site is reassessed. It ispart of the King's Gate strategicallocation in the Wiltshire CoreKings Gate,

Amesbury(SHELAAsite S1013)


Strategy. The site has beencompleted as per the planningpermission.

Amesbury Community Area Remainder


Housing in Porton has beenconsidered through the PortonNeighbourhood Plan and sitesare identified for housing.

Buller Park,East ofIdmistonRoad,

Consultee ID:998345 / 556489Rep No: 3008 Porton

(SHELAASite 70)

Site considered and removedat stage 2a of site selectionprocess. Site is isolated from

Land offElstoneLane,Shrewton(OM010)


the urban edge of thesettlement and is not adjacentto a SHELAA site that isadjacent to the settlementboundary.

The SA references theconclusions of the HRAregarding Shrewton which

Land to thewest ofTanners


recommend that ‘any optionsLane and for Shrewton be removed fromsouth of the the site selection process atHollow, stage 3 as any developmentShrewton(SHELAAsite S146)

here would fail an appropriateassessment on the basis ofuncertainty’ (HRA, June 2017,page 33).


Land northof the A360,Shrewton(SHELLAsite S150)


recommend that ‘any optionsfor Shrewton be removed fromthe site selection process atstage 3 as any developmenthere would fail an appropriateassessment on the basis ofuncertainty’ (HRA, June 2017,page 33).


Land southof NettleyFarm,


recommend that ‘any options

Shrewton(SHELAAsite S151)

for Shrewton be removed fromthe site selection process atstage 3 as any developmenthere would fail an appropriateassessment on the basis ofuncertainty’ (HRA, June 2017,page 33).



Land atRollestoneManor Farm,






Land southof LondonRoad,





New evidence received relatingto access and which has beenconsidered. Access to the site

Land to therear ofHindes


is is via a narrow restrictedMeadow byway (bridleway). It is likely(SHELAA that third party land would beS113), required to bring it to anShrewton –new accessevidence

acceptable standard and width.No other possible access. Thesite remains ruled out at stage2a of site selection process.

These sites were originallyremoved at Stage 3 due toimpact of odour. The new

SHELAAsites 90, 91and 92 Land


evidence on the impact of

between

odour from the pig farm hasbeen assessed and does notchange the SA score.

WinterbourneEarls villageSchool andthe RailwayLine,WinterbourneEarls – newevidence onthe impact ofodour fromthe pig farm.

Mere Community Area


The indicative residualrequirement for the LocalService Centre of Mere to be

Land atCastleStreet, Mere(SHELAAsite S1051)


delivered during the Plan periodhas been met. Therefore, thePlan will not need to allocateadditional land to help meet anindicative residual requirement.

The indicative residualrequirement for the LocalService Centre of Mere to be

Land to therear ofHinton,Mere (NoSHELAA)


delivered during the Plan periodhas been met. Therefore, thePlan will not need to allocateadditional land to help meet anindicative residual requirement.

Salisbury Community Area (including Wilton Town)

This new site has beenconsidered but removed atstage 2a of the site selection

Land atLondonRoad,Salisbury(OM001)

Consultee ID:1131878Rep No: 2151-2161

Consultee ID:1136627/1136618Rep No: 3063-3066

process as site to be broughtwithin settlement boundary asit has an implemented planningpermission.

This site has been assessed atstage 3 of the site selectionprocess as a ‘less sustainable’site. It has not progressed toStage 4.

Land northof the A3094(OM002)

ConsulteeID: 899628/899623Rep No: 2232-2239

Site is within the settlementboundary. Site rejected at stage2a of site selection process.

Land atHarnhamTradingConsultee

ID: 1131754/1131747Rep No: 2120

Estate,Salisbury(SHELAAsite S237)

This site has been assessed atstage 3 of the site selectionprocess and progresses to

The Yard,HamptonPark,Salisbury(OM003)

Consultee ID:1131544/1131505Rep No: 2049-2053

stage 4 as a ‘more sustainable’site. The site is proposed forallocation.


This site was originallyassessed as ‘less sustainable’and removed after Stage 3 ofLand to the

north of OldSarum(SHELAAsite S80)

Consultee ID:1132344 / 825048Rep No: 2305 -2314

the site selection process. Newevidence has been submittedand considered. The site is stillconsidered a ‘less sustainable’site and does not progress toStage 4.

This site is within the SouthernWiltshire Community Area,where the remaining indicative

Land aroundOdstockHospital.


requirement has been met.Thesite is isolated from theSalisbury settlement boundary.

(inc.SHELAA site3423)


No specific sites identified forassessment.

Sites to thenorth ofSalisbury,


north of theRiverNadder (nospecific sitesnamed)

No specific sites identified forassessment.

Sites to thenorth ofDevizes

Consultee ID:447415

Rep No: 1886Road,Salisbury (nospecific sitesnames)

This site was originallyassessed as ‘less sustainable’and removed after Stage 3 ofLand north

of DowntonRoad,

Consultee ID:1132230 / 1132220Rep No: 2279-2283,2366

the site selection process. New

Salisbury(SHELAAsite S159)


evidence was submitted andconsidered by the Council. It isconsidered that the originalassessment is reasonable andthe site does not proceed tostage 4.

This site was originallyremoved on access grounds atstage 2a of the site selection

Land offBritfordLane,

Consultee ID:900160 / 900154Rep No: 2619,3012, 3022, 3025,

process. New evidence wasSalisburysubmitted and has been(SHELAAConsultee ID:

1126871


Rep No: 1080

considered which resulted inthe site being taken forward forassessment at Stage 3. The

site 3435)new floodandtransportevidence.

Stage 3 assessment assessedthe site as a ‘less sustainable’site and the site not takenforward to stage 4.

Site rejected at stage 2a of siteselection process. Part of siteallocated as employment

QuidhamptonQuarry,Salisbury(SHELAAsite S253)


allocation (WCS Core Policy20) and waste allocation(Wiltshire and Swindon WasteSite Allocations Local Plan2013). It is not known how thissite could be accessed for ahousing development of up to191 dwellings. Current accessvia railway bridge (Penning Rd)is single lane and not suitable.Other possible access wouldbe dependent on 3rd partyland.

This site was originally rejectedat Stage 2a due to beingdesignated as a strategic site

Maltings andCentral CarPark site,


by WCS Core Policy 20. SiteSalisbury(SHELAAsite S227)

within settlement boundary. Nonew evidence has beensubmitted to change thisassessment.

Site permitted on appeal refAPP/Y3940/W/17/3173509

Hilltop Way,Salisbury(SHELAAsite S61)


Site is partially within the floodzone. The remaining capacityis < 5 therefore the site is

Land atLowerBemerton


removed from consideration atstage 2a of the site selectionprocess.

Road,Salisbury(OM008)

No strategic imperative toallocate land for a singledwelling. Site selection

Land off MillLane,Stratford-sub-Castle,Salisbury(OM013)


methodology is not consideringsites of less than 4 dwellings.Site excluded at Stage 2a.


Site assessed at Stage 3 of thesite selection process. Sitedoes not progress to stage 4as ‘major adverse’ effects dueto loss of employment land.

HarnhamBusinessPark(SHELAAsite 3187)


Consultee ID:1129241/901806Rep No: 1540

The site assessed at stage 3 ofsite selection process. Siteassessed as a ‘lesssustainable’ site and does notprogress to stage 4.

LandadjacentA354,Salisbury(SHELAAsite 3421)


There is no agreement tosecure a right of access to thissite, and therefore access to

LandadjoiningBritford parkand ride(OM009)


the site cannot be guaranteed.The site is ruled out at Stage2a.

Southern Wiltshire Community Area Remainder

The indicative residualrequirement for Downton to bedelivered during the Plan period

Land atRivermead,BraemoreConsultee ID:

1125988Rep No: 732

has been met, through theRoad, Downton Neighbourhood Plan.Downton.(SHELAAsite S195)

Therefore, the Plan will notneed to allocate additional landto help meet an indicativeresidual requirement.

The indicative residualrequirement for the SouthernWiltshire Community Area

Land atChurchLane,


Remainder to be delivered

Laverstock(SHELAAsite S204)

during the Plan period hasbeen met. Therefore, the Planwill not need to allocateadditional land to help meet anindicative residual requirement.

The indicative residualrequirement for the SouthernWiltshire Community Area

Land to theeast ofSouthampton


Remainder to be deliveredRoad,

during the Plan period hasAlderbury

been met. Therefore, the Plan(SHELAAsiteS110/3445)



The indicative residualrequirement for the SouthernWiltshire Community AreaLand at The

Banks,Whiteparish(SHELAAsite S181)


Remainder to be deliveredduring the Plan period hasbeen met. Therefore, the Planwill not need to allocateadditional land to help meet anindicative residual requirement.

Tisbury Community Area

The site is located within theopen countryside and thereforedoes not progress to Stage 2aof the site selection process.The site is ruled out.

Land east ofLittledown(WincombeBusinessPark,


Shaftesbury)(Part ofSHELAA site3446 and3323)

Wilton Community Area

The site has been reassessedon the basis of new accessevidence.The site continues to

Land atNewtown,Broad


be ruled out at Stage 2a as it is

Chalke

considered that the road is notwide enough to accommodateaccess requirements.

(SHELAAsite 3338) -newevidencerelating tofeasibility ofaccess

All sites at Broad Chalke wereoriginally removed afterassessment at Stage 2b, due

Land atKnightonRoad, Broad


to the potential impact on theAONB and the limitation ofschool capacity or expansion.

Chalke(SHELAAsite 3339)


23 Appendix O - Maps showing 'omissions sites' promoted byrespondents to the Regulation 19 consultation


s1013

3379

OM016

Amesbury

Crown Copyright 2018. All rights reserved. Wiltshire Council 100049050.

Omission sites at Amesbury

Omission sites

702Malmesbury


Omission sites at Ashton Keynes

Omission sites

738

OM007

Westbury


Omission sites at Bratton

Omission sites

OM018

Chippenham


Omission sites at Christian Malford

Omission sites

612

OM012Warminster


Omission sites at Codford

Omission sites

OM014

Malmesbury


Omission sites at Crudwell

Omission sites

2053

Malmesbury


Omission sites at Great Somerford

Omission sites

OM004

Warminster


Omission sites at Heytesbury

Omission sites

OM011

690/OM017

3129

1112/OM017


Omission sites at Hullavington

Omission sites

S70

Amesbury


Omission sites at Porton

Omission sites

S80

S253

OM001

OM003

S61OM013


Omission sites at Salisbury (north)

Omission sites

3421

S159

S227

3435

OM002

S237

OM009

3187

OM008


Omission sites at Salisbury (south)

Omission sites

S146S154

S150

S151

S113

OM010

S152


Omission sites at Shrewton

Omission sites

600

OM019

3549

Chippenham


Omission sites at Sutton Benger

Omission sites

261

292

3247

256

248

OM020

1018

OM024

200

OM021

247

OM025

198

OM022

OM023

Trowbridge

Melksham

Bradford on Avon


Omission sites at Trowbridge

Omission sites

277

743

273

730

239

791

OM005

3084

OM006

3516

Warminster


Omission sites at Warminster

Omission sites

3264

OM015

Chippenham


Omission sites at Yatton Keynell

Omission sites

24 Appendix P - Analysis of representations specifically relatingto the settlement boundary review

East Housing Market Area

24.1 Table of representations relating to the settlement boundary review for Aldbourne (3representations)

Table 24.1

Proposedaction

Officer response Issue Name(s) Representationnumber(s)

No action.Noted. Settlementboundaries can alsobe reviewed through

Changes noted. Noimmediate comment.Reserve right to request

AldbourneParish Council(1122943)

226

the neighbourhoodfuture revisions in light ofupcoming neighbourhoodplan.

planning process.TheWiltshire Housing SiteAllocations Plan(WHSAP) did notreview the boundaryfor a settlement whereit was considered areview had alreadybeen undertaken in asufficiently advancedneighbourhood plan.Future reviews ofsettlement boundariesthrough theneighbourhoodplanning process willsupersede therelevant settlementboundary in theWHSAP once therelated neighbourhoodplan is Made.

Action:Retain thepaddock

While the paddock(and the adjacentgarden of the house

Keep the existingsettlement boundary at H4to H5 to include the rest of

Richard Price(932551)

442

(and theto the north) is at thethe curtilage of Beechadjacentedge of theKnoll House (garden/garden ofsettlement, it is part ofpaddock). The proposedthe housethe curtilage of arevised boundary nowto theproperty that relatesfollows an old Georgiannorth)more closely to thewall that runs across thewithin thebuilt environmentmiddle of property andproposed(bordered byexcludes the 1 acre


paddock on the other sideof the road that is part ofthe property and within theexisting settlementboundary.

revisedboundarybut

continueto excludethe field

residentialdevelopment to thenorth, road to the eastand path to the west).Its continued inclusionhas limited capacity toextend the built form

previouslyof the settlement interms of scale andlocation.

includedfurthernorth andmove theboundaryline up tobut notincludingthe path tothe west,at H4 andH5.

No action.It is not the purpose ofthe settlementboundary review to

Include Land at LottageFarm site at J2 and J3within the proposed

HannickHomes &DevelopmentsLtd(863519)

3208

allocate sites fordevelopment.This site

revised boundary.The siteis situated adjacent to the

should be treated aseast of the proposedan omission site andassessed through thesite selection process.

extension of thesettlement boundary tothe north, which issupported. Appendix 1 [tothis representation] showsthe location of the site.The inclusion of this sitewould allow for theindicative residualrequirement for theMarlborough CommunityArea (34 dwellings) to bemet in the Plan period, inaccordance with CorePolicy 2 of the WCS. Thesettlement boundaries ofMarlborough and the fourlarge villages within theCommunity Area do notinclude sites with thepotential for delivery ofdwellings, including siteallocations or planningpermissions. Unclear howthe indicative residual


requirement of 34dwellings will be met, asthese settlements do notinclude sites to deliver thisquantum of development.It is unlikely that thisnumber of dwellings wouldcome forward throughwindfall within thesettlement boundariesduring the Plan period.


24.2 Table of representations relating to the settlement boundary review for Baydon (3representations)

Table 24.2

Proposedaction


Action: Tocomply withthe revised

Turf Run cannotbe described asisolated

Extend settlement boundaryat the southern edge of thevillage to include Turf Run

Bill Evans(1136300)

3017

settlementdevelopment(F8 and F9). The house andboundaryphysicallyits curtilage at Becketts doesreviewdetached fromnot represent the perceivedmethodology,the settlementnatural southern edge of thethe settlementbecause it lies atvillage of Baydon. Aboundary atthe end of aLandscape Statementthe southernribbon of(September 2017) [attachededge of thedevelopment thatto this representation]village shouldjuts out to thedemonstrates that thebe extendedsouth of Baydon.perception of the edge of theto includeTurf Run andits curtilage.

The majority ofthe curtilage ofthe property lies

village, when approachingfrom the direction ofAldbourne to the south west

between twoof Baydon, lies to the southexisting dwellingsof Turf Run. A combination(i.e. Becketts andof non-natural features, e.g.Turf Run), to theviews of street and roadnorth and south,signage, glimpses of builtand Aldbourneform, telegraph poles,Road to the eastcontrast strongly with ruraland, therefore,features to the south alongrelates moreAldbourne Road and isclosely to thetherefore physically relatedbuiltto the Baydon. On this basis,environment.a more logical location forIncluding thethe settlement boundarycurtilage wouldwould be to the south of Turfnot substantiallyRun. This would beextend the builtwell-defined by physicalform of thefeatures and respondsettlementpositively to the existingbecause it lieswithin this ribbonof development.

physical character. Theexclusion of Turf Run fromthe settlement boundary isinconsistent with otherexamples of the settlementboundary being extended toinclude residential propertieson the edge of settlements,e.g. dwellings to the west ofMarlborough (B6,B7 andC6), dwellings to the north


of Aldbourne (13, J2 and J3)and dwellings to the north ofBaydon (H5).

No actionIt is not thepurpose of thesettlement

Include Land at RussleyGreen site at H5 within theproposed revised boundary.


3209

boundary reviewto allocate sites

The site is situated adjacentto the west of the proposed

for development.extension of the settlementThis site shouldboundary to the north west,be treated as anwhich is supported.omission site andAppendix 1 [to thisassessedrepresentation] shows thethrough the siteselectionprocess.

location of the site. Theinclusion of this site wouldallow for the indicativeresidual requirement for theMarlborough CommunityArea (34 dwellings) to bemet in the Plan period, inaccordance with Core Policy2 of the WCS. Thesettlement boundaries ofMarlborough and the fourlarge villages within theCommunity Area do notinclude sites with thepotential for delivery ofdwellings, including siteallocations or planningpermissions. Unclear howthe indicative residualrequirement of 34 dwellingswill be met, as thesesettlements do not includesites to deliver this quantumof development. It is unlikelythat this number of dwellingswould come forward throughwindfall within the settlementboundaries during the Planperiod.

Action: Tocomply withthe revised

Given that thispiece of land issurrounded to

Include triangular parcel ofland, within client’s control,at H5 that the revised


3209

settlementboundary

the east, southand west by built

settlement boundary hasremoved from the settlement

reviewdevelopment andboundary. It is bordered onmethodology,bordered on allall sides by the road. It isthe settlementsides by thecurrently overgrown butboundary atroad, this iscould be brought forward for


use as an informal villagegreen in conjunction with thedevelopment of the Land atRussley Green site.

the northernedge of thevillage shouldinclude this

recreational oramenity space atthe edge of thesettlement that

triangularparcel of land,at H5.

relates moreclosely to thebuiltenvironment.

Action:Include theentirety of the

The revisedsettlementboundary

Include entirety of gardenof Dacre, Manor Lane, atH7, within the settlement

Owner offLand offManor Lane,Baydon(1157644)

3370

garden ofDacre, Manor

methodologyincludes the

boundary and/ or allocatedfor housing development.

Lane, at H7,curtilage of aPermission granted in 2007within thesettlementboundary.

property thatrelates moreclosely to the

for change of use fromagricultural to residentialhard surfacing and erection

builtof garage extensionenvironment, e.g.(K/56453). This has beena garden. Theimplemented. Permissionhedgerow showsgranted in 2008 for proposedclear separationlobby link, linking theof garden fromsections of existing andopenapproved garages togethercountryside. Itsalso replacing roof windowinclusion haswith small dormer window inlimited capacityart studio (K/58403/F).

Clearly separate from opencountryside.

to extend thebuilt form of thesettlement interms of scaleand location.

No housing requirementspecifically for Baydon, as alarge village, and noneighbourhood planningprocess to allocate sites.


24.3 Table of representations relating to the settlement boundary review for Broad Hinton (3representations)

Table 24.3

Proposedaction

Officer response IssueName(s) Representationnumber(s)

No actionIt is unclear whichhouses are beingreferred to in the

Include dwellings within thevillage, which have not beenincluded within the proposed

AmandaLe Pape(1115636)

23/29

representation. However,revised settlementbuilt development hasboundary, that date from thebeen included within theearly 1800s and can be

considered establishedwithin the community.

settlement boundary inline with the revisedsettlement boundaryreview methodology.

No actionIt is not the purpose ofthe settlement boundaryreview to allocate sites

Include land to the north/northwest of the village hallwithin the proposed revised

AmandaLe Pape(1115636)

23/29

for development. Thissettlement boundary. It issite should be treated assuitable for building in linean omission site andassessed through the siteselection process.

with the Government’s corestrategy for building housesand has not been included.A small and sensitivedevelopment here would bewelcomed by the village andthe local amenities (e.g.school, church, pubs etc.).It would encourage youngerfamilies into the village andredress the imbalance withthe ageing population of thevillage.

No actionCore Policy 1 specifiesthe level of developmentappropriate for each tier

Core Strategy Core Policy 1sets out the SettlementStrategy, identifying the

R.D.Hortonand Son(1125714)

714

of settlement. Higher tiervarious tiers of settlementssettlements, principalacross the County. Whilstsettlements, arethe Policy sets out differentexpected to providerequirements for each tier,significant levels of jobsthe Policy does not set outand homes. Developmentany “priority” for where newin the lowest tierdevelopment should besettlements, large andfocused. This is furthersmall villages, will beevidenced by Paragraphlimited to that needed to4.15 of the Core Strategyhelp meet the housingwhich sets out that the HSAneeds of settlements and


to improve employmentopportunities, servicesand facilities. Therefore,

DPD will review settlementboundaries to allow newhousing to come forward.

Core Policy 1 does setout a clear priority forwhere new developmentshould be focused.


24.4 Table of representations relating to the settlement boundary review for Devizes (3representations)

Table 24.4

Proposedaction


No action.Support noted.The change to thesettlement boundary forDevizes is justified as itcorrected a slight anomaly.

Devizes TownCouncil(838183)

63

No action.Support noted.The change to thesettlement boundary forDevizes is justified as itcorrected a slight anomaly.

Devizes AreaNeighbourhoodPlan SteeringGroup(1119082)

65

No action.The purpose of thesettlementboundary is to

Include Land at HortonRoad, Devizes, within theproposed revised settlement

BerkeleyStrategic(1135680)

2940

define the built formboundary. Berkeley Strategicof a settlement.is the freehold owner ofThere is likely to be7.2ha of land at this site.uncertainty overThis site is allocated in thehow much spaceWiltshire Core Strategywithin the red line(adopted January 2015) ason a site plana strategic employment sitedrawing is taken up(Land between A361 andby the built form.Horton Road, Devizes)Therefore, theunder Core Policy 12, whichproposed revisedstates that the site will

contribute 8.4ha ofemployment land.

settlementboundary excludessite allocations

The proposed settlementboundary for Devizes hasbeen prepared contrary to

identified in thedevelopment plan.However, once

paragraph 4.15 of the built/ commenced,Wiltshire Core Strategy. The the developmentfailure to include the can be includedstrategic allocation within the within a futureproposed revised settlement review of the

settlementboundaries.

boundary poses a risk to thefuture development of thissite for the reasons set outin paragraph 4.15, i.e. thatdevelopment outside thesettlement boundaries willbe strictly controlled.


24.5 Table of representations relating to the settlement boundary review for East Housing MarketArea – settlements not being reviewed (two representations)

Table 24.5

Proposedaction


No actionThe settlement boundaryfor Pewsey is not beingreviewed by the Wiltshire

Request that Land to theEast of Ball Road, Pewseyis removed from the Pewsey

BernieBradshaw(869060)

116

Housing Site AllocationsPlan as land with thePlan. It has already beenpotential for development. Ireviewed through thebelieve it was due to a lackneighbourhood planningof communication betweenprocess for Pewsey. TheWiltshire Council andWiltshire Housing SitePewsey Parish Council thatAllocations Plan will notthe draft Settlement

Boundary has not beenagreed already.

be reviewing settlementboundaries where this isconsidered to have beenundertaken by asufficiently advancedneighbourhood plan.

No actionThe Review of the CoreStrategy and theWiltshire Housing Site

The reason for redrawing thelimits of development is that,over 2014-16, a proposal for

BovisHomes(998345)

3003

Allocations Plan arehousing was rejected bybeing progressed asPewsey Parish Council onseparate policythree occasions, rejected bydocuments, as set out inWiltshire Council on threethe Council’s Localoccasions and finallyDevelopment Scheme.rejected by the independentThe settlement boundaryassessor from Bristol. Ifor Pewsey is not beingbelieve it will save a goodreviewed by the Wiltshiredeal of time and effort if the

limit of development was putback to pre-1985.

The absence of a proposedrevised settlement boundaryfor Pewsey is considered

Housing Site AllocationsPlan. It has already beenreviewed through theneighbourhood planningprocess for Pewsey. TheWiltshire Housing Site

short-sighted and damaging. Allocations Plan will notThrough the review of the be reviewing settlementWiltshire Core Strategy, it is boundaries where this islikely that further housing considered to have beensites will be required. undertaken by a

sufficiently advancedneighbourhood plan.

Therefore, the Councilshould be taking thisopportunity to provide furtherdirections for growth insustainable locations. Thesettlement boundary view


should be part of acombined Core StrategyReview and Housing SiteAllocations Plan. This willhelp ensure the delivery ofallocations and offer greatercertainty to communities.


24.6 Table of representations relating to the settlement boundary review for Market Lavington(8 representations)

Table 24.6

Proposedaction


No action.The proposed revisedsettlement boundaryincludes built residential

Retain existingsettlement boundary atI5 and J5.The proposed

MarketLavingtonParishCouncil(924012)

283

development that isphysically related to the

extension to thesettlement boundary

settlement. The dwellingincludes a dwelling thatis not isolatedis sited behind thedevelopment that isphysically detached fromthe settlement.

current ‘ribbon’development line of thevillage, not well attachedto the urban frameworkand, therefore, notsuitable for any possiblefuture development. Assuch, it should not beincluded within thesettlement boundary.(See also attachment)

No action.The proposed revisedsettlement boundaryincludes built employment

Retain existingsettlement boundary atL5. The proposed


283

development in LocalService Centres that is

extension to thesettlement boundary

physically related to theincludes the Fiddingtonsettlement. The site isNursery site. This sitesurrounded by residentialshould be retained fordevelopment to the northpotential employmentwest, west anduses to keep thesouth-west. Core Policysettlement sustainable35 protects employmentand not encourageland in principalre-development.The sitesettlements, market townsis not well-attached to

the urban framework.(See also attachment)

and local service centresfrom residentialdevelopment.

No action.This is SouthcliffeBusiness Park. Theproposed revised

Exclude the industrialunits included within theproposed extension to


283

settlement boundaryincludes built employment

the settlement boundaryat K7 and L7. This site

development in Localshould be retained forService Centres that ispotential employmentphysically related to theuses to keep thesettlement. The site issettlement sustainable


and not encouragere-development.The siteis not well-attached tothe urban framework.(See also attachment)

attached to existingresidential developmentto the north/ north-west.Core Policy 35 protectsemployment land inprincipal settlements,market towns and localservice centres fromresidential development.

Action:Retainexisting

This is an error on theproposed revisedsettlement boundary. The

Retain the existingsettlement boundary atJ6. There are no


283

boundary atJ6 to

explanation for theamendment is ‘J7, J6 –

residential properties,only disused farm

exclude thisAmend boundary tobuildings, barns andarea of landinclude curtilage ofsheds, within thethatproperties that relate moreproposed extension to

the settlement boundary.(See also attachment)

containsdisused

closely to the built form ofthe settlement’.This does

farmnot apply to this area ofbuildings,barns andsheds.

land, which is simplydisused farm buildings,barns and sheds.

No action.The proposed revisedsettlement boundaryincludes built employment

Retain existingsettlement boundary at18 and J8. The


283

development in LocalService Centres that is

proposed extension tothe settlement boundary

physically related to theincludes a commercialsettlement. The site isyard operation. This sitebordered by the roadshould be retained for(Lavington Hill) andpotential employmentresidential developmentuses to keep theto the north. Core Policysettlement sustainable35 protects employmentand not encourageland in principalre-development.The sitesettlements, market townsis not well-attached to

the urban framework.(See also attachment)

and local service centresfrom residentialdevelopment.

No action. Support noted. Othercomments addressedabove. The revised

Generally, the boundaryreview seems sensible.However, the Parish


283

settlement boundaryreview methodology

Council has the abovecomments. The

excludes allocations fromMarlboroughwithin the settlementNeighbourhood Plan hasboundary. However,the power to amend thesettlement boundaries cansettlement boundary dealso be reviewed throughfacto by allocating sites


proposed in theneighbourhood plan. Itis up to Wiltshire Council

the neighbourhoodplanning process. Futurereviews of settlement

whether they choose to boundaries through therevise the settlement neighbourhood planningboundary to process will supersedeaccommodate these or the relevant settlementleave it to theneighbourhood plan.(See also attachment)

boundary in the WHSAPonce the relatedneighbourhood plan isMade.

Action:Move theproposed

The revised settlementboundary methodologyincludes the curtilage of a

To include the full,garden curtilage of theproperty and reflect its

SlaterReynolds(396105)

1587

revisedproperty that relates moreplanning history, movesettlementclosely to the builtthe settlement boundaryboundaryenvironment (e.g. aaround Parsonagearoundgarden) or has limitedMead, The Spring, at F7Parsonagecapacity to extend theand F8, to at least followMead tobuilt form of a settlement.the stream to the southfollow, butThe methodology alsoand access road to thenot include,says that the settlementplaying fields to thethe streamboundaries should follownorth, ideally it should beto the southbut not include clearlyextended further south(from thedefined physical features,up to the boundary of

the playing fields. (Seealso attachment)

access roadto the

such as roads and watercourses. For these

playingreasons, the settlementfields to theboundary should behedgerowmoved to follow, but notborder withinclude, the stream to theClyffe Hall)south and the access roadand toto the east. Most of thisfollow, butarea is included within thenot include,existing settlementthe accessboundary. This changeroad to thewould not substantiallyplayingextend the settlement.fields (fromHowever, theits junctionmethodology excludes thewith theextended curtilage of aB3098 up toproperty that relates morethe stream)closely to the countrysideto the east.(e.g. a field or paddock)However,or has the capacity todo notextend the built form ofinclude thethe settlement. Extendingfield souththe settlement boundaryof thefurther south up to thestream orplaying fields would not,

therefore, be appropriatefor these reasons.

the rest ofthe access


road fromthe streamup to theplayingfields.

Action:Extend theproposed

The private, access roadto Parsonage Meadshould be considered as

Include the full length ofthe driveway/ accessroad, at F7 and F8, to


1588

revisedpart of the curtilage of theParsonage Mead andsettlementproperty that relates morethe frontage of 41, Theboundary toto the built form than theSprings and the adjacentinclude theopen countryside.section of the B3098privateTherefore, it should bewithin the settlementaccess roadincluded within theboundary. Otherwise,tosettlement boundary.the land and buildingsParsonageHowever, the revisedwould be within theMead up tosettlement boundarysettlement boundary butbut notmethodology says that thethe short length ofincludingsettlement boundaryprivate road road (abouttheshould follow but not18m) would be outside.adjacentsection ofthe B3098.

include clearly definedphysical features, such asroads.Therefore, it shouldnot include the adjacentsection of the B3098.

This may be a mistakebut might affect futureintentions to improve theaccess situation for 41The Spring by creatinga driveway into the northgarden andneighbouring buildings.(See also attachment)


The kitchen garden areaforms part of the curtilage,which relates more to the

Include within thesettlement boundary thethin strip of land, at F7,


1589

revisedbuilt form of Clyffe Hallwithin the Clyffe Hallsettlementthan the openkitchen garden area,boundary tocountryside. Therefore,which containsinclude thethis whole area up to thepedestrian access at itsrest of thebrick wall on the westernnorthern end from thekitchenside of the kitchen gardenhighway to thegarden areaarea should be includedgreenhouses within theup to andwithin the proposedgarden, which are withinincludingrevised settlementthe proposed revisedthe brickboundary, thussettlement boundary.wall on theencompassing the thinThis runs, on the otherwest side ofstrip of land in question.

(See also Comment#3350)

side of a brick wall,alongside the driveway/private access road to

the kitchengardenarea.Parsonage Mead (part

of which is excluded butthis issue is covered ina separate comment butrelates to this comment).


Include the adjacentsection of the B3098 upto the western side ofthe access road withinthe proposed revisedsettlement boundary.(See also attachment)

No action.The purpose of thesettlement boundaryreview is to define the

Settlement boundarymap should include fullallocation at UnderhillNursery (H1.2). (Seealso attachment)

GS and MPaytonTrust(1104618)

CastlewoodPropertiesVenturesLtd(1130978)

1734, 1951

built form of a settlement.There is likely to beuncertainty over howmuch space within the redline on a site plan drawingis taken up by the builtform. Therefore, therevised settlementboundary reviewmethodology excludessite allocations from withinthe settlement boundary.

No action.Support noted. Persimmon Homes(Wessex) supports theinclusion of the

PersimmonHomes(Wessex)(983136)

2678

Fiddington Hill nurseryat L5 within theproposed revisedsettlement boundary


The walled kitchen gardenarea forms part of thecurtilage, which relates

Include the whole‘walled’ kitchen gardenof Clyffe Hall and front

William Hall(1138993)

3350

revisedmore to the built form ofdrive, at E7, F7, E8 andsettlementClyffe Hall than the openF8, within the proposedboundary tocountryside. Therefore,revised settlementinclude thethis whole area should beboundary.This would bewholeincluded within theline with the revised‘walled’proposed revised

settlement boundary. (Seealso Comment #1589)

settlement boundaryreview methodology toinclude gardens but notadjoining amenity land.(See also attachment)

kitchengarden areaand frontdrive ofClyffe Hall.


24.7 Table of representations relating to the settlement boundary review for Marlborough (6representations)

Table 24.7

Proposedaction


No action.Support Noted.The settlementboundary forMarlborough is soundand justified.

Ian Mellor(1123590)

223

(See General SBRTables table for othergeneral comments inRepresentations3091-4 on the RevisedSBR methodology)

No actionThe land indicated onthe diagram attachedto this representation

Include land associatedwith and within thecurtilage of The

Mark Ashley(1122440)

396

is a large field on theBeeches, Downs Lane,edge of the built formMarlborough at B7of the settlement,within the proposedseparated from builtrevised settlementdevelopment to theboundary, so that all ofeast by a clearlyland associated with thisdefined physicalproperty is included infeature (i.e. a largethe same way as for allhedgerow). Inof the neighbouring

properties that surroundthis property.

appearance, the fieldrelates more closelyto the adjoining opencountryside to thewest.

No actionComments onsite-specific examplesare addressed below.

Our objections in partrelate to themethodology applied to

MarlboroughCollege(1138628)

418, 3288

determine settlementboundaries. Thisneeded to be exploredand has not beenjustified by the evidencebase. Further, theCouncil's assessmentappears subjective andis not borne out by thedetailed characteristicsof the individual sites inquestion.


No action Noted. Settlementboundaries can alsobe reviewed through

Marlborough TownCouncil recognises thatthe settlement boundary

MarlboroughTown Council(820230)

1697

the neighbourhoodwill have to be adjustedplanning process.in the coming years toThe Wiltshire Housinginclude new housingSite Allocations Plandevelopments and(WHSAP) did notadditional amenities,review the boundarye.g. the Salisbury Roadfor a settlementhousing developmentwhere it wason Crown Estates land,considered a reviewa new cemetery tohad already beenreplace the current oneundertaken in athat is nearly full, a newsufficiently advancedschool site for Preshuteneighbourhood plan.School that is in anFuture reviews ofunsuitable building with

outside temporaryclassrooms.The settlementboundary will bereviewed as part of the

settlementboundaries throughthe neighbourhoodplanning process willsupersede the

MarlboroughNeighbourhood Planprocess.Manton is named as asmall village but, in fact,is part of Marlborough

relevant settlementboundary in theWHSAP once therelatedneighbourhood planis Made.Manton is classifiedas a small villageunder Core Policy 1

through boundarychanges made in 1934.It is unclear if the

of the Wiltshire Coresettlement boundary forStrategy (adoptedMarborough should

include Manton. Itcurrently does not.

January 2015) and,therefore, no longerhas a settlementboundary.Marlborough, whichis classified as amarket town, andManton are separatesettlements and,therefore, do notshare a settlementboundary.

No action. Manton is classifiedas a small villageunder Core Policy 1

Manton is named as asmall village but, in fact,is part of Marlborough

MarlboroughNeighbourhoodPlanningSteering Group(1129975)

1700

of the Wiltshire CoreStrategy (adopted

through boundarychanges made in 1934.

January 2015) and,It is unclear if thetherefore, no longersettlement boundary for


Marborough shouldinclude Manton. Itcurrently does not.

has a settlementboundary.Marlborough, whichis classified as amarket town andretains a settlementboundary, andManton are separatesettlements. They donot share asettlement boundary.

No action.The revisedsettlement boundarymethodology states

Retain the existingboundary at D8, E8 andF8 to include the A4


3291

that the settlementBath Road within theproposed revisedsettlement boundary

boundaries define thebuilt form of thesettlement by, wherepracticable, followingbut not includingclearly definedphysical features,such as walls, fences,hedgerows, roadsand water courses.

No action. Support noted. Support extension ofsettlement boundary atC8 and D8 to include


3291

residential properties tothe south of the A4 BathRoad.

Action:Retain theexisting

Marlborough Collegeis built communityfacilities development

Retain the existingboundary at F8, G8, G9,H8 and H9 to include


3291

settlementthat is physicallyMarlborough Collegeboundary atrelated to theplaying fields and mainF8, G8, G9,settlement. Itscar park bounded by theH8 and H9 tocurtilage, whichRiver Kennet and theincludeincludes the playinggardens and allotmentsMarlboroughfields, main car park,adjacent to MarlboroughCollegegardens andCollege’s Master’splayingallotments, relatesLodge, borderingfields, mainmore closely to thePewsey Road. All fallcar park,built environment andwithin the confines ofgardens andhas limited capacitythe main schoolallotments.to extend the builtcampus. The areas inHowever, theform of the settlementquestion are in activesettlementin terms of scale anduse for educationalboundarylocation. Thepurposes and areshould followsettlement boundaryphysically and


functionally related tothe settlement, of whichthe College forms an

but notinclude theA4 Bath

should follow theRiver Kennet, whichis a clearly definedphysical feature.integral part. The land Road in G8,

in question already until itbenefits from a strong reaches theand defensibleboundary to thecountryside.By drawing theboundary too tightly(albeit unjustified), the

edge of theland ownedbyMarlboroughCollegeincluded

Council would be within theimposing undue existing

settlementboundary.

restriction and a lack offlexibility in enabling theCollege to meet itsdevelopment needs inthe future.

No action.The revisedsettlement boundarymethodology states

Retain the existingboundary at G5, G6, H6and H7 to include Hyde


3291

that the settlementLane within theproposed revisedsettlement boundary.

boundaries define thebuilt form of thesettlement by, wherepracticable, followingbut not includingclearly definedphysical features,such as walls, fences,hedgerows, roadsand water courses.

No action. Support noted. Support extension ofsettlement boundary atH7 to include


3291

Marlborough Collegesports club house andstore buildings.

No action. Support noted. Support extension ofsettlement boundary atF7 and G7 to includeBarton Dene andHammons cottages.


3291


The site is borderedby residentialdevelopment to the

Retain the existingboundary at E7, F6 andF7 to include College


3291

boundary ateast, south and west.Fields area of publicE7, F6 andTo the north, it isopen space within theF7 to includebordered by aproposed revised


settlement boundary.This land wastransferred as open

the CollegeFields areaof public

hedgerow, whichforms a clearlydefined physical

space as part of the open spaceboundary. Therefore,College Fields within thethis land isresidential and hence proposedrecreational orurban development. It is revised

settlementboundary.

amenity space at theedge of thesettlement that

bounded by residential/urban development with

relates more closelyto the builtenvironment.

a strong defensibleboundary to countrysideto the north.


24.8 Table of representations relating to the settlement boundary review for Ramsbury (4representations)

Table 24.8

Proposedaction


Action: Includethe propertiesto the south of

The existing settlementboundary around The Old Mill,Ramsbury has been retained

Include the fullcurtilage of TheOld Mill,

Mr andMrs Dallas(1137549)

3091-4

Newton Road,because, as advised byScholards Laneon the east ofRamsbury and Axford Parish(I8) and severalthe roadCouncil during the informalother propertiesadjacent to Theconsultation in summer 2014,and theirOld Mill,including the full curtilage ascurtilages thatScholardsLane, and theircurtilages.

requested would mean that theboundary line would go throughthe river and over land that

form an intrinsicpart of thehistoricsettlement ofRamsbury.

floods. However, the propertieson the east of the road offScholards Lane/ Newton Roadshould be included becausethey are physically related to thesettlement and bordered by theRiver Kennet to the south, havelimited capacity to extend thebuilt form of the settlement.


24.9 Table of representations relating to the settlement boundary review for Rowde (6representations)

Table 24.9

Proposedaction

Officerresponse

Issue Name(s) Representation(s)

No action. Settlementsboundaries willbe updated

Include recently completeddevelopment (six dwellings) atReed Place, off Silverlands Road,at I8 and J8.

RowdeParishCouncil(1105479)

6, 387, 737

prior tosubmission

WiltshireCouncil -Housing (979503)

and/ oradoption totake account ofrecentlycommenced or

WiltshireCouncil -Estates(1138634)

completeddevelopmentssince thecut-off point forthe draftWiltshireHousing SiteAllocationsPlan of April2016.

No action. It is not thepurpose of thesettlement

Include Land at Mulberry Lodge,Rowde, at H5, (SHLAA site 3367)within the proposed settlementboundary.

Dr JohnLand(899720)

425

boundary• Core Policy 1 of the WiltshireCore Strategy classifies Rowde

review toallocate sites

as a large village, with good forfacilities and services, suitable forsustainable growth• No allocations have beenidentified in large villages in the

development.This site shouldbe treated asan omission

East Wiltshire Housing MarketArea• Settlement boundary drawn tootightly and provides few

site andassessedthrough the siteselectionprocess.opportunities for future

development• Infilling opportunities mostlytaken up within the last decadeand few completions/commitments since 2006(estimated at 8-10 dwellings)• No neighbourhood planning areasubmitted/ approved. Thus, up to


Wiltshire Council to ensuresuitable housing sites available• No site survey analysis byWiltshire Council. Sites rejectedon basis of limited informalconsultation with Parish Council• Disagree with Report on theInformal Consultation on theApproach to Large Villages(January 2016), which statesSHLAA site 3367 has drainage,flooding and highways issuesbased upon comments attributedto Rowde Parish Council butunverified/ substantiated. Noopportunity for landowner toresponse to these comments.However, land already raisedabove flood zone. Highwayanalysis and initial consultationwith Wiltshire Council suggests notechnical impediment todevelopment. Site can deliver 6 to8 small dwellings to help meetlocal housing needs.

No action. It is not thepurpose of thesettlement

Include Land at Malthouse Farm,Rowde, at F6 and G6, within theproposed revised settlementboundary:

AndrewFlemingAssociates(1124863)

776

boundary• Core Policy 1 of the WiltshireCore Strategy classifies Rowde

review toallocate sites

as a large village, with good forfacilities and services, suitable forsustainable growth• Conflict with Wiltshire CoreStrategy Objective 3, bullet point

development.This site shouldbe treated asan omission

4 about a ‘flexible approach’ and site andresponding positively to assessedopportunities, rather than ‘an through the site

selectionprocess.

overly prescriptive, rigidapproach’.• No allocations have beenidentified in large villages in theEast Wiltshire Housing MarketArea• Settlement boundary drawn tootightly and provides fewopportunities for futuredevelopment• Infilling opportunities mostlytaken up within the last decadeand few completions/


commitments since 2006(estimated at 8-10 dwellings)• No neighbourhood planning areasubmitted/ approved. Thus, up toWiltshire Council to ensuresuitable housing sites available• No site survey analysis byWiltshire Council. Sites rejectedon basis of limited informalconsultation with Parish Council• NPPF paragraph 55 and NPPGparagraph 001 support newhousing in rural areas. NPPGrecognises that ‘All settlementscan play a role in deliveringsustainable development in ruralareas’.

Action:Retainexisting

Theemploymentdevelopment,

Retain the redundant farmbuildings, at F6, within theproposed revised settlementboundary.


778

settlementconsisting of• No site survey analysis byWiltshire Council. Change from

boundaryat F6 and

farm buildings,is surrounded

existing settlement boundaryappears to be a desktop exercise.• Farm buildings redundant,severed from an agricultural

includeredundantfarmbuildings

on three sidesby existingresidentialdevelopment

holding and most of the larger within thesettlementboundary.

and somewhatset back fromthe edge of thevillage.

steel frame storage barnsunsuitable/ unviable foremployment purposes.• Most of the buildings are in poorcondition and require extensiverepairs and alterations forbusiness use.• Employment use would generatemore traffic than residentialdevelopment and conversion, withadverse impact on local highwaynetwork


24.10 Table of representations relating to the settlement boundary review for West Lavington andLittleton Panell (22 representations)

Table 24.10

Proposedaction


Action: Deletepre-submissionsettlement

The settlementboundary for WestLavington and

Retain area behind 67-69High Street, WestLavington and adjacent

Cllr RichardGamble(402716)

67, 139, 1157

boundary forLittleton Panell hasproperties, J8, K8, J9 andDavidRowles(1121345)

West Lavingtonand LittletonPanell

since been reviewedby a sufficientlyadvanced

K9, within the proposedrevised settlementboundary:• Only one part, at thenorthern end, could bedescribed as ‘a farm

WestLavingtonParishCouncil(1126948)

neighbourhood plan.In April 2018, a draftplan was submittedto Wiltshire Council.Therefore, theWiltshire HousingSite Allocations Plan

building and farm yard atthe edge of a large village’;the remainder comprisesdomestic buildings orgardens (#67 – see alsoattachment)• Both these properties areclearly domestic buildings/gardens and have been

will no longer reviewthe settlementboundary for WestLavington andLittleton Panell.

within the settlementboundary for at least thepast 25 years or so. Theyshould be retained withinthe existing settlementboundary. (#139 – seealso attachment)• The buildings and spaceimmediately behind HooksCourt can be described asfarm buildings and farmyard and can thus beexcluded in accordancewith the stated criteria.However, the area behind67-69 High Street is aprivate garden, privategarage and out buildingsand should not beexcluded on the basis thatit forms "the curtilage of aproperty that relates moreclosely to the builtenvironment (e.g. agarden) ..." The Manor andthe Manor yard should beincluded as they are


clearly "a built residence... that is physically relatedto the settlement." Itsproposed exclusion isbizarre. (#1157 – see alsoattachment)



Retain area behind 109High Street, LittletonPanell, at H5 and H6,


67, 77, 394,685, 1154

boundary forLittleton Panell haswithin the proposedrevised settlementboundary:• The greater part of thisarea is an extensive rusticgarden associated with

RD and SRobson(1119213)

SharonCoombs(1124637)


since been reviewedby a sufficientlyadvancedneighbourhood plan.In April 2018, a draftplan was submittedto Wiltshire Council.

109 High Street. It isdivided into several

Therefore, thesections where the ownersWestLavingtonParishCouncil(1126948)

Wiltshire HousingSite Allocations Planwill no longer reviewthe settlementboundary for WestLavington andLittleton Panell.

have generously hostednumerous communityevents. It is not agriculturalnor does it relate to theopen countryside. It doesnot extend the built form ofthe settlement as it iswithin the line of the formerburgage plots, which formthe existing settlementboundary in this area. (#67– see also attachment)• The garden extends tothe rear to the boundarywith the field owned by MrCoxhead on one side anda house on the other side.Part of the neighbouringgarden, at 115 High Street,appears to have beenexcluded too.• There is proof ofpurchase of the garden tothe rear of 115 High Steet,Littleton Panell, whichclearly shows theboundaries and that thegarden is part of thecurtilage of 115. It shouldnot be consideredundeveloped, unowned,greenbelt or free for the


building of houses. (#394/685 – see alsoattachments)• It is for the most part therustic garden of 109 HighStreet, which is within theline of the original burgageplots and not visibly part ofthe countryside oragricultural in any way. Asmall section forms thegarden of 115 High Street.(#1154 – see alsoattachment)



Retain area of High Street,Littleton Panell, at G5,which excludes part of the


67, 1162

boundary forLittleton Panell hasA360 and adjacent lanes.WestLavingtonParishCouncil(1126948)


since been reviewedby a sufficientlyadvancedneighbourhood plan.In April 2018, a draftplan was submitted

This amendment has nobasis on any of the definedcriteria and appearsbizarre. (#67 – see alsoattachment)

This is a minor change, inthe area adjacent to theHigh Street, Littleton

to Wiltshire Council.Therefore, theWiltshire Housing

Panell, with no apparent Site Allocations Planjustification orconsequence. (#1162 –see also attachment)




Retain existing settlementboundary line adjacent tothe village playing field, at


67, 1156

boundary forLittleton Panell hasJ7 and J8, which excludesWestLavingtonParishCouncil(1126948)



part of the surroundingSandfield and Mill Lane.Given that the playing fieldis bounded on the north byhouses, on the east by theprimary school, on the

to Wiltshire Council.west by the village hall andTherefore, theon part of the south byWiltshire Housingsheltered housing, it wouldSite Allocations Planbe more logical to includewill no longer reviewthe field on the basis thatthe settlementit is “Recreational or


amenity space at the edgeof a settlement that relatesmore closely to the builtenvironment”. (#67 – seealso attachment)

boundary for WestLavington andLittleton Panell.

The primary school andthe pre-school should alsobe included on the basisthat each comprise‘development such as …schools … that isphysically related to thesettlement". They areobviously not related toanything else and do notin themselves "have thecapacity to substantiallyextend the built form of thesettlement’. (#1156 – seealso attachment)



Include the newly builtsports pavilion, at H8,within the proposed


67, 1159

boundary forLittleton Panell hasrevised settlementWestLavingtonParishCouncil(1126948)



boundary at Dauntsey’sSchool. Its inclusion wouldcomply with the criteria,which states that ‘Built andcommenced residentialand community facilities

to Wiltshire Council.development such asTherefore, thereligious buildings, schoolsWiltshire Housingand community halls, thatSite Allocations Planis physically related to the

settlement’. (#67 – seealso attachment)


Indeed, the entireperimeter of Dauntsey’sSchool grounds should beincluded because it isphysically related to thesettlement and includerecreational or amenityspace at the edge of thesettlement. The schoolgrounds are not related toanything else and do nothave the capacity tosubstantially extend the


built form of thesettlement, except throughschool use. Anydevelopment of the schoolis not a development of thesettlement. (#1159 – seealso attachment)



Include the new buildhouse at the back of 25and 27 High Steet,

PaulLangham(a’Beckett’sVineyard)(481043)

809

boundary forWest Lavingtonand LittletonPanell

Littleton Panell hassince been reviewedby a sufficientlyadvanced

Littleton Panell, and thefield leading down toSemington Brook, at G3,within the proposed

neighbourhood plan.revised settlementIn April 2018, a draftboundary.Theplan was submittedConservation Area, in theto Wiltshire Council.2003 ConservationTherefore, theStatement, includesWiltshire Housinga’Beckett’s House, 25 andSite Allocations Plan27 High Street, Littletonwill no longer reviewPanell. However, thethe settlementproposed revisedboundary for WestLavington andLittleton Panell.

settlement boundary ismuch smaller than theConservation Area anddoes not include theseproperties. How can theConservation Area not bewithin the settlementboundary? (#809 – seealso attachment)



Include Land off LavingtonLane, West Lavington, atJ6, K6 and J7, be included

Gaiger Bros(Mr GGaiger)(394670)

1057, 1059,1060, 1061

boundary forLittleton Panell haswithin the proposedWest Lavingtonand LittletonPanell

since been reviewedby a sufficientlyadvanced

revised settlementboundary (and/ orallocated within the Plan).

neighbourhood plan.Community support, scaleIn April 2018, a draftsufficient to help meetplan was submittedlocal housing need andto Wiltshire Council.community benefits, e.g.Therefore, thesecond access and

parking for DauntseyPrimary School.

Wiltshire HousingSite Allocations Planwill no longer review

The draft WiltshireHousing Site AllocationsPlan is not ‘positively

the settlement


boundary for WestLavington andLittleton Panell.

prepared’, ‘justified’,‘effective’ or ‘consistentwith national policy’because:• Housing need isinaccurately measures andis not express this as aminimum• It does not comply withparagraph 47 of the NPPF,which has a presumptionin favour of sustainabledevelopment• It does not identifyhousing at large villages,such as West Lavingtonand Littleton Panell, whichhave a range of servicesand facilities and requiremodest growth to supportthem.• It will not deliver sufficientaffordable housing, relyingupon neighbourhoodplanning process, whichmay not take place, andflawed Core Policy 44(Exceptions).This requiresallocation of larger siteswithin large villages.• The deliverability of manysite allocations in theDevizes Community Areais in question and thereare discrepancies over thefigures relied upon incalculating housing landsupply



Include the house,outbuildings andsurrounding garden area


1151



of 12 Pagnall Lane, at F3,within the proposedrevised settlementboundary. The garden

neighbourhood plan.extends at its northern endIn April 2018, a draftalong a clearly definedplan was submittedhedge opposite 13 Pagnellto Wiltshire Council.Lane and should beTherefore, theincluded as ‘the curtilageWiltshire Housingof a property that relates


more closely to the builtenvironment (e.g. agarden)’. The space

Site Allocations Planwill no longer reviewthe settlement

immediately to the north boundary for WestLavington andLittleton Panell.

side of this hedge is anagricultural field andshould be excludedaccording to the criteriathat it ‘relates more closelyto the open countryside(e.g. a field or paddock) orhas the capacity tosubstantially extend thebuilt form of the settlementin terms of scale andlocation’. (#1151 – seealso attachment)



Support inclusion of 2, 11and 13 Russell Mill Lane,at G4 and H4, within the


1152



proposed revisedsettlement boundary.(#1152 – see alsoattachment)

neighbourhood plan.In April 2018, a draftplan was submittedto Wiltshire Council.Therefore, theWiltshire HousingSite Allocations Planwill no longer reviewthe settlementboundary for WestLavington andLittleton Panell.



Support inclusion of 3 and8 Russell Mill Lane, at H5,within the proposed


1153



revised settlementboundary. (#1153 – seealso attachment)

neighbourhood plan.In April 2018, a draftplan was submittedto Wiltshire Council.Therefore, theWiltshire HousingSite Allocations Planwill no longer review


the settlementboundary for WestLavington andLittleton Panell.



Retain the triangle of landbeyond 24 Eastfield, at J6,within the proposed


1155



revised settlementboundary. This is part ofthe garden of 24 Eastfield.(#1155 – see alsoattachment) neighbourhood plan.

In April 2018, a draftplan was submittedto Wiltshire Council.Therefore, theWiltshire HousingSite Allocations Planwill no longer reviewthe settlementboundary for WestLavington andLittleton Panell.



Support inclusion of landbehind 44-56 High Street,West Lavington, at J8 and


1158



J9. This is a minor changethat corrects the boundaryline along footpath. (#1158– see also attachment)

neighbourhood plan.In April 2018, a draftplan was submittedto Wiltshire Council.Therefore, theWiltshire HousingSite Allocations Planwill no longer reviewthe settlementboundary for WestLavington andLittleton Panell.

Action: Includethe wholeperimeter of


The change to thesettlement boundary atDauntsey School car park,


1160

DauntseySchool withinthe settlementboundary.


at G7 and G8, is a minorchange of no consequencebut, see response to#1159, the whole

neighbourhood plan.perimeter of Dauntsey


School should be includedwithin the proposedrevised settlementboundary.

In April 2018, a draftplan was submittedto Wiltshire Council.Therefore, theWiltshire HousingSite Allocations Planwill no longer reviewthe settlementboundary for WestLavington andLittleton Panell.



Support the inclusion ofthe new houses at TheFarm, Littleton Panell, atG5.


1161


Littleton Panell hassince been reviewedby a sufficientlyadvancedneighbourhood plan.In April 2018, a draftplan was submittedto Wiltshire Council.Therefore, theWiltshire HousingSite Allocations Planwill no longer reviewthe settlementboundary for WestLavington andLittleton Panell.



The West Lavingtonneighbourhood planningprocess is well advanced


1151-1162



and considering a siteallocation of 40-60dwellings (on Land offLavington Lane, West

neighbourhood plan.Lavington) and a review ofIn April 2018, a draftthe settlement boundary.plan was submittedA draft plan is expected to

be submitted to WiltshireCouncil in January 2018.

to Wiltshire Council.Therefore, theWiltshire HousingSite Allocations Planwill no longer reviewthe settlementboundary for WestLavington andLittleton Panell.


24.11 Table of representations relating to the settlement boundary review for Worton (5representations)

Table 24.11

Proposedaction

Officerresponse

Issue Name(s) Representationnumber(s)

Action: Retainthe existingsettlement

The schoolgrounds andgarden are

Support Worton ParishCouncil’s request for nochange to the existing


67, 2621

boundaryphysicallysettlement boundaryaround Fiverelated to thewithout direct consultationLanes PrimarySchool, at G6and G7.

settlement andhave limitedcapacity to

and consideration. Theexisting settlementboundary is long

extend the builtform of thesettlement.

established and, in manyrespects, reflects thehistoric settlement asdefined by burgage plotsetc. Many of the proposedchanges are not consistentwith the methodology. Forexample, the schoolgrounds and gardens, atG6 and G7, are certainlynot ‘more related to theopen countryside’. Thecompiler may have beenunfamiliar with the locationand not examined theaerial photography.Wortonis currently preparing aneighbourhood plan and Ihave no doubt responsibleproposals will be maderegarding the settlementboundary in due course.

No action.The Councilundertook aninformal

Lack of consultation withindividuals whoseproperties would be

Worton Parish Council(785423)

604

consultation onaffected by the proposedrevisions to thechanges. They may besettlementunaware of the implicationsboundary withof how the proposedtown and parishchanges could affect them.councils, toWe have attempted to bringwhich Wortonthis to their attention but

are not satisfied that thishas been successful.

Parish Councilresponded, insummer 2014


Lack of onsiteassessments/ judgementshave led to a complex

and a full publicconsultationbetween Julyand September2018.

picture, which is bothillogical and careless. As aParish Council, it is a verydifficult task to consult/inform on a property byproperty basis, is not withinour remit and could giverise to justified complaint ifdone on a piecemeal basis.

No changes should takeplace until directly affectedindividuals have beeninformed.

No action.It is not thepurpose of thesettlement

Include Land at Mill Road,Worton, at E6, F5 and F6,within the proposed revisedsettlement boundary:• Core Policy 1 of theWiltshire Core Strategyclassifies Rowde as a large


773

boundary reviewto allocate sitesfordevelopment.

village, with good facilitiesand services, suitable forsustainable growth• Conflict with WiltshireCore Strategy Objective 3,bullet point 4 about a

This site shouldbe treated as anomission siteand assessedthrough the siteselectionprocess.‘flexible approach’ and

responding positively toopportunities, rather than‘an overly prescriptive, rigidapproach’.• No allocations have beenidentified in large villagesin the East WiltshireHousing Market Area• Settlement boundarydrawn too tightly andprovides few opportunitiesfor future development• Infilling opportunitiesmostly taken up within thelast decade and fewcompletions/ commitmentssince 2006 (estimated at8-10 dwellings)


• No neighbourhoodplanning area submitted/approved. Thus, up toWiltshire Council to ensuresuitable housing sitesavailable• No site survey analysis byWiltshire Council. Sitesrejected on basis of limitedinformal consultation withParish Council• NPPF paragraph 55 andNPPG paragraph 001support new housing inrural areas. NPPGrecognises that ‘Allsettlements can play a rolein delivering sustainabledevelopment in rural areas’.(#773 – see alsoattachment)

Action:Include thehousing along

The exclusionof this areaalong Mill Road

The existing settlementboundary should include allthe housing along Mill

WortonNeighbourhoodPlan Group(1126765)

983

Mill Road, atwould appear toRoad, at C5, D5, C6 andC5, D5, C6be an error onD6, but this is not shown onand D6, withinthe settlement

boundary reviewmap.

the settlement boundaryreview map for Worton inthe draft Wiltshire Housing

the proposedrevised

Site Allocations Plan. settlementHowever, this area is boundary, as itshown as being within the appears on thesettlement boundary on the policies mapspolicies maps accompanyingaccompanying the Kennet the KennetLocal Plan. We expect that Local Plan.this is an error and request Adjust the linethat this area is includedwithin the proposed revisedsettlement boundary.

showing theexistingsettlementboundaryaccordingly.


Representationdoes not specifywhich property

Include the entirety of mymother’s garden within theproposed revised

David Brierly(1138840)

3305

boundary in 16is being referredsettlement boundary. Theand J6 andto by thegardens of all properties on

the same side of the streetare included.

extend toinclude the

comment.However, it is

entirety of thelikely to be Oakcurtilage ofHouse, 80 High


Street, Worton,at I6. This is thecurtilage of a

Oak House, 80High Street,Worton.

property thatrelates more thebuiltenvironmentand has limitedcapacity toextend the builtform of thesettlement.


North and West Housing Market Area

24.12 Table of representations relating to the settlement boundary review for Ashton Keynes (2representations)

Table 24.12

Proposedaction


No action. Support noted. Support proposed revisedsettlement boundary for AshtonKeynes.

AshtonKeynesParishCouncil(1126124)

907

No action. Noted. However, thepurpose of thesettlement boundary

The proposed revisedsettlement boundary for AshtonKeynes is:• Not sufficiently flexible to boosthousing supply, including therequired affordable homesoutlined in the adoptedneighbourhood plan• The settlement boundary isproposed to shrink, despitenational policy shift to boost

PartridgeHomes(1037118)

926

is to reflect changesto the built formsince the drawing upof the existingsettlementboundaries, not toallocate sites. TheWiltshire Housing

housing supply and a clear local Site Allocations Planneed for more affordable homes. allocates sites thatVery little prospect of a viable have been assessed

through the siteselection process.

and deliverable site comingforward of a scale to provideaffordable homes.• Request settlement boundaryreviewed to ensure thatdevelopment that caters forsocial needs (including socialhousing and self-build housing)in sustainable locations isacceptable in principle.


24.13 Table of representations relating to the settlement boundary review for Atworth (4representations)

Table 24.13

Proposedaction


No action.The revised settlementboundary reviewmethodology excludes

Include Land at WestFarm, at G6 and H6, withinthe settlement boundary.

NestonPark Estate(1138214)

3183

employment sites at theThere is a need foredge of large villagesfrom within the settlementboundary.

additional land to beallocated to meetobjectively assessedhousing need for the Planperiod.


Include Atworth BusinessPark and Land to the eastof Atworth Business Park,

EffieGale-Sides(1131512)

2037,3184/3185

employment sites at theat J6, J7 and K7, withinNestonPark Estate(1138214)

edge of large villagesfrom within the settlementboundary. The adjacentland is an omission site

the settlement boundary.There is a need foradditional land to beallocated to meet

and should be consideredthrough the site selectionprocess.

objectively assessedhousing need for the Planperiod.


24.14 Table of representations relating to the settlement boundary review for Bratton (8representations)

Table 24.14

Proposedaction


Action: Includethe full gardencurtilage of

The revised settlementboundary reviewmethodology includes the

Include the fullgarden curtilage ofCourt Lane Farm, 2

Mr andMrs J andF Hyde(1124520)

274

Court Lanecurtilage of a property thatCourt Lane, Bratton,Farm, 2 Courtrelates more to the builtat G6, within theLane, Bratton,environment (e.g. aproposed revisedat G6, within thegarden). This garden issettlement boundary.proposedsurrounded on three sides

by existing residentialdevelopment.

The gardens in thenorth, west andsouth of the villagehave been included.

revisedsettlementboundary.

Action: Includethe tenniscourts at East

Objection noted. Therevised settlementboundary review

Object to anychange to thesettlement boundary,

BrattonParishCouncil(1125770)

699

1229Marsh Farm,methodology includesexcept to proposeLower Road, atrecreational or amenitythe inclusion of the

PeterBrabner(705001)

I5, within theproposedrevisedsettlementboundary.

space at the edge of asettlement that relatesmore the builtenvironment. The tenniscourts are surrounded on

disused tennis courtsat East Marsh Farm,Lower Road, at I5.

three sides, by existingresidential developmentand Lower Road.

Action: Includethe Grade IIListed East


Include the Grade IIListed East MarshFarm, garage, old

Arno Pilz(1126612)

950

Marsh Farm,curtilage of a property thatbarn, smallgarage, oldrelates more to the builtoutbuildings andbarn, smallenvironment (e.g. amature garden, at I5outbuildings andgarden). This gardenand J5, within themature garden,relates more to the builtproposed revisedat I5 and J5,environment and shouldsettlement boundary.within thebe included. However, theThis would apply theproposedadjacent paddock and

woodland should beexcluded.

same methodologyto this property asother properties andavoid splitting.


No action.The purpose of thesettlement boundary is toreflect changes to the built

Settlementboundaries shouldonly be adjusted if

LouisLillywhite(1124313)

1027

form that have occurredthere is specific


justification, whichhas not been shownregarding Bratton.

since the drawing up of theexisting settlementboundary.

No action. Noted. However, therevised settlementboundary review

Particular concern atthe southernextension to the

BrattonParishCouncil(1125770)

2304

methodology includes thevillage, which thecurtilage of a property thatParish Council feltrelates more to the builtmight encourageenvironment (e.g. aowners of largegarden) or would haveVictorian andlimited capacity to extendthe built form of thesettlement.

Georgian houses toseek permission todevelop theirgardens for housing.

Action: Includethe full gardencurtilage of


Include the fullgarden curtilage ofGrange Farm, 61

NicolaMorris(1122130)

2525

Grange Farm,curtilage of a property thatLower Farm Road,61 Lower Farmrelates more to the builtBratton, at G5, within

the proposed revisedsettlement boundary.

Road, Bratton,at G5, within the

environment (e.g. agarden). This garden and

proposedaccess is surrounded onrevisedsettlementboundary.

three sides by residentialdevelopment and itsinclusion would be inkeeping with thesettlement boundary lineeither side, forming astraight boundary.



Retain the existingsettlement boundarybehind 51 Yew Tree

FrancesSouthern(1120634)

2574

boundarycurtilage of a property thatFarm, Lower Road,behind 51 Yewrelates more to the builtat H5, within the

proposed revisedsettlement boundary.

Tree Farm,Lower Road, at

environment (e.g. agarden). This garden is

H5, within thesurrounded on three sidesproposedby residential developmentrevisedsettlementboundary.

and its inclusion would bein keeping with thesettlement boundary lineeither side, forming astraight boundary.


24.15 Table of representations relating to the settlement boundary review for Calne (10representations)

Table 24.15

Proposedaction


Action: Updatethepre-submission

For thepre-submissionsettlement

Include Land at SilverStreet, Calne, at D12,E12, D13 and E13, within

CG Fry & SonLtd(1122879)

192

settlementboundaries, thethe settlement boundary.boundaries withcut-off date forThis is a commenceddevelopmentsince April2016.

including built/commencedplanning

development; vehicularaccess to the sitecommenced in June

permissions was2017. Therefore, this site1 April 2016. Thisshould be included underwill be updatedthe revised settlement

boundary reviewmethodology.

prior tosubmission and/or adoption.



Include planningpermissions at H4, H5and H6, some of which

Campaign toProtect RuralEngland(399075)

601

settlementboundaries, thehave commenced. If theboundaries withcut-off date forintention is to define thedevelopmentsince April2016.


built edge then this mapfails because theboundary fails to properlyrecognise reality on theground.

permissions was1 April 2016. Thiswill be updated

Constantly reviewingboundaries is unsettlingto residents and poor for


forward planning whendeciding what isunacceptable.



Include Land to the westof the Oxford Roadroundabout, by the

WiltshireCouncil(Estates)(1138634)

739

settlementboundaries, thejunction of Beversbrookboundaries withcut-off date forRoad and Oxford Road,developmentsince April2016.


at G3 and H3. This is acommenceddevelopment, with

permissions wasdevelopment havingcommenced in December2016.

1 April 2016. Thiswill be updated



No action.The purpose ofthe settlementboundary review

Promoting inclusion ofLand at Wenhill, SouthWest Calne, at C11, D11,

BowoodEstate(1124796)

1033

is to reflectC12, D12, E12, C13 andchanges to theD13, as an omission site.built environmentThere is an over reliancesince the drawingon windfall development.up of the existingPast rates are not reliablesettlementevidence of future supply,boundaries, not toespecially sinceallocate sites forsettlement boundaries aredevelopment.only being adjusted toThis is thetake into accountpurpose of thecommencedsite selectioncommitments. This will

not provide any additionalwindfall potential.

process for theWiltshire HousingSite AllocationsPlan.



Include development thathas commenced since2016 within the settlementboundary.

Calne TownCouncil(1126863)

1097

settlementboundaries, theboundaries withcut-off date fordevelopmentsince April2016.

including built/commencedplanningpermissions was1 April 2016. Thiswill be updatedprior tosubmission and/or adoption.



Paragraph 158 of theNational Planning PolicyFramework (NPPF)

GFLDevelopments(1129247)

1541,2477/2492,3087/3088

settlementboundaries, therequires the WiltshireFive RiversHomes Ltd(1132956)

boundaries withdevelopmentsince April2016.

cut-off date forincluding built/commencedplanning

Housing Site AllocationsPlan to be based onadequate up-to-date andrelevant evidence. The

Hills HomesDevelopmentLtd(900566)

permissions was1 April 2016. Thiswill be updatedprior tosubmission and/or adoption.

Plan fails in this regard.Planning permissions thathave not commencedhave not been includedwithin the settlementboundary. However, that


they have been grantedplanning permissionconfirms that they are

However, Land atAbberd Lane isalready included

acceptable in planning within thepolicy and other terms. pre-submission

settlementboundary.

The decision to submit aplanning applicationwould have been made

The purpose ofthe settlementboundary review

with the intention to buildout the approved scheme.They have a timescale of

is to reflectthree years to bechanges to theimplemented. If theybuilt environmentlapse, then the planningsince the drawinghistory of the site is aup of the existingmaterial planningsettlementconsideration for the

submission of furtherplanning applications.

boundaries, not toallocate sites fordevelopment.This is theThe pre-submission

settlement boundary isout-of-date and not in

purpose of thesite selection

conformity with the NPPF. process for theSome developments with Wiltshire Housing

Site AllocationsPlan.

planning permission andsome that havecommenced/ completedhave not been included,for example:a) Land at Abberd Lane(Barretts), at H8 and I8,for 124 houses hascommenced.b) Land at Oxford Road(Hills), at H4, H5 and H6,for 200 houses hascommenced.c) Land at Sandpit Road(GFL Developments), atH6, for 12 houses hasplanning permission.d) Land at the east end ofSandpit Road, at H7, for21 houses has planningpermission.e) Land at Oxford Road(Hills), at G6, for 26houses has a planningapplication pendingdetermination.


f) Land at Oxford Road(David Wilson Homes), atH4, for 42 houses has a

It is also theprerogative ofcommunities to

planning application review settlementpending determination, boundarieswhich also earmarks land through the

neighbourhoodplanning process.

immediately to the northof the site for a further 42houses, at H3 and H4.g) Land at Oxford Road(Hills), at H5, I5 and H6,is earmarked for a future100+ houses

The emerging CalneNeighbourhood Planidentifies a settlementboundary apparentlyunchanged from theformer North WiltshireLocal Plan 2011, which isout-of-date. No indicationthat the settlementboundary is to beamended to include theirallocation of a site for upto 250 houses, at H8, I8,H9, I9, H10 and I10.


24.16 Table of representations relating to the settlement boundary review for Chapmanslade (4representations)

Table 24.16

Proposedaction



The revisedsettlement boundaryreview methodology

Retain site at H6 – LandRear of 102 High Street,Chapmanslade within thesettlement boundary:• Adjacent to residentialdevelopment on the highstreet• Site used to providedrainage facilities for 104and 106 High Street


736

settlementboundaryat H6 toinclude theexistingresidentialdwelling

in Topic Paper 1:Settlement BoundaryReview (June 2017)includes recreationalor amenity space atthe edge of thesettlement that

before these dwellings and therelates more closelyconnected to mains (part area of

landbehind.

to the builtenvironment, or thecurtilage of a property

of curtilage and haslimited capacity to extend

that has limitedthe built form, orcapacity to extend therecreational/ amenity

space relates moreclosely to settlement)• Comprises smallenclosure withestablished boundaries

built form of thesettlement. This areais surrounded byexisting residentialdevelopment and

and resembles gardenland more than opencountryside• Southern boundary runsalong the same straightline as the boundaries to

would not extend thesettlement boundarybeyond the existingline of the built form.

the rear of 104 to 118High Street, forming aclear delineation betweenthe built form and opencountryside• Proposed amendmentalso excludes builtdevelopment of 102cHigh Street, which frontsthe High Street• No evidence to justifywhy site and adjoiningresidential property havebeen excluded

No action.The revisedsettlement boundaryreview methodology

Include Green FarmIndustrial Estate andassociated plot, at I7,

Aedifico Ltd(378124)

857

in Topic Paper 1:within the settlement


boundary. Exclusion ofemployment sites onedge of large villages isflawed but this site is noton the edge of the village.

Settlement BoundaryReview (June 2017)excludes employmentdevelopment at theedge of large villages.


Chapmanslade VillageHall and amenity area, atF5, should remain outside

ChapmansladeParish Council(1127016)

1209, 3194

in Topic Paper 1:of the settlementFrancis Morland(397159)

Settlement BoundaryReview (June 2017)includes built and

boundary. Object toinclusion of playing fieldand village hall, which

commencedputs at risk the long-termuse of these facilities forpublic use.

community facilitiesdevelopment that isphysically related tothe settlement.However, thepre-submissionboundary does notinclude the playingfields.


24.17 Table of representations relating to the settlement boundary review for Christian Malford(3 representations)

Table 24.17

Proposedaction



The settlementboundary for ChristianMalford has since been

The ChippenhamCommunity AreaRemainder Topic Paper

ChristianMalfordParishCouncil(1118671)

55

619boundary forChristianMalford.

reviewed by asufficiently advancedneighbourhood plan. In

is incorrect; the ChristianMalford NeighbourhoodPlan is reviewing the

KevinWatson(910890)

April 2018, a draft planwas submitted toWiltshire Council.Therefore, the Wiltshire

settlement boundary.The existing settlementboundary has beenamended to include sites

Housing Sitebeing allocated in theAllocations Plan will noneighbourhood plan. Alonger review thesettlement boundary forChristian Malford.

draft neighbourhoodplan was put out forconsultation between 5thJune and 18th July,2017.


The settlementboundary for ChristianMalford has since been

Include Land at MainRoad, Christian Malford,at F4, within theproposed revisedsettlement boundary:• Its inclusion would besupported by the revisedsettlement boundaryreview methodology• It is allocated forresidential developmentin the emerging

Mr & MrsHawker(1131519)

2040

boundary forChristianMalford.

reviewed by asufficiently advancedneighbourhood plan. InApril 2018, a draft planwas submitted toWiltshire Council.Therefore, the WiltshireHousing SiteAllocations Plan will no

Christian MalfordNeighbourhood Plan (assite reference HS3)

longer review thesettlement boundary forChristian Malford.


24.18 Table of representations relating to the settlement boundary review for Codford (4representations)

Table 24.18

Proposedaction


No action. Comments submitted duringthe informal consultationwith town and parish

Proposed settlementboundary does notreflect comments

CodfordParishCouncil(1143232)

3363

councils have beensubmitted in 2014/15 toconsidered in thethe informal consultationpreparation of thepre-submission settlementboundary. In fact:1. Taken forward. The fullcurtilage of this garden hasbeen included within thepre-submission settlementboundary.2. Taken forward. Thesettlement boundary doesnot include the full curtilageof 4 Wool House Gardens.3. Taken forward (in part).This employment site on theedge of a large village hasbeen excluded as per therevised methodology.4. Taken forward (in part).The full garden has beenincluded.5. Not taken forward but seeresponse to representation3363, 3364 and 3365 below.6. Taken forward. This islarge garden is now includedwithin the settlementboundary.

on the draft settlementboundaries (as follows– taken fromrepresentation toinformal consultation):1. Include full curtilageof garden at I6.92. Do not extendsettlement boundary toinclude the rear gardenat H7.33. Either exclude orinclude farm buildings atG/ H 5.8, preferablyinclude, rather than onlyinclude half of the site4. Large garden at G5.5split into two.Inconsistent withelsewhere. Thoughrecommend no changeto boundary5. Include disused farmbuildings behind andadjacent to 124 HighStreet, Codford, at F5and F66. Retain large gardenarea within settlementboundary at G6.5

Action:Extend thesettlement

The revised settlementboundary reviewmethodology in Topic Paper

Include disused farmbuildings behind andadjacent to 124 High

CodfordParishCouncil(1143232)

3363, 3364,3365

boundary1: Settlement BoundaryStreet, Codford, at F5at F5 andReview (June 2017)and F6, within the

Robert &ShionaSmith(1143251)

F6 toinclude thedisusedfarm

includes the curtilage of aproperty that relates moreclosely to the builtenvironment or has limited

settlement boundary.This is surrounded byexisting residentialdevelopment and, being

buildingscapacity to extend the builtseparated from the


Jane andTimAnderson(1143253)

and hardstandingbutexcludethe small

form of the settlement interms of scale or location.The site is bordered to thenorth and east by existingresidential development and

open countryside by theA36, relates more to thebuilt form than the opencountryside.

field to theseparated from thesouthadjacent tothe A36.

countryside by the A36. Itcannot be said to relatemore closely to the opencountryside nor as havingthe capacity to substantiallyextend the built form of thesettlement.

Action:Include theentirety of


Include the entirety ofthe garden of ourproperty ‘The Cottage’,at J8, within thesettlement boundary.

JillMitchell(1157627)

3369

the gardenof ‘The

curtilage of a property thatrelates more closely to thebuilt environment, e.g. agarden.

Cottage’,at J8,within thesettlementboundary.


24.19 Table of representations relating to the settlement boundary review for Colerne (1representation)

Table 24.19

Proposedaction


No action.This appears to be anundeveloped land on theedge of the settlement andis not part of the built form.

Take into accountcomments submittedduring the informalconsultation withparish councils.(a) Include fieldadjacent to GreenLane and Cleaves

ColerneParishCouncil(390446)

199

Avenue, at G6 andG7, within thesettlement boundary.

No action. Ladymead, 5 Bath Roadis an isolated dwelling thatis physically detached from

(b) IncludeLadymead, 5 BathRoad and strip of the


199

the settlement by whatfield between it andappears to be undevelopedland that is not part of thebuilt form.

Copper Oaks Cottageto the south of BathRoad, at G7 and H7,within the settlementboundary.

No action.This appears to beundeveloped land on theedge of the settlement.

(c) Include land eastof Washmeres, to thesouth of Merryfields,


199

Star Corner and to thewest of Appledore, atI7, within thesettlement boundary.

No action.This appears to be a largearea of recreational oramenity land on the edge

(d) Include landbetween Windermere,Ogbourne and 10


199

of the settlement thatrelates better to the opencountryside.

Chapel Path, at J7,within the settlementboundary.

Action:Exclude thefarm building

The revised settlementboundary excludesemployment development,

(e) Exclude landadjacent to AshleyHouse and include


199

on the edge offarm buildings andBrambledown, Tuttonthe settlementfarmyards on the edge ofHill and garden, at J7,

within the settlementboundary.

and includethe garden of

Large Villages andincludes the curtilage of a

Brambledown,Tutton Hill, atJ7.

property that relates moreclosely to the builtenvironment, e.g. a


garden. The proposedchange appears to excludefarm buildings and includethe garden ofBrambledown, Tutton Hill.

No action.The revised settlementboundary includes thecurtilage of a property that

(f) Exclude gardenland at Vale Court,Vicarage Lane, at J6,


199

relates more closely to thebuilt environment, e.g. agarden.

J7, K6 and K7, fromthe settlementboundary.

Action:Include thegarden land

The revised settlementboundary includes thecurtilage of a property that

(g) Include gardenland and recreational/amenity space


199

andrelates more closely to theadjacent to Easttriprecreational/built environment, e.g. aLane, Watergates Villaamenity spacegarden, and recreational/and 21/ 23adjacent toamenity space that relatesWatergates, at K6, K7,

L6 and L7, within thesettlement boundary.

Eastrip Laneand 21/ 23

better to the builtenvironment. However,

Watergates,some of the extra landexcept for thelarge field tothe southeast.

proposed for inclusionappears to a large field thatrelates better to the opencountryside.

No action.The revised settlementboundary methodologyexcludes the extended

(h) Include gardenland adjacent to 14Eastrip Lane, at L4and L5, within thesettlement boundary.


199

curtilage of a property thateither relates more closelyto the open countryside,e.g. a field or paddock, orhas the capacity tosubstantially extend thebuilt form of the settlementin terms of scale andlocation.


24.20 Table of representations relating to the settlement boundary review for Corsham (6representations)

Table 24.20

Proposedaction



Include Allan Road builtdevelopment and land, atB9, C8 and C9, within thesettlement boundary.

MOD/DefenceInfrastructureOrganisation(1128216)

1260

excludes isolateddevelopment that isphysically detachedfrom the settlement.This residentialdevelopment isseparated from themain built form.


Include site within outlineplanning permission, grantedon appeal on 31st May 2017,

RSTCorsham Ltd(901187)

1460

excludes all types offor 31 dwellings at Peacockunimplementedplanningpermissions.

Grove, Corsham, at K9, K10,L9 and L10. Upon furtherassessment, it is consideredthat this site has the capacityfor 50 dwellings. A new fullapplication will be submittedin 2018 and the site will befully deliverable within threeyears.

No action. Neston is a smallvillage and, therefore,does not have asettlement boundary.

Core Policy 2 of theWiltshire Core Strategycontains a brownfield targetthat has yet to be met. Core

RangefordStrategic(Westwells)Ltd(1132530)

2374

Policy 1 implies thatsettlement boundariesaround all settlements aboveLarge Villages will beimportant in identifying land.Settlement boundariesignore some MODdevelopment, treatingNeston, Rudloe andCorsham as separatesettlements. Somecommenced development,e.g. former Royal Arthur site,Wadswick Green, notincluded within thesettlement boundary.


Land south of WestwellsRoad, Neston, at A13, A14,B13 and B14, should beidentified as a brownfieldallocation.

Action:Includethe full


Include Land at 6 HalfwayFirs, Bath Road, Corsham,at A7 and A8, within the

G Tunbridge(1132861)

Mr & MrsAmall(1132941)

2417, 2418

curtilageof 6HalfwayFirs, Bath

includes the curtilageof properties thatrelates more closelyto the built

settlement boundary. Thesettlement boundaryincludes only part of thecurtilage of 6 Halfway Firs

Road, atenvironment (e.g. aand does not reflect anyA7 and A8garden) or hasphysical boundary on thewithin thesettlementboundary.

limited capacity toextend the built formof the settlement interms of scale andlocation.

ground. The area is inresidential use, surroundedon all three sides by builtdevelopment and would notextend the built form of thesettlement. The inclusion ofthis site would be consistentwith the methodology andthe inclusion of other siteson the edge of Corsham,particularly the land to theeast of the site at HalfwayFarm.


Include Land to the south ofPotley Lane, Corsham, atF11 and G11. This site has

De VernonTrustees(556491)

3041

excludes all types ofdetailed planning permissionunimplementedfor 64 dwellingsplanning(16/02523/REM). It ispermissions.unjustified and ineffective toHowever, theremove this site from thesettlementsettlement boundary. Theboundaries will besettlement boundary shouldupdated prior toremain as it is and, also, besubmission and/ orextended to include the siteadoption with recentcommencements andcompletions.

at Land to the north ofLeafiled Industrial Estate,Corsham, at D11 and E11.

The purpose of thesettlement boundaryreview is to reflectchanges to the builtform, not to allocatesites. The site atLand to the north of


Leafield IndustrialEstate is an omissionsite and should beconsidered throughthe site selectionprocess.


24.21 Table of representations relating to the settlement boundary review for Corsley (1representation)

Table 24.21

Proposed action Officer response Issue Name(s) Representationnumber(s)

Action: Update thepre-submissionsettlement

The pre-submissionsettlement boundary,which has a cut-off date

Include developmentof 5 dwellingsadjacent to 4 Baytree

WiltshireCouncil(Housing)(979503)

390

boundaries prior tofor new development ofClose, Corlseysubmission and/ orApril 2016, will beHeath, at K7, due toadoption using themost up-to-dateGIS layers.

updated prior tosubmission and/ oradoption using themost up-to-date GISlayers.

commence in Autumn2017 and complete2018 within thesettlement boundary.


24.22 Table of representations relating to the settlement boundary review for Cricklade (9representations)

Table 24.22

Proposedaction


Action: Deletepre-submissionsettlementboundary forCricklade

The settlementboundary forCricklade has sincebeen reviewed by asufficiently

Retain existingsettlement boundary atLypiatt House, at G9.The proposed boundarycuts off the corner of

Julie Norman(730331)

501

advancedthe garden. The gardenneighbourhoodboundary joinsplan. In April 2018,Chelworth Road at 90a draft plan wasdegrees and does not

follow the edge of thenew tarmac driveway.

submitted toWiltshire Council.Therefore, theWiltshire HousingSite AllocationsPlan will no longerreview thesettlementboundary forCricklade.



Note that the draftCrickladeNeighbourhood Planincludes some of thechanges proposed by

CrickladeTown Council(1051839)

768

advancedWiltshire Council. Forneighbourhoodexample, the inclusionplan. In April 2018,of Stockham Gardens,a draft plan wasat L7, Spital Lane, atsubmitted toK7, the leisure centre,Wiltshire Council.at F5 and F6, T. JamesTherefore, theMotors, at E5 and F5,

and Abingdon Court, atK6.

Wiltshire HousingSite AllocationsPlan will no longerreview thesettlementboundary forCricklade.




Include Land south ofThe Forty, at H9 and I9,which has outlineplanning permission for70 dwellings



1545, 2066

advancedneighbourhoodplan. In April 2018,a draft plan wassubmitted to

(13/07132/OUT). Notincluding areas withinthe settlement boundarythat have planningpermissions will weaken

Wiltshire Council.policies that seek toTherefore, theconfine development

within the settlementboundary.

Wiltshire HousingSite AllocationsPlan will no longer

The pre-submissionsettlement boundariesare out of date as they

review thesettlementboundary forCricklade.do not reflect recent

planning permissions.The three best practicecase studies referred toin Topic Paper 1, fromWinchester, Purbeckand Ketting localauthorities, havemethodologies thatinclude unimplementedplanning permissionswithin their settlementboundaries.

Site preparation workshave taken place and,as of September 2017,a reserved mattersapplication is withWiltshire Council fordetermination. Work onthe site could beundertaken immediatelyfollowing approval. Thedraft CrickladeNeighbourhood Planincludes this appeal sitewithin its settlementboundary. Planningpermissions andproposed allocationswill be counted againstthe housing supply of


the Wiltshire CoreStrategy so should beincluded.

If sites withinunimplementedplanning permission arenot included then theyshould be shown on themap as ‘permitted sites’to better inform users.



Exclude the twoproperties withsubstantial gardens atthe northern end ofWest Mill Lane, at G4.


1546

advancedThese have theneighbourhoodcapacity to substantiallyplan. In April 2018,extend the built form ofa draft plan wasthe settlement. Thesubmitted toarea is at the end of aWiltshire Council.narrow lane, whichTherefore, themakes access difficult.Wiltshire HousingIt is close to the NorthSite AllocationsMeadow NationalPlan will no longerNature Reserve, anreview theSSSI. Future infill

development in thisarea should be resisted.

settlementboundary forCricklade.



Exclude the full area ofopen space at LongClose/ Hall Close, at I4and I5, and open spaceat Waylands, at J8 and


1547, 1582

advancedK8, which have beenneighbourhoodpartly included withinplan. In April 2018,the settlementa draft plan wasboundary. The draftsubmitted toCrickladeWiltshire Council.Neighbourhood PlanTherefore, theexcludes the whole ofWiltshire Housingthese areas of openSite Allocationsspace and, thus, avoids

creating artificialboundaries.

Plan will no longerreview thesettlementboundary forCricklade..




The CrickladeNeighbouhood Plan ismore advanced thanshown in the draftWiltshire Housing Site


1548

advancedAllocations Plan. TheneighbourhoodRegulation 16plan. In April 2018,consultation has endeda draft plan wasand, at the time ofsubmitted towriting, the town councilWiltshire Council.anticipates theTherefore, theappointment of anWiltshire Housingindependent examiner.Site AllocationsThe true status of the

neighbourhood planshould be recognised.

Plan will no longerreview thesettlementboundary forCricklade.



Include Land at HorseyDown site, at E5 andE6, within thesettlement boundary.

Bloor Homes(556573)

2082

advancedneighbourhoodplan. In April 2018,a draft plan wassubmitted toWiltshire Council.Therefore, theWiltshire HousingSite AllocationsPlan will no longerreview thesettlementboundary forCricklade.


24.23 Table of representations relating to the settlement boundary review for Crudwell (3representations)

Table 24.23


No action. Noted. However, all siteallocations within thePlan are outside thesettlement boundary.

If the Plan isadopted, theallocation ofRidgeway Farm will

CrudwellParishCouncil(1126295)

849

set a precedent asit is outside thedesignated red linesettlementboundary.

Action: Updatethe pre-submissionsettlement

Noted. For thepre-submissionsettlement boundaries,

Includecommenceddevelopment of 10

Mr & MrsWest(1130564)

1798

boundaries withthe cut-off date fordwellingscommenced/including built/(15/03136/OUT) atcompleteddevelopment sinceApril 2016.

commenced planningpermissions was 1 April2016. The

Ridgeway Farm,Tetbury Lane,Crudwell, at G6 andH6. pre-submission

settlement boundarieswill be updated using themost recent GIS layeravailable (forconsistency) prior tosubmission and/ oradoption.

Action: Includethe builtdevelopment up to

Noted. The revisedsettlement boundarymethodology includes

Include builtdevelopmentsituated on the

Mr & MrsWest(1130564)

1798

and including Yebuilt/ commencednorthern side ofOld Forgedevelopment that is

physically related to thesettlement.

Tetbury Lane, atG6 and H6, up toand including the

property, to thewest of the

property Ye Old commencedForge within the development of 10proposed revisedsettlementboundary.

dwellings atRidgeway Farm,Tetbury Lane,Crudwell, at G6and H6.

Action: Includethe remaining partof the garden


Include full gardencurtilage of propertyat Ravenscroft (I6

Lt Col MichaelWhelan(862330)

2581

curtilage of thecurtilage of a propertyand J6) within the


proposed revisedsettlementboundary.

property atRavenscroft, offthe A429,

that relates more to thebuilt environment (e.g. agarden) or has limited

Crudwell, at I6 andcapacity to extend theJ6 within thebuilt form of a settlement.proposed revisedsettlementboundary.

The addition of theremaining part of thecurtilage would complywith both requirementsand provide a logical,clear boundary with theopen countryside.


24.24 Table of representations relating to the settlement boundary review for Derry Hill & Studley(2 representations)

Table 24.24

Proposedaction


Action:Excludethe outlying

The revisedsettlementboundary review

Broadly supportive of settlementboundary around two main areasof houses at Derry Hill andStudley.

CalneWithoutParishCouncil(1125505)

546, 2215

area ofhousing at

methodologyexcludes isolated

However, either include alloutlying areas of houses, at (i) OldRoad, at K6, L6, K7 and L7; (ii)

Ioan Rees(1126777)

Old Road,at K6, L6,K7 and L7,from thesettlementboundary.

development thatis physicallydetached from thesettlement. Thethree outlyingareas at Old

Devizes Road, at F10 and F11,and (ii) Norley Lane, at M5, N5and N6, or, preferably exclude allthree from the settlement Road, Devizesboundary as they are effectively Road and Norleyin open countryside outside the Lane arevillage areas. They are all very physicallysimilar, in that they are small detached from theareas of linear housing, settlements of

Derry Hill andStudley.

predominantly along one side ofroads leading to and from thevillage. Old Road is about 200mfrom the nearest village boundary,Devizes Road is actuallycontiguous to Derry Hill andNorley Lane is about 350m fromthe Studley settlement boundary.

The Old Road settlementboundary should certainly not beextended across the A4 to includeisolated and unrelated housing onthe opposite side of this majorroad.


24.25 Table of representations relating to the settlement boundary review for Dilton Marsh (1representation)

Table 24.25

Proposedaction


No action.The revisedsettlementboundary

Dilton Marsh Parish Councilwishes for it to be reflected in theconsultation material that they are

DiltonMarshParishCouncil(1133403)

2541

methodologyexcludes

preparing a neighbourhood plan.No changes to the settlement

employmentboundary are supported until thedevelopment at theedge of largevillages.

neighbourhood planning processis complete. However, theBullivant Site, off Petticoat Lane,at L6 and M6, could be includedwithin the settlement boundary ata later date.


24.26 Table of representations relating to the settlement boundary review for Hilperton (8representations)

Table 24.26

Proposedaction



The revised settlementboundary reviewmethodology, as set out

Retain the existingsettlement boundaryalong 181 Devizes Road

PeterFielding(1054315)

20

settlementin Topic Paper 1:and neighbouringboundary forSettlement Boundaryproperties, at M9 and N9,181 DevizesReview (June 2017),because the proposedRoad andincludes the curtilage ofsettlement boundary

bisects my garden andthose of my neighbours.

neighbouringproperties, at

properties that relatemore closely to the built

M10 and N10environment (e.g.and extend/garden) or has limitedretaincapacity to extend theproposedbuilt form of thesettlementsettlement. This gardenboundary,and those ofwhereneighbouring properties

would comply with themethodology.

necessary, toinclude thegardens ofneighbouringproperties.

No action. Support noted. Support exclusion ofHilperton Primary Schoolplaying field, at K7 and

HilpertonParishCouncil(547867)

722

K8, from within thesettlement boundary andthe continued exclusionof ‘The Nursery site’ inMarsh Road, at H4.

No action.The revised settlementboundary reviewmethodology, as set out

Include Land at rear ofVictoria Road and WykeRoad, at G8, G9 and


741

in Topic Paper 1:G10, within theSettlement Boundarysettlement boundary. IfReview (June 2017)the outline planningexcludes unimplementedapplication for Land Westplanning permissionsof Elizabeth Wayfrom within the(16/00672/OUT) issettlement boundary.Thegranted permission andpurpose of the settlementimplemented prior to nextboundary review is tocut-off date then the

Council’s site should beconsidered for inclusion.

reflect the built form ofthe settlement, not toallocate sites. This site is


an omission site andshould be consideredthrough the site selectionprocess.

No action.This site is a proposedhousing allocation in thedraft Wiltshire Housing

Remove SHLAA sites263 and 297, at G7, G8,H7, H8, H9, I8, I9, I10,

HilpertonActionGroup(895670)

1909, 1914

Site Allocations Plan.J9, J10 and J11, fromThe revised settlementallocation for housingboundary reviewbecause they are withinmethodology, as set outHilperton not Trowbridgein Topic Paper 1:and development inSettlement BoundaryLarge Villages shouldReview (June 2017)focus on small sites.excludes allocations fromSettlement boundarieswithin the settlementwere fixed in 2016 afterboundary, which is aa two year process ofplanning policy tool toreview, where Wiltshireguide development andis separate from parishboundaries.

Council rejected optionof Land West ofElizabeth Way comingwithin Trowbridge.

Action:Amend theproposed


Amend the settlementboundary to include therest of the curtilage of

HenryNurkowski(703908)

2041

settlementin Topic Paper 1:the Lion and Fiddle Inn,boundary, atSettlement Boundaryat L10, which is bisectedL10, toReview (June 2017),by the proposedinclude theincludes the curtilage ofsettlement boundary, as

are other properties inHilperton.

car park ofthe Lion and

properties that relatemore closely to the built

Fiddle Innenvironment (e.g.and aligngarden) or has limitedwith thecapacity to extend the

built form of thesettlement.

settlementboundary fordevelopmenteither side ofthis property.

No action.The revised settlementboundary reviewmethodology, as set out

Include Land at theGrange and the landimmediately to the east,

AlistairPage(1138113)

3155

in Topic Paper 1:with planning permissionSettlement Boundaryfor 15 dwellings, at M10Review (June 2017)and N10, within theexcludes unimplementedsettlement boundary.planning permissionsfrom within thesettlement boundary.

Land at the Grange isessentially surroundedon all sides by the builtform. Its inclusion will


ensure that the principleof development on thisland is acceptable and,thereafter, allow thedesign of a suitablescheme that respects thecharacter of theConservation Area. Thiswould facilitatedevelopment insustainable locations tohelp bring forward thehousing requirement asset out in Core Policy 2.



Amend the settlementboundary to reflect thecorrect boundary ofMaxcroft House, at F3.

Tom Rutt(1139015)

3353

boundary, atin Topic Paper 1:F3, to reflectSettlement Boundarythe correctReview (June 2017),boundary ofMaxcroftHouse.

includes the curtilage ofproperties that relatemore closely to the builtenvironment (e.g.garden) or has limitedcapacity to extend thebuilt form of thesettlement.


24.27 Table of representations relating to the settlement boundary review for Hullavington (1representation)

Table 24.27

Proposedaction


No action.Topic Paper 1: SettlementBoundary ReviewMethodology considersunimplemented planningpermissions, saying:

The proposedrevised settlementboundaries shouldinclude planningpermissions. In some

HannickHomes &DevelopmentLtd(863519)

2065

cases, as a result the‘The role of a settlementboundary is to define thebuilt form of the settlement.

settlement boundariesare already out ofdate. The three case

Unimplemented planningstudies, which arepermissions, by definition,referred to in Topichave yet to be built and,Paper 1: Settlementtherefore, do not form partBoundary Review

Methodology, includeplanning permissions.

of the built environment.Until they are built, there isstill a degree of uncertaintyover the exact layout of theurban form. Indeed, theymay not be built out at all.

However, for those planningpermissions wheredevelopment hascommenced, there is amuch greater certainty overthe final built form of thedevelopment.Therefore, therevised settlement boundaryreview methodology willinclude within the settlementboundary built orcommenced planningpermissions but exclude allunimplemented planningpermissions.

Nevertheless, it isrecognised that settlementboundaries represent asnapshot in time.Unimplemented planningpermissions subsequentlybuilt out can be includedwithin a future review’.


Action:Includethe school

The revised settlementboundary reviewmethodology includes built/

Include the schoolplaying fields inHullavington, at J4,

HannickHomes &DevelopmentLtd(863519)

2065

playingfields, at

commenced communityfacilities development that

within the proposedrevised settlementboundary:• Social function,provides space forexternal play andformal recreation atthe primary school• Unlikely to be soughtfor developmentowing to its present

J4, withinthesettlementboundary.

is physically related to thesettlement and recreationalor amenity space that ismore related to the builtform than the opencountryside. The schoolplaying fields are clearlybetter related to thesettlement because of theirfunction.use. In any case,

such an applicationwould be subject tochecks and controlsundertaken byWiltshire Council andSports England, whoseek to retain existingschool playing fields• Inclusion woulddefine a logicalsettlement boundaryto the west of thesettlement ofHullavington once theproposed housingallocation is built


24.28 Table of representations relating to the settlement boundary review for Lyneham (2representations)

Table 24.28

Proposedaction



Include planning permission(16/09372/FUL) for twodwellings, at I2 and I3, between

GarryStewart(1119997)

97

excludes all types ofthe Vicarage and 79, TheGreen, within the settlementboundary.

unimplementedplanningpermissions.

No action.The purpose of thesettlement boundaryreview is to reflect

Promoting Land off CalneRoad, Lyneham, at H10, I10,H11, I11, H12 and I12, for

ChrisDodds(1138508)

3215

the built form of theresidential development.settlement, not toSettlement boundaries tightlyallocate sites fordrawn and precludesdevelopment. This issustainable developmentan omission site andotherwise well-related toshould be assessedexisting settlements. This isthrough the sitecontrary to a positive approachselection process ofthe Wiltshire HousingSite Allocations Plan.

to sustainable growth set out inthe NPPF. An unnecessarilyrestrictive approach results in aPlan that is not positivelyprepared, not effective andultimately fails to deliver thehousing needed in Wiltshire.Restrictive policies should bepositively framed so as not topreclude extensions tosettlements coming forwardwhere they can be successfullyintegrated into the wider setting.


24.29 Table of representations relating to the settlement boundary review for Malmesbury (2representations)

Table 24.29

Proposedaction


No action.The methodologyexcludesunimplemented

Object to removal of area ofland to the south of VeronaHouse, at G4, which has anextant employment planningpermission.


2679

planning permissions.Any futuredevelopment of thisarea could beincluded within asubsequent review ofsettlementboundaries.

No action.The purpose of thesettlement boundaryreview is to reflect the

Include the site adjoiningWaitrose within the settlementboundary to provide a more

MintonGroup Ltd(1136804)

3001

built form of thelogical rounding off of thesettlement. This is anboundary. This site isomission site andwell-related to the settlementshould be consideredthrough the siteselection process.

and there is little difference interms of landscape characterbetween it and the Waitrosesite. There are no listedbuildings within its immediatevicinity, whereas the Waitrosesite is closer to the Grade II StJohn’s Bridge and Avon Mills.The site is visually andfunctionally contained by theRiver Avon to the north andwest, built development to thesouth and the A429 to theeast.


24.30 Table of representations relating to the settlement boundary review for Melksham andBowerhill Village (5 representations)

Table 24.30

Proposedaction


No action.‘Large village’ is definedin Core Policy 1Settlement Strategy in the

Exclude WoolmoreFarm, at I13 and J13,from within the

MelkshamWithoutParishCouncil(857749)

393

adopted Wiltshire CoreStrategy (January 2015).

settlement boundary.This is inconsistent with

Bowerhill is not classifiedthe methodologyas a ‘Large village’ but,because employmentdue to its functionalsites at the edge ofrelationship withlarge villages should be

excluded from thesettlement boundary.

Melksham, it isconsidered together withMelksham for thepurposes of the CoreStrategy and they’reclassified as a markettown.

No action.The settlement boundarymaps simply show thesettlement boundary for

Land use designations,e.g. employment land,amenity land and public

MelkshamWithoutParishCouncil(857749)

395

the purposes of theconsultation on the draft

open space, are notincluded on the

Plan. Upon adoption ofsettlement boundarythe Wiltshire Housing Sitemaps. They wereAllocations Plan, thepreviously colour codedadopted boundary willon the mapsform part of the Localaccompanying the WestPlan policies map, whichWiltshire District Plan.accompanies theHow will these be

preserved and recordedin the future?

Wiltshire Core Strategyand shows all of therelevant policies anddesignations. This issimilar to the policies mapthat accompanied theWest Wiltshire DistrictPlan.

No action. Support noted. Support inclusion ofWoolmore Farm, at 113and J13, because it


738

relates more to the builtform and has limitedcapacity to extend thebuilt form of thesettlement.


Action:Updateproposed

The proposed revisedsettlement boundary willbe updated to reflect built/

The settlementboundary should followthe property boundary

AnthonyHemmings(1131985)

2186

settlementcommenced developmentbetween 541 Outmarshboundary tosince the cut-off date ofand the site for the newreflect recentApril 2016 for theair ambulance helicopterbuilt/pre-submissionstation, at D16.commencedsettlement boundary

maps prior to submissionand/ or adoption.

Permission has beengranted for the airambulance helicopter

developmentprior to

station. There is now no submissionand/ oradoption.

need for a bufferbetween 541 Outmarshand this site.

No action. Inclusion of this areawould not comply with therevised settlement

Include Land to theWest of SemingtonRoad, Melksham, at

TerraStrategicLtd(1136436)

3039

boundary reviewC11, D11 and D12.methodology. TheOutline permissionpurpose of the settlement(17/01095/OUT) refusedboundary review is tofor residentialreflect changes to thedevelopment but site isbuilt form and not toin a sustainable location

adjacent to thesettlement boundary.

allocate land fordevelopment. This siteshould be consideredthrough the site selectionprocess as an omissionsite.


24.31 Table of representations relating to the settlement boundary review for North Bradley (5representations)

Table 24.31

Proposedaction


No action.The settlementboundary is apolicy tool to reflect

Keep Woodmarsh Road inNorth Bradley, notTrowbridge. It appears that

CathrynHanny(1125262)

503

the extent of thethe proposed settlementbuilt form andboundary will remove 46direct development.It is separate fromparish boundaries.

Woodmarsh Road, at I6,along with the rest of this sideof the street, from NorthBradley and make it a part ofTrowbridge.

No action.The White HorseBusiness Park isconsidered to lie

The revised settlementboundary review methodologyhas not been applied

TimHounsome(403859)

1193

within theconsistently. White HorsesettlementBusiness Park, at J3, J4, J5,boundary forK2, K3, K4, K5, K6, K7, L2,Trowbridge. ThisL3, L4, L5, L6, L7 and M7, isarea is employmentisolated from both Trowbridgedevelopmentand North Bradley and,physically, andtherefore, should not befunctionally, relatedincluded within the settlementto Trowbridge andboundary. The site is mostlythereforebuilt out so there is no needconsidered to beto change its planning status.part of theConfusingly, the map doessettlementboundary forTrowbridge.

not indicate whether the siteis within the Trowbridge orNorth Bradley settlementboundary.



The proposed settlementboundary behind propertieson the east side of

TimHounsome(403859)

1193

revisedmethodology, asWoodmarsh Road, at H5, I5,settlementset out in TopicI6, J6 and J7, should be aboundary toPaper 1:straight line rather thaninclude,Settlementdeviate to follow small gapswhereBoundary Reviewin the frontage, which read asappropriate inMethodology (Junepart of the built up area of theline with the2017) includes thevillage. These amendmentsmethodology,curtilage of amay lead to pressure for infillthe curtilageproperty thatdevelopment but these wouldof propertiesrelates morenot be significant given thealong the eastclosely to the built


environment (e.g. agarden) or haslimited capacity to

extent of frontagedevelopment alongWoodmarsh.

side ofWoodmarshRoad, at H5,I5, I6, J6 andJ7.

extend the builtform of asettlement.

No action. Support noted. Landscaping should beprovided with any expansionof the White Horse Business

NorthBradleyParishCouncil(1129933)

1686

Park, at at J3, J4, J5, K2, K3,K4, K5, K6, K7, L2, L3, L4,L5, L6, L7 and M7. TheParish Council does notobject to the boundary of thisemployment site being movedwestwards, which it wouldnormally see it as anencroachment into the parish.The area is not indicated asbeing suitable for saving aspart of the proposedlandscape setting policy, asidentified in the LandscapeSetting Report that supportsthe draft Wiltshire HousingSite Allocations Plan. TheParish Council is aware of theneed to argue from soundevidence and values the localemployment that could beprovided by an expansion ofthis site.

No action.The revisedsettlementboundary review

Settlement boundariesshould include allocations soas to ensure delivery. If our

WellbeckStrategicLand(1138002)

3148

methodology, asproposed omission site atset out in TopicNorth Bradley, at OrganpoolPaper 1:Farm, between The Rank andSettlementSouthwick Road, at E8, F7Boundary Reviewand F8, is allocated then the

settlement boundary shouldbe amended to include it.

Methodology (June2017), excludesunimplementedallocationsbecause the builtform is yet to bedefined. This site isan omission siteand should be


considered throughthe site selectionprocess.

No action. Support noted. Support the inclusion of partof our client’s site, at thesouth west of the village, at

PrimeMeridian(1139002)

3351

F8, F9, G8 and G9 plus F11,F12, G10, G11, H9 and H10,within the proposedsettlement boundary.


24.32 Table of representations relating to the settlement boundary review for Oaksey (5representations)

Table 24.32

Proposedaction

Officerresponse

Issue Name(s) Representationnumber(s)


Include SHLAA site 684, at K6, L6and L5, which has been grantedplanning permission for fourdwellings (16/04578/ FUL)

JamesWoodhouse(1117609)

35, 38

methodologyexcludesunimplementedplanningpermissionsfrom thesettlementboundary.


Include Greenacres Farm, withredundant farm buildings, at H7and H8, within the proposedrevised settlement boundary andallocate for housing:• The house, gardens andoutbuildings of Woodfields Farm,The Green, Oaksey have beenincluded. This is a listed site,making development unlikely.• Previous support from planningofficers for residential developmentat Greenacres Farm andaffordable housing close to BendyBow in the field area• Proposed site at 11 Wick Roadfor 11 houses has a road that isgenerally narrower than The Green

Julian Barry(1119042)

61

methodologyexcludes farmyards and farmbuildings on theedge of largevillages.

and within proximity of aConservation Area. Greenacres isnot within a Conservation Area• Include field area at GreenacresFarm, because there are plans toredevelop part of Bendy Bowestate.



Retain the existing settlementboundary around SHLAA site3349, Street Farm Paddocks,Oaksey, at I6.• Central site within the village,whereas the draft Plan seeks toextend the settlement boundary ina linear fashion, away from thecentre of the village• Clearly defined boundaries,which means that there would beno further encroachment into thecountryside• Residential curtilages to the eastalmost in line with the rear of thesite• Between 2006 and 2016, therehave been only 13 completions inOaksey. No other suitable sites forhousing within the village.• By removing sustainable sitesfrom the settlement boundary,Wiltshire will be unable to meet itsobjectively assessed housingneed.

Juliett Todd(1129287)

1550, 1551

methodologyexcludes thecurtilage of aproperty thatrelates more tothe opencountryside (e.g.a paddock).


24.33 Table of representations relating to the settlement boundary review for Purton (1representation)

Table 24.33

Proposedaction



The revised settlementboundary methodologyexcludes employment

Retain CollegeFarmyard, at K9,within the settlement

PurtonParishCouncil(1054962)

1276

boundarydevelopment, farmboundary becausearoundbuildings and farmyards atthis area has not beenCollegeFarmyard, atK9.

the edge of large villagesbecause the protectionagainst residential

used for employment(farming) for decadesand is not designated

conversion afforded toas employment landemployment sites in Corein any WiltshirePolicy 35 of the WiltshireCouncil planningCore Strategy does notdocument or in the

PurtonNeighbourhood Plan.

extend to large villages.However, this site is nolonger in employment useand is not designated asemployment land in anyplanning documents.


The revised settlementboundary includes builtcommunity facilities

Adjust the proposedsettlement boundaryto skirt the southern

PurtonParishCouncil(1054962)

1276

boundarydevelopment that isboundary of St Maryaround Stphysically related to theschool, including itsMary School,settlement. The car parkcar park to the eastat K10 andand play area are part ofand the play area toK11, to includethe curtilage of thethe southeast, at K10its car park toproperty and/ orand K11, rather than

taking it through themiddle of the school.

the east andplay area tothe southeast.

recreational/ amenityspace that relates moreclosely to the builtenvironment.


24.34 Table of representations relating to the settlement boundary review for Royal WoottonBassett (6 representations)

Table 24.34


No action. Supported noted. As operator, supportremoval of safeguardedrail fed aggregates

AggregateIndustries UKLtd(475682)

1

depot, at C10, D10,C11, D11, E11 and F11,from within thesettlement boundary

No action.The revisedmethodologyexcludes

Include existingemployment allocationat Templars Way

OxfordUniversity EndowmentManagement(642979)

2466

unimplementedallocations from

Industrial Estate, at E12and F12, and the

within theemergingsettlementneighbourhood planboundary, such asallocation at Maplethe Wiltshire CoreDrive, at E4, F4, E5 andStrategyF5, within the settlementemploymentboundary. Theallocation Land tomethodology is flawed;the west ofexcluding existingTemplars Way.allocations means thatThe same wouldthe settlement boundaryapply for thewill be redundant asproposedsoon as they areneighbourhoodimplemented. Theplan allocation atinclusion of both sitesMaple Drive.will ensure consistencyHowever, thebetween the WiltshireExaminer’s ReportCore Strategy,recommended theNeighbourhood Plandeletion of thisand the Wiltshire

Housing Site AllocationsPlan.

allocation from thedraftneighbourhoodplan and it hasbeen removedfrom the versionthat went to areferendum in April2018.


Action: Updatepre-submissionsettlement

Thepre-submissionsettlement

Include commenceddevelopment on land tothe south of Interface

R Nevill(1133494)

Wainhomes(South West)Holdings Ltd(389564)

2585, 3054

boundaries withcompletions andcommencementssince April 2016prior tosubmission and/or adoption.

boundaries will beupdated withcompletions andcommencementssince April 2016(the cut-off date forthe pre-submission

Business Park, at G10,G11, H10, H11, I9, I10,I11, J10 and J11, whichhas planning permission(14/03343/FUL) for 68dwellings, 39 bed carehome and 22 age

maps) prior tosubmission and/ oradoption.

restricted dwellings anda country park. Therehas been recentconsent on the carehomes scheme foradditional dwellings.The settlementboundary should takeinto account the wholesite, including the openspace (country park),and be drawn along therailway line, which formsthe southern boundaryof the site.

No action. Noted. However,the purpose of thesettlement

The proposed revisedsettlement boundary istightly drawn around the

LedaPropertiesLtd(840643)

3006

boundary review isbuilt form and restrictsto reflect changesfurther growth. This is ain the builtshort-sighted andenvironment sincedamaging approach. Itthe drawing up ofis likely that furtherthe originalhousing sites will besettlementrequired and, therefore,boundaries. Thethe opportunity shouldrevisedbe taken to providemethodologyfurther direction forexcludesgrowth, not reduceunimplementedoptions. The settlementallocations fromboundary review shouldwithin thebe part of a combinedsettlementCore Strategy reviewboundary.and Site AllocationsHowever, thePlan with housingWiltshire Housingallocations includedSite Allocationswithin the revisedPlan is proposingboundaries. This willadditional housinghelp ensure delivery

and offer greatercertainty.

allocations to meetidentified housingneed across


Wiltshire, excludingChippenham. Thecurrent LocalDevelopmentScheme(September 2107)includes thesettlementboundary reviewas part of theWiltshire HousingSite AllocationsPlan. Paragraph4.13 of theWiltshire CoreStrategy statesthat ‘it will also bethe prerogative ofthe community toreview settlementboundariesthrough aneighbourhoodplan.’

No action. Support noted. Long-term interest indevelopment of landnorth of the town.

GallagherEstates(1100941)

3069

Support purpose ofsettlement boundaryreview to clearly definethe extent of the town,including wheredevelopment can andcan’t take place, whichwill ensure thatdecisions about thefuture direction ofgrowth can be made ina co-ordinated mannerthrough the Local PlanReview.This addressesan existing deficiencyhighlighted by theWiltshire Core StrategyInspector, whoconsidered the existingsettlement boundariesto be out-of-date.


24.35 Table of representations relating to the settlement boundary review for Seend (18representations)

Table 24.35

Proposedaction


No action.The car park isthe curtilage of aproperty (the Bell

Retain the existingsettlement boundary andexclude the extended

Ian Seager(1122975)

Mark Wood(933063)

Steven Vaux(1124979)

204, 443, 464,465, 466, 467,481, 1640, 2611

Inn) that relatesmore closely tothe builtenvironment andhas limited

western car park of theformer Bell Inn, a Grade IIlisted building, at F8 andG8. Its inclusion could leadto future unnecessary and

capacity to extendunwanted development forBrian Crisp(1124982)

the built form ofthe settlement in

housing and would goagainst the emerging

terms of scale andSeend NeighbourhoodJohn Whalley(1124984) location. It will be

the prerogative ofPlan, which identifies asignificant view there

communities towithin a landscape gapYvette Rowe(1124988) subsequently

review theirfrom Seend to the opencountryside. The

settlementsettlement boundary willDawnSmethurst(1125004)

boundary throughtheneighbourhoodplanning process.

be subject to reviewthrough the neighbourhoodplan. Local engagementand knowledge willsupersede weak desktopmethodology.

Seend ParishCouncil(1129662)

Dr Nigel Knott(1133677)


The allotmentsare recreational oramenity space at

Retain the existingsettlement boundary andinclude the Women’s

SeendWomen’sInstitute(1124958)

456, 463, 1330,1640, 2616

settlementthe edge of theInstitute allotments, at H6.boundary tosettlement thatThey are largely

Seend LyeRecreationField Charity(1124971)

include theWomen’sInstituteallotments, atH6.

relates moreclosely to the builtenvironmentbecause of itsrelationship with

surrounded by existingdevelopment and relatebetter to the builtenvironment rather thanthe open countryside.

Jo Vaux(1128439)

existingdevelopment andfunction.

Weak methodology. Thesettlement boundary willbe subject to reviewthrough the neighbourhoodplan.


Dr Nigel Knott


(1133677)


The recreationfield isrecreational or

Retain the existingsettlement boundary andinclude the Seend Lye

Seend LyeRecreationField Charity(1124971)

463, 1330,2614 / 2616,2745

settlementamenity space atRecreation Field, at H6, I6boundary tothe edge of theand I7. It is largely

Jo Vaux(1128439)

include theSeend Lye

settlement thatrelates more

surrounded by existingdevelopment and relates

RecreationField, at H6,I6 and I7.

closely to the builtenvironmentbecause of its

better to the built form thanthe open countryside.Inconsistent application of

Seend ParishCouncil(1129662) relationship withmethodology and lack of

existingdevelopment andfunction.

local knowledge. Thesettlement boundary willbe subject to reviewthrough the neighbourhoodplan.

Dr Nigel Knott(1133677)

Aster Homes(1134431)

No action. Support noted.The purpose ofthe settlement

Curious about therationale behind thechanges to the existing

Lady CarolaThorpe(1126286)

848

boundary reviewsettlement boundary,is to accuratelyhowever broadly supportreflect the builtthem if the underlyingform of theintention is to protect thesettlement.rural character of Seend.DevelopmentDisagree with some of theoutside of thecomments made by SeendsettlementParish Council and the

Neighbourhood PlanSteering Group.

boundary wouldbe considered asbeing in the opencountryside.

No action.Whether or not aneighbourhoodplan is preparing

Page 4 of the MelkshamCommunity Area TopicPaper is incorrect. Seend

SeendNeighbourhoodPlan SteeringGroup(1126956)

1168

to allocatehousing or review

Neighbourhood PlanSteering Group was not

a settlementasked whether it wasboundary is listedallocating housing oras ‘unknown’ untilreviewing the settlementthere isboundary but this is stateddocumentedas ‘Unknown’. In fact, it isevidence and aproposing to allocate

housing and review thesettlement boundaries.

degree ofcertainty, i.e. theneighbourhoodplan has


published a draftplan forconsultation.

No action. Noted. Proposed changes onlyfor Seend and not SeendCleeve or Sells Green.


1640

Parish Council andNeighbourhood PlanSteering Group havelooked at and applied themethodology to Seend andare in complete agreementthat most changes areunnecessary.

No action. Support noted. Support proposed changeat the Bradley Laneentrance to School Road,at G7, because it tidies upthe boundary


1640

No action. Support noted. Support proposed changeat the Horse Pond, at K6,because it tides up theboundary.


1640

Action:Adjust thesettlement

These arerelatively isolateddwellings from the

Object to the inclusion ofthe extended curtilages ofthe large houses on the


1640

boundary linemain settlement,south side of Seend Highto follow buton the south sideStreet, at I7 and J7.Thesenot includeof the High Street,properties relate morethe road onwith large gardensclosely to the openthe north sidethat relate morecountryside, as they areof the Highclosely to thegardens/ paddocks, andStreet, at I7open countryside,they have the capacity toand J7,whose inclusionsubstantially extend thetherebyhas the capacitybuilt form of the settlement

in terms of scale andlocation.

excluding thehouses on

to substantiallyextend the builtform of thesettlement.

the southside of theHigh Streetat thislocation.

No action. Support noted. Support the inclusion ofthe church at the end ofChurch Walk and the three


1640

houses, one in ChurchWalk, the house on thecorner of Church Walk andSeend House, H7, H8 and


I8. These are the curtilageof properties that relatebetter to the built form andhave limited capacity toextend the builtenvironment in terms ofscale and location. Theline of trees in H7 is partof amenity space thatrelates more closely to thebuilt environment. We donot agree with includingother parts of the area inH7.

No action.The settlementboundary followsbut does not

Object to moving thesettlement boundary alongthe north of the High


1640

include clearlyStreet, at H7, but movingdefined physicalfeatures, such asthe High Street.

it back to the south of theHigh Street, at I7 and J7.This is inconsistent.

No action. Support noted. Support the proposedchange at G8 (south)because this tidies up theboundary.


1640

Action:Adjust thesettlement

The settlementboundary shouldfollow but not

Owner of Seend House.Puzzled by the path of thesettlement boundary

Simon Peters(1139012)

3352

boundary lineinclude clearlyaround my house, at H7to continuedefined physicaland H8. It takes a weirdthe southernfeatures, such asloop over my property,boundarywalls/ hedgerows,excluding most of mywest to joinand include thegarden to the north, whichthecurtilage of ais at odds with how otherneighbouringproperty, atH7 and H8.

property thatbetter relates tothe built

houses have been treated.Suggest a more logical fit,which would be consistent

environment orwith other properties,has limitedwould be to continue thecapacity to extendthe built form of asettlement.

southern boundary west tojoin the neighbouringproperty.


24.36 Table of representations relating to the settlement boundary review for Semington (5representations)

Table 24.36

Proposedaction



This area behind 14The Knapps is thecurtilage of the property

Include the paddockarea to 14 TheKnapps, H7, when the

Jean Monico(1114410)

112

boundary tothat relates more to theplanning permissioninclude thebuilt environment,for 24 dwellings at Starea behindadjacent to St GeorgesGeorges Road is

included within thesettlement boundary.

14 TheKnapps and

Road, and has limitedcapacity to extend the

join StGeorgesRoad.

built form of thesettlement because theproposed settlementboundary would thenform a straight line to StGeorges Road.

No action.The revised settlementboundary excludesunimplemented planning

Include planningpermission for 24dwellings at St

LandDevelopmentand PlanningConsultantsLtd(162663)

1099

permissions. TheSHLAA site is anomission site and should

Georges Road, at G7,G8, H7 and H8, andformer Sale Ground, at

be considered throughthe site selectionprocess.

G8, G9, H8 and H9, apromoted SHLAA site(724), within theproposed settlementboundary. Includinggranted permissionsand sustainable sitespromoted through theSHLAA process wouldhelp future-proof thePlan, secure the fiveyear housing landsupply and ensure adefensible settlementboundary into the nextPlan period.

Action:Updateproposed

The proposed revisedsettlement boundary willbe updated to reflect

Extend the proposedsettlement boundary tothe southern side of

AnthonyHemmings(1131985)

1275

settlementbuilt/ commencedthe former railwayboundary todevelopment since theembankment, betweenreflect recentcut-off date of April 2016541 Outmarsh and thebuilt/for the pre-submission


settlement boundarymaps prior tosubmission and/ oradoption.

new air ambulancehelicopter station, atK1.

commenceddevelopmentprior tosubmissionand/ oradoption


This area behind 14The Knapps is thecurtilage of the property

Include the areabehind 14, TheKnapps, at H7, withinthe proposedsettlement boundary.

SemingtonParishCouncil(396082)

1321

boundary toinclude the

that relates more to thebuilt environment,

area behindadjacent to St Georges14 TheRoad, and has limitedKnapps andcapacity to extend thejoin StGeorgesRoad.

built form of thesettlement because theproposed settlementboundary would thenform a straight line to StGeorges Road

No action.This site is an omissionsite and should beconsidered through thesite selection process.

Include Land North ofPound Lane, at G5,G6, H5 and H6, withinthe proposed revisedsettlement boundary.

RichboroughEstates(1132602)

2390


24.37 Table of representations relating to the settlement boundary review for Shaw and Whitley(3 representations)

Table 24.37

Proposedaction


No action.The purpose of thesettlement boundary reviewis to reflect the built form of

Include area of land, atJ6 and K6, within thesettlement boundary. It

AnnaHumpston(1119160)

71

the settlement. This is anis bordered by existingomission site and should beconsidered through the siteselection process.

development on all sidesand the Whitley GolfClub entrance forms theboundary edge of thevillage.


Include land between206 and 208 CorshamRoad, Whitley, at K5,within the settlementboundary.

W Bollen(1138423)

384

the settlement. This is anomission site and should beconsidered through the siteselection process.

No action.The revised settlementboundary reviewmethodology excludesemployment sites at theedge of large villages.

Include Whitley Farm,Whitley, at H5 and H6,within the settlementboundary.

NestonParkEstate(1138214)

3185


24.38 Table of representations relating to the settlement boundary review for Sherston (1representation)

Table 24.38


Action: Include thefull garden curtilageof 15 Thompsons

The revised settlementboundary reviewmethodology includes

Include full gardencurtilage of 15Thompsons Hill,

NevilleBurn(894625)

598

Hill, Sherston, at J8,built residentialSherston, at J8, andand neighbouringdevelopment and theneighbouringresidential propertiescurtilage of a propertyresidentialon Thompsons Hill atthat relates better toproperties onI8, J8, 19 and J9,the built form (e.g. aThompsons Hill atwithin the proposedrevised settlementboundary.

garden) or that wouldnot substantially extendthe built form of thesettlement.

I8, J8, 19 and J9,within the proposedrevised settlementboundary.


24.39 Table of representations relating to the settlement boundary review for Southwick (2representations)

Table 24.39

Proposedaction


No action. Noted. General objection.No specific pointsmentioned.

Do not support thechanges in the proposedrevised settlementboundary.

SouthwickParishCouncil(1132724)

2447

No action.The revised settlementboundary reviewmethodology, as set out in

Do not support thechanges in the proposedrevised settlement

FrancisMorland(397159)

3193

Topic Paper 1: Settlementboundary, particularlyBoundary Reviewthose at the western endMethodology (June 2017),of the settlement. Forincludes built/ commencedexample, the inclusion ofdevelopment that is100 Frome Road, at F7physically related to theand G7, the large housesettlement, as is 100 Fromeon the opposite side ofRoad, and the curtilage ofFrome Road, at F8, andproperties that relates moreanother on the west sideclosely to the builtof Wesley Road, at F8environment or has limitedand G8. These changescapacity to extend the builtwill seriously prejudice

the emerging SouthwickNeighbourhood Plan.

form of the settlement, aswith Felstead House, TheOld Forge and 8 WesleyLane, on the opposite sideof Frome Road.


24.40 Table of representations relating to the settlement boundary review for Sutton Benger (1representation)

Table 24.40

Proposedaction


No action. Noted. However, theWiltshire Housing SiteAllocations Plan is not

The centrally locatedprimary school should berelocated, rather than

Chris Kelly(1126214)

895

proposing any housingallocations in SuttonBenger.

expanded, as part of anyfuture development in thevillage.


24.41 Table of representations relating to the settlement boundary review for Sutton Veny (8representations)

Table 24.41

Proposedaction


Action:Amend thesettlement

The revised settlementboundary review methodologyin Topic Paper 1: Settlement

Amend theproposedsettlement

WillTempler(856196)

98

boundary toBoundary Review (June 2017)boundary to followfollow thestates that the settlementthe line of Littleroad (Hillboundary should follow but notHalse, Hill Road,Road) andinclude clearly defined physicalSutton Veny, at I8then thefeatures, such as roads andand I9. It shouldhedgerowhedgerows. Amending thefollow the road andboundary ofboundary in this location tothen from the roadLittle Halse,Hill Road, atI8 and I9.

follow the road and hedgerowboundary of Little Halse, HillRoad, would comply with themethodology.

go directly downthe side of theproperty ratherthan doglegging.



Include full gardencurtilage ofProspect House,

Mr & MrsCutler(1124912)

437, 438, 439

boundary toBoundary Review (June 2017)Sutton Veny, at J8,include theincludes the curtilage of awithin the

settlementboundary.

rest of thegarden

property that relates moreclosely to the built environment

curtilage ofProspectHouse, at J8.

(e.g. a garden) or has limitedcapacity to extend the built formof a settlement in terms of scaleand location. Extending theboundary to include the rest ofthe garden curtilage wouldcomply with the methodology.



Include full gardencurtilage of 44High Street, Sutton

PhilipClark(424159)

884, 885, 886

boundary toBoundary Review (June 2017)Veny, at I7, withinthe settlementboundary.

include therest of the

includes the curtilage of aproperty that relates more

gardenclosely to the built environmentcurtilage of(e.g. a garden) or has limited44 HighStreet, SuttonVeny, at I7.

capacity to extend the built formof a settlement in terms of scaleand location. Extending theboundary to include the rest ofthe garden curtilage wouldcomply with the methodology.


No action.The revised settlementboundary review methodologyin Topic Paper 1: Settlement

Include LandNorth of theKennels, Norton

RozWalker(1128189)

1246

Boundary Review (June 2017)Road, Suttonexcludes all unimplementedVeny, at I5, withinplanning permissions becausethe settlementthe exact pattern ofboundary.This sitedevelopment is yet to behas an extantdetermined. The changesplanningproposed by thepermissionpre-submission settlement(17/01776/FUL)boundary at Grid Reference I5and part of the siteinclude the removal of thelies within thePound Barton Industrial Estateexisting settlement( as an employment site on theboundary but theedge of a large village) and thepre-submission

boundary takes itout.

redrawing of the settlementboundary to follow theboundaries of the adjacentresidential properties.


24.42 Table of representations relating to the settlement boundary review for Trowbridge (17representations)

Table 24.42

Proposedaction


No action. Noted. However, thereis a generalpresumption in favourof development withinsettlement boundaries.

Build housing onbrownfield land ratherthan hold back siteswithin the existingsettlement boundary

Rachel Hunt(1102653)

27, 28, 31

No action. Noted. Support inclusion ofMeadowside, 39Staverton within the

Joy Jeffreys(1121711)

161

proposed revisedsettlement boundary, atI2.

No action. Noted. However, thereis a generalpresumption in favourof development withinsettlement boundaries.

The draft Plan isinconsistent with nationalpolicy by treating all siteswith the proposed revisedsettlement boundary as

TrowbridgeTownCouncil(391073)

168

windfall when some havebeen identified as havingthe potential to deliversustainable developmentwithin the Plan period.

No action. Noted.If you change thesettlement boundary forTrowbridge to include the

FrancescaVowles(1122860)

187

proposed housingallocation at SouthwickCourt then the site will notbe in Southwick so it can’treally be called SouthwickCourt.You will haveSouthwick Country Parkfacing a Trowbridgehousing estate. It’s verymuddled and confusing.I don’t think you’vethought this change ofboundary throughproperly.


Noted. The proposedchanges to the existingsettlement boundary

Concerned that theproposed revisedsettlement boundary

RachelTurner(1120653)

408

1221settlementshould follow thebetween Sandringham


RogerWilliams(1127014)

2534

2610

boundary toinclude therecreationalor amenity

revised settlementboundary reviewmethodology in TopicPaper 1: Settlement

Road and Balmoral Roadin Trowbridge, which willrun alongside theproposed housing

BarbaraGoodship(1133364)

space at theedge of thesettlement

Boundary ReviewMethodology (June2017). However, the

allocation at SouthwickCourt (SHLAA site 3565),means that access to this

that relatesrevised settlementsite via one of theseDavidGoodship(1133638)

more closelyto the builtenvironmentand to follow

boundary reviewmethodology includesrecreational or amenityspace at the edge of a

roads is planned. Theseroads were built ascul-de-sacs. Theboundary hedge is

clearlysettlement that relatesprotected by law. Itdefinedmore closely to the builtappears that if thephysicalenvironment. Theboundary is changed infeatures,proposed changes tothis way that it will nosuch as thethe existing settlementlonger form the boundaryhedgerow,boundary mistakenlyso access can beat F7, F8,exclude these spacesobtained from your newE9, F9, G9,G10 andG11.

at the edge of thesettlement, which relateto the existing housing

boundary. Why is itnecessary to change theboundary at this location?

development, alongsideConcerned that theremay be issues with theproposed changes to the

Sandringham andBalmoral Road, at G10and G11, and further

settlement boundary along the western edgebetween SandringhamRoad and Balmoral Roadin Trowbridge, such as:• Effect on historichedgerows• Effect on historic parishboundaries• legal issues relating tochange of land use• supporting greenfieldover brownfielddevelopment• lack of adequateconsultation• loss of habitat forBechstein’s Bats• building on land that isprone to flooding• archaeological issues• denying resident’saccess to amenity land• changing cul-de-sacsinto through road access• increasing local trafficpollution in a built up area


• insufficient health,education, transport,emergency services andother infrastructure

of the settlement, at F7,F8, E9, F9 and G9.Themethodology states thatthe settlementboundary should, wherepracticable, followclearly defined physicalfeatures, such ashedgerows andwatercourses.

No action. Noted. Note that their site, Landoff the A363 at WhiteHorse Business Park is

CastlewoodPropertiesVenturesLtd(1130978)

1832

located outside of butadjoining the existingsettlement boundaries ofTrowbridge and NorthBradley.

No action.The draft plan wassubject to a 10 weekconsultation between

Lack of consultation onproposed changes to thesettlement boundary, withreference to SouthwickCourt.

RogerWilliams(1127014)

1897

July and September2017. A consultationevent was held atCounty HallTrowbridge, where thepublic were able to viewthe proposals and talkto planning officers.Thedraft plan was subjectto a 10 weekconsultation betweenJuly and September2017. A consultationevent was held atCounty HallTrowbridge, where thepublic were able to viewthe proposals and talkto planning officers.

No action. At the time of writing ofthe draft WiltshireHousing Site

Why does draft WHSAPsay in paragraph 3.3 thatno settlements within the

Jannetteand AdrianRobinson(1132392)

2321

Allocations Plan, noTrowbridge CA have hadsettlements within thetheir settlementTrowbridge Communityboundaries reviewedArea were consideredthrough neighbourhoodto have had theirplans? What about thesettlement boundary


reviewed through aneighbourhoodplanning process. The

Community GovernanceReview that took place in2016?

CommunityGovernance Review isa separate matter thatlooks at theadministrativeboundaries of townsand parishes withinWiltshire. ThisSettlement BoundaryReview looks at thelimits of development,a planning tool thatshows wheredevelopment isacceptable in principle.


Include site at DrynhamLane, Trowbridge, whichis allocated in the

R Nevill(1133494)

Wainhomes(SouthWest)HoldingsLtd(389564)

2586

3053site allocations becausethe purpose of thesettlement boundary isto define the built formof a settlement.There is likely to beuncertainty over howmuch space within the

Wiltshire Core Strategy.Object to exclusion of siteallocations because thesettlement boundaryshould reflect the policiesand allocations in thelocal plan, the Council isreliant on these sites to

red line on a site plandrawing is taken up bythe built form.

deliver much needed newhomes and their inclusionwould give certaintyabout the precise statusof these allocated sites.


Object to the proposedexclusion of Land to theSouth of Blackthorn Way


2680

areas that relate more(Staverton Triangle) fromthe Trowbridgesettlement boundary.

to the open countrysidethan the built form.Thisarea opens out into theopen countrysidesurroundingTrowbridge. Themethodology alsoexcludes sites withunimplementedplanning permissionsand omission sites,which should beconsidered through the


site selection processof the Wiltshire HousingSite Allocations Plan.

No action.The White HorseBusiness Park isconsidered to lie within

White Horse BusinessPark is now and alwayshas been within the


3192

the settlementparish of North Bradley,boundary fornot Trowbridge. So it isTrowbridge. Thecontrary to Topic Papersettlement boundary is1: Settlement Boundarya planning tool to defineReview Methodology tothe built form of ainclude it within thesettlement and is notthe same as the parishboundary.

settlement boundary.Rather, as anemployment site on theedge of a large village, itshould be outside thesettlement boundary.


24.43 Table of representations relating to the settlement boundary review for Warminster (40representations)

Table 24.43

Proposedaction


No action.The Councilcommitted toupdating settlement

Object to anychange to theexisting settlement

Ian Cadzow(1126508)

Adrian Rickett(1128369)

921; 1310;1447; 1449;1524; 1542;1721/ 1722;1817; 1818;

boundaries toaccurately reflect

boundary forWarminster. The

1819; 1820; changes to the builtchange to theAndrew deLukacs Lessner(706936)

1821; 1983/1984; 2042;2060/ 2061;

form and adopt aconsistent approachacross the County by

settlement boundaryfor East of Dene, atP8 and P9, is not

2076/ 2077; following the revisedrequired, is illogicalElizabeth deLukacs Lessner(704457)

2253; 2266;2294/ 2295/2297; 2315;

settlement boundaryreview methodologyin Topic Paper 1:Settlement BoundaryReview (June 2017).

and will allowdevelopers theopportunity to furtherspeculatively developthe site beyond yourproposed draft plan.

Mr StephenClimpson(1129196)

2343; 2682;2814; 2934;2948;

WN Overy(704465)

Michael Perry(709291)

Julie Downton(702421)

Brian Downton(1130943)

Barrie Higgins(702406)

Tom Williams(705359)

Kate Williams(1130946)

Jo Cadzow(1131344)

Jeremy Cuff(701827)

Mark Burnand(705056)


CharlotteBurnand(1131654)

Leo Aylen(704678);

Jeremy Kelton(1126756);

Orla and PaulDunn Carder(1132219)

KarenJohnson-Wright(711666)

Karen Forster(1132418)

Mr and Mrs NSykes(1134057)

Miss K Freeman(709293)

Amanda Cuff(701840)

Antony Pinsent(1135685)


Reassess andupdate the MinimumHousing

East BorehamResidentsAction Group(706891)

1450;1456

the built form of theRequirement figuressettlement and not toallocate new sites fordevelopment.

based on aconsistentmethodology outlinedin the Core Strategybefore allocating newsites and changingsettlementboundaries.

No action.This area of road isnot included withinthe proposed revised

Changing thesettlement boundaryto include the area of

East BorehamResidentsAction Group(706891);Nick Parker(397127);

1502; 2917

settlement boundary(red line on thesettlement boundary

the road fromBoreham Rd to thedevelopment site in

review maps)the allocation will


only encouragedevelopers to keepapplying for planning

because the revisedsettlement boundaryreview methodology

permission for the requires theremaining land of settlement boundaryHome Farm in the to follow but notfuture. Exclude the include clear physical

features, such asroads.

joining road areafrom the allocationand settlementboundary change,thus keeping itoutside thesettlement boundarybut acknowledgingthe need for accessfrom Boreham Roadto the proposed newhousing.

Action:Consider howthe settlement

The purpose of thesettlement boundaryreview maps is to

Warminstersettlement boundarymap, on page 28 of

WarminsterTown Council(1129823)

1662

boundaryillustrate the changesthe Warminsterreview mapsto the settlementCommunity Areacould beboundary betweenTopic Paper, doesimproved by,the existing boundarynot show the currentfor example,(shown as a blueplanning statusshowing theline), which has beenaccurately; itplanningcarried forward asexcludes the Corecontextpart of the WiltshireStrategy allocations,alongside thesettlementboundary lines.

Core Strategy fromthe former districtlocal plans, and the

proposed SHLAAsites and extantplanning andcompletedpermissions.

pre-submissionboundary (shown asa red line).

Omission of CoreStrategy boundariesmight prejudice the

Chapters 5 and 6,which detail the siteselection process,Appendix Dcontain mapsassessment criteria,showing thewhich are the basisrelationship betweenfor many of thethe pre-submissionsettlement boundaryand SHLAA sites.

SHLAA site selectionprocess decisions.This could declarethe process flawed,if the settlementboundaries are notcorrect, in particularthe exclusion criteriaset out in Table D2,


Stage 2a questions 1and 2. Further issuesarise when assessingany SHLAA site onthe basis of itsseparation from thesettlement boundaryor not being adjacentto it (e.g. 2091, 1007and 1030).


New Core StrategyAreas represent aconsiderable


1662

in Topic Paper 1:expansion of theSettlement Boundarytown and settlementReview (June 2017)boundary. Even if theexcludes siteexact line cannot beallocations becausecurrently definedthe pattern ofdevelopment is yet tobe determined.

(due to housepositions not beingagreed) then dueregard must be madeas if the boundaryline is the same asthe Core Strategy’sallowance. The linecan be tightened uplater.

No action. Support noted. Support revisedsettlement boundaryreview methodology


1662

but make commentswhere this has notbeen appliedconsistently.

No action. Support noted. Support exclusion ofthe WarminsterCommon andallotments, at G9 andG10.


1662

No action.Noted. However,these proposed siteallocations in the

Object to thedevelopment ofSHLAA sites 1032


1662

draft Wiltshireand 302 for housing.(See earliercomments)

Housing SiteAllocations Plan arenot included withinthe pre-submissionsettlement boundary.


The revisedsettlement boundaryreview methodologyin Topic Paper 1:Settlement BoundaryReview (June 2017)excludes siteallocations becausethe exact pattern ofdevelopment is yet tobe determined.


Include existingcommercial Biogassite, at G11 and G12,


1662

in Topic Paper 1:as a detached siteSettlement Boundary(including its extantReview (June 2017)planning permissionexcludes isolatedfor commercial

employmentexpansion).

development that isphysically detachedfrom the settlements(including farmbuildings oragricultural buildingsand renewableenergy installations)and unimplementedplanningpermissions.


The pre-submissionsettlement boundary,which has a cut-off

Include the newlydeveloped extensionto Damask Way, atJ10, within thesettlement boundary.


1662

settlementboundaries

date for newdevelopment of April

prior to2016, will be updatedsubmissionprior to submissionand/ orand/ or adoptionadoption usingusing the most

up-to-date GISlayers.

the mostup-to-date GISlayers.

No actionThe football club carpark and club house,though not the

Include the footballclub car park andclubhouse within the


1662

football pitch, arenew green space, atI8, within thesettlement boundary.

included within thepre-submissionsettlement boundary.



The small areaalongside BorehamRoad and rear of the


1662

methodology in TopicRock Lane houses,Paper 1: Settlementat N9, is currentlyBoundary Reviewsubject to a planning(June 2017)application for whichexcludesthe Town Councilunimplementedhas recommendedplanning permissionsrefusal, but not yet

determined byWiltshire Council.

because the exactpattern ofdevelopment is yet tobe determined.

No action.This site is aproposed siteallocation in in the

SHLAA site 304, atO9 and O10, recentlyapproved by


1662

draft WiltshireSecretary of StateHousing Siteand included in theAllocations Plan.TheWCATP, should berevised settlementincluded within theboundary reviewsettlement boundarymethodology in Topicand linked to the

existing BorehamRoad properties.

Paper 1: SettlementBoundary Review(June 2017)excludes siteallocations andunimplementedplanning permissionsbecause the exactpattern ofdevelopment is yet tobe determined.



The newly builthousing development(ex. Bus Depot), at


1662

settlementdate for newO10, should beincluded as adetached site.

boundariesprior to

development of April2016, will be updated

submissionprior to submissionand/ orand/ or adoptionadoption usingusing the mostthe mostup-to-date GISlayers.

up-to-date GISlayers. However, therevised settlementboundary reviewmethodology in TopicPaper 1: SettlementBoundary Review(June 2017)


excludes isolateddevelopment that isphysically detachedfrom the settlements(including farmbuildings oragricultural buildingsand renewableenergy installations)and unimplementedplanningpermissions.

No action.This site is aproposed siteallocation in in the

SHLAA site 603, atP8 and P9, includedin the WCATP should


1662

draft Wiltshirebe included withinHousing Sitethe settlementAllocations Plan.Theboundary and

attached to theexisting line.

revised settlementboundary reviewmethodology in TopicPaper 1: SettlementBoundary Review(June 2017)excludes siteallocations becausethe exact pattern ofdevelopment is yet tobe determined.

Action:Exclude theisolated MOD


Why is this MODbuilding, at O5 andO6, included with anarrow access line?Why has this MODarea been included,for the first time,


1662

building, at O5and O6, andthe narrowaccess lane

in Topic Paper 1:Settlement BoundaryReview (June 2017)includes built and

together with all of from within thecommencedthe military barracks pre-submissionemploymentand ABRO settlementdevelopment inworkshops? This boundary. Thismarket towns that isarea has a barbed is an isolatedphysically related towire fence line and isnot available to thepublic.

developmentthat isphysicallydetached fromthe settlement.

the settlement.However, it alsoexcludes isolateddevelopment that isphysically detachedfrom the settlements.

No action. Support noted. Support theinclusion of the areaat M4, M5, N4, N5,


1662


O3, O4 and O5,which is all militaryresidential areas andaccessible to thepublic, henceaccepted as adetached site.


Include the area, atL3, L4, M3 and M4.This is also an


1662

in Topic Paper 1:extensive militarySettlement Boundaryresidential area andReview (June 2017)accessible to theexcludes isolatedpublic, and shoulddevelopment that isphysically detachedfrom the settlements.

also therefore beaccepted as adetached site.


All the military units(inc. residentialhousing) are much


1662

in Topic Paper 1:more extensive atSettlement BoundaryN1, N2, N3, N4, O1,Review (June 2017)O2, O3, P1, P2, P3excludes isolatedand Q1.We questiondevelopment that isphysically detachedfrom the settlements.

what policy or logichas been applied inorder to understandwhy only part of thisconsiderable areahas been identifiedfor inclusion with thenew settlementboundary and othersnot included.

No action. Support noted. Support theinclusion of theresidential units


1662

along Elm Hill, at K3and K4, but thepolicy has not beenapplied consistentlyaround the townboundary on similarproperties.



The far north eastend of theWarminster Business


1662

settlementdate for newPark (access fromboundariesdevelopment of AprilFurnax Lane), at G2,prior to2016, will be updatedH2 and H3, goes


right up to the railwaylines, and is mostlybuilt on. These areexisting employmentareas.

submissionand/ oradoption usingthe mostup-to-date GISlayers.

prior to submissionand/ or adoptionusing the mostup-to-date GISlayers.



The site at G4 hasplanning permission,and is part of theWarminster BusinessPark.


1662

settlementboundaries

in Topic Paper 1:Settlement Boundary

prior toReview (June 2017)submissionexcludesand/ orunimplementedadoption usingplanning permissionsthe mostup-to-date GISlayers.

because the exactpattern ofdevelopment is yet tobe determined.However, Thepre-submissionsettlement boundary,which has a cut-offdate for newdevelopment of April2016, will be updatedprior to submissionand/ or adoptionusing the mostup-to-date GISlayers.

Action: Includethe MinsterChurch car


Include the MinsterChurch car park, atH5 with thechurchyardboundary.


1662

park, at H5,with thechurchyardboundary.

in Topic Paper 1:Settlement BoundaryReview (June 2017)includes the curtilageof a property thatrelates more closelyto the builtenvironment or haslimited capacity toextend the built formof a settlement interms of scale andlocation.

Action: Includethe grounds ofthe Warminster


Support inclusion ofthe WarminsterSchool main grounds


1662


School,excluding thelarge green

in Topic Paper 1:Settlement BoundaryReview (June 2017)

including the pool,workshops andFurneaux House as

area sports fieldincludes the curtilagewell as the hardthat relatesof a property thatsports courts withinmore closely tothe opencountryside.

relates more closelyto the builtenvironment or has

the new boundary, atG5 and H5. Thiswould, however,

limited capacity toexclude the greenarea sports field andpitches.

extend the built formof a settlement interms of scale andlocation. Themethodology alsoexcludes recreationalor amenity space atthe edge of thesettlement thatrelates more closelyto the opencountryside.



Include theperimeter of therecently approved


1662

settlementin Topic Paper 1:Traveller settlementboundariesSettlement Boundaryat the corner of Bathprior toReview (June 2017)Road and

Coldharbour Lane, atG4.

submissionand/ or

excludesunimplemented

adoption usingplanning permissionsthe mostup-to-date GISlayers.

because the exactpattern ofdevelopment is yet tobe determined.However, Thepre-submissionsettlement boundary,which has a cut-offdate for newdevelopment of April2016, will be updatedprior to submissionand/ or adoptionusing the mostup-to-date GISlayers.

Action: Includepropertiesknown as the


Include propertiesknown as the WhiteHouse and 109 Bath


1662

White Housein Topic Paper 1:Road, at F3 and G4,and 109 BathSettlement Boundaryto be consistent with


the policy of existing“built developmentphysically related to

Road, at F3and G4, withinthe settlementboundary.

Review (June 2017)includes built andcommenceddevelopment that isphysically related tothe settlement.

the settlement”.These properties areto be fully enclosedby the Core StrategyWest UrbanExtension.

No action. Noted. However,this area is aproposed site

The new WiltshireCore Strategy –Warminster West


1662

allocation in in theUrban Extensiondraft Wiltshire(WWUE) extendsHousing Sitefrom the Bath Road,Allocations Plan.Theat E2, F2, E3, F3,revised settlementD4, E4, F4, G3, G4,boundary reviewB5, C5, D5, E5, F5,methodology in TopicG5, H5, B6, C6, D6,Paper 1: SettlementE6, F6, G6, A7, B7,Boundary ReviewC7, A8, B8, C8, D8,(June 2017)B9, C9 and D9, onexcludes sitethe north side ofallocations becauseVictoria Road. Thisthe exact pattern ofdevelopment is yet tobe determined.

settlement boundaryextension will needto be added at sometime in the futurewhen the full detailedsite layout isapproved. Noting thatthere will beextensive use ofbuffer zones alongthe A36 as well asinternal to the newsite.

No action. Noted. However,this area is aproposed site

The southern side ofVictoria Road, at B8,C8, D8, B9, C9 and


1662

allocation in in theD9, contains thedraft Wiltshireremaining part of theHousing SiteWWUE and consists

of three separatesites:• The Redrow site(known as TascroftRise) is already with

Allocations Plan.Therevised settlementboundary reviewmethodology in TopicPaper 1: Settlement

full approval and Boundary Reviewunder construction. (June 2017)The new boundary excludes site


allocations andunimplementedplanning permissions

can therefore beextended from StAndrews Road andFolly Lane.• The PersimmonSite (known asBugley Farm) has not

because the exactpattern ofdevelopment is yet tobe determined.

yet been approved, However, thebut an application is pre-submissionunder review. The settlement boundary,site will enclose the which has a cut-offBugley Barton Farm date for newHouse which development of Apriltherefore should beincluded within thenew boundary.• The remaining site(known as FollyFarm) does not as

2016, will be updatedprior to submissionand/ or adoptionusing the mostup-to-date GISlayers.

yet have anyplanning proposals,but remains withinthe designatedWWUE.

No action. Noted. However, thepre-submissionsettlement boundary,

The Rugby Club andgrounds, at C9, willbe surrounded by the


1662

which has a cut-offWWUE, but shouldbe excluded from thesettlement.

date for newdevelopment of April2016, will be updatedprior to submissionand/ or adoptionusing the mostup-to-date GISlayers.


SHLAA site 1007,Grovelands, at E5,E6, F5, F6, G5 and


1662

in Topic Paper 1:G6, is subject to aSettlement Boundarycurrent planningReview (June 2017)applicationexcludes(exception site), withunimplemented17 acres set aside asplanning permissionsopen space. If thisbecause the exactsite is approved thepattern ofdevelopment is yet tobe determined.

settlement boundarywill need to beadjusted accordingly.


No action. Noted.This AONB is notcommenting on theproposed settlement

CranborneChase andWest WiltshireDowns AONB(556113)

1767

boundaryamendments forWarminster.


Move the settlementboundary to theSalisbury side of

Huw Jessop(1131292)

1962

the built form of theBishopstrow Farm insettlement and not toallocate new sites fordevelopment.

line with WateryLane, at O9, O10,P10, O11 and P11.This would be anatural boundary onthe edge ofWarminster andwould then allow forreasonable infildevelopment withinthis boundary. Therewill be a highdemand for housingover the comingyears and will requirefurther land for mixeduse development tobe available and Iwould like my land, 6acres that couldprovide 30 dwellings,to be considered.Previous discussionsfor 12 dwellings andoutline detailssubmitted forconsideration. Noformal applicationand no SHLAAsubmission. Anydevelopment of fieldson this site would bea natural progressionfrom expansion ofBishopstrow HouseHotel anddevelopment ofHome Farm.

No action. Support noted. Support removal ofland surrounding theschool in Woodcock

David Searle(704409)

2272


Road, at N8, N9, O8and O9. Too manyschool playing fieldshave been lost inrecent times.

No action. Paragraph 4.27 ofthe Wiltshire CoreStrategy (adopted

The Core Strategysought to protectsettlements

Al Wright(871876)

2293

January 2015) statespreventingthat the Coredevelopment outsideStrategy will allocatesettlementsites and broadboundaries unlesslocations for growthcommunity led. Thethat are strategicallycouncil told theimportant for thecommunity not todelivery of the Planallocate sitesfor Wiltshire.reducing the powerAdditional sites willof the neighbourhoodalso be identifiedplan, under the guisethrough thethat sites were notChippenham andneeded. Now theHousing SiteNeighbourhood planAllocations DPDs tois adopted withoutensure the deliveryadditional sites theof housing landcouncil wants toacross the planallocate 3 more alongperiod in order towith 3 or moremaintain a five yearland supply at eachHMA.

already providedplanning permissionagainst currentpolicy, so 6 or moresites added withoutcommunityinvolvement.


24.44 Table of representations relating to the settlement boundary review for Westbury (12representations)

Table 24.44

Proposedaction



Include site on corner ofA350 Trowbridge Road andBitham Park, at J7, K7, J8and K8, within thesettlement boundary.


742

built form of thesettlement. This is anomission site andshould be consideredthrough the siteselection process.


Object to inclusion of bothemployment and residentialland within the settlementboundary. This could leadto conflicts of use.

HeywoodParishCouncil(1131482)


1098, 3191

built form of thesettlement. Themethodology includesresidential andemploymentdevelopment. CorePolicy 35 of theWiltshire Core Strategyprotects employmentland in principalsettlements, markettowns and localservice centres fromresidentialdevelopment.Employment sites onthe edge of largevillages are excludedfrom the settlementboundary.

No action.West Wilts TradingEstate is on the edgeof Westbury, a market

West Wiltshire TradingEstate, A4, A5, B3, B4, B5,B6, B7, C3, C4, C5, C6,


1098, 2201,3191

town, and, therefore,C7, C8, C9, D3, D4, D5,under theD6, D7, D8, D9, E3, E4,

Barney Jones(1132105)

methodology, includedwithin the settlementboundary for the town.

E5, E7, E8, F3 and F4., iswholly within Heywoodparish and not Westbury. It


should therefore be treatedunder the revised


methodology asemployment land on theedge of a large village.

No action. Lodge Farm Wood isnot isolateddevelopment (adjacent

Lodge Farm Wood, at E3,is an isolated dwelling andshould not be includedwithin the proposedsettlement boundary.


1098

to the West WiltsTrading Estate) that isphysically detachedfrom the settlement.

No action.Built developmentwithin this area isalready included withinthe pre-submissionsettlement boundary.

Include built developmentat H13, H14, I13 and I14within the settlementboundary. [Accompanyingmap suggests inclusion ofrecreational area]


1265

No action.The methodologyexcludes siteallocations and

Retain the existingsettlement boundary toinclude Land to the North

NewlandHomes(395553)

1473

unimplementedEast of Station Road, at E7planning permissions.and F7. This is an existingAny futureWest Wiltshire District Plandevelopment of thisallocation and the subjectarea could be includedof planning applicationwithin a subsequentreview of settlementboundaries.

17/07548/FUL for 88houses. A previousplanning permission on thesite for 102 houses,W/10/02479/FUL, haslapsed. The principle ofdevelopment on the sitehas been established withthe allocation and previousplanning permission.


Include the entirety of theplanning permission for theredevelopment of Westbury

BackhouseHomes(1129123)

1507

unimplementedhospital into 58 houses, atplanning permissions.I12 and J12. The existingAny futuresettlement boundary anddevelopment of thisallocation on part of the sitearea could be includeddoes not include the wholewithin a subsequentreview of settlementboundaries.

former Westbury Hospitalsite. Its inclusion would bea logical rounding off thesettlement boundary.


No action. Support noted.Support the inclusion ofLand at Courtleigh House,at E14, E15, F14 and F15,

Institute ofEngineeringDesigners(1129870)

1669

within the proposedsettlement boundary. Thissite has been part ofWestbury, as developedland, for at least 50 yearsand been occupied by theInstitute of EngineeringDesigners for over 40years. Its inclusion correctsinconsistencies in existingpolicy definitions of thesettlement boundary forWestbury.


Include parcel of land tothe east of Mane Way, atD13 and D14, within the


2683

built form of thesettlement boundary. Thesettlement ‘by, whereexisting western edge ofpracticable, followingthe settlement boundarybut not includingfollows the railway line andclearly definedthe A3098 (Mane Way),physical features’.which forms a physicalMuch of this area isboundary to the built edgeundeveloped land. Anyof the town. Presumably,future development ofits omission is a draftingthis area could beerror during the preparationincluded within asubsequent review ofsettlement boundaries.

of the previous local plan.Its inclusion would be inline with the draftsettlement boundary reviewmethodology, which statesthat the boundary shouldfollow clearly definedphysical features, such asroads.

No action. Noted. Changes mostly small withmany boundaries pulledback from watercourses,

EnvironmentAgency(395940)

2975

which is beneficial. Newarea included to the northwest of Westbury, at A4,A5, B3, B4, B5, B6, B7, C3,C4, C5, C6, C7, C8, C9,D3, D4, D5, D6, D7, D8,D9, E3, E4, E5, E7, E8, F3and F4, that has the RiverBiss along its westernedge. Advise that any


development is kept atleast 8m away from thewatercourse corridor topreserve its function as awildlife route.

No action.This is builtdevelopment that isphysically related to

Object to inclusion ofLeighton House, at H13,I13 and I14. The Town

WestburyTown Council(1138673)

3009, 3191

the settlement and,Council is satisfied with theFrancisMorland(397159)

therefore, includedunder themethodology.

allocation of associatedhousing already. Inclusionpre-empts the emergingWestbury NeighbouringPlan being able to protectand make best use of thissite when disposed of bythe MOD.


Object to the inclusion ofLeighton Sports Centre, atI13. Puts at risk theirlong-term public use.



3009, 3191

the settlement and,therefore, includedunder themethodology. CorePolicy 49 protects thepublic use ofcommunity facilities.

No action. Support noted.However, themethodology excludes

Support the inclusion ofPinto Walk, at E12 andE13. We understand that


3009

unimplementedplanning permission hasplanning permissions.been submitted on part ofAny futurethis land for a potential daydevelopment of thisnursery site; we would

expect this to be includedwithin the boundary.

area could be includedwithin a subsequentreview of settlementboundaries.

No action. Support noted. Support inclusion of BlackHorse Lane, at D13 andD14.


3009


Object to inclusion ofCourtleigh, at E15 and F15.This property has stood


3009

the settlementoutside the boundary forthe last 100 years and is anisolated dwelling.

(surrounded byresidentialdevelopment on twosides and separated


from fields bySandhole Lane) and,therefore, includedunder themethodology.

No action. Support noted. Support inclusion of FellRoad/ Hackney Way, atE11.


3009

No action. Support noted. Support inclusion ofRedland Lane, at F10 andF11.


3009

No action. Support noted. Support adjustment atOldfield Road, at E9/ E10,F9.


3009

No action. Noted.Note that the strategic site,Station Road Sailing Lake,at F7, F8, G7 and G8, hasnot been included withinthe boundary.


3009

No action. Noted. However, themethodology excludesunimplemented

There are previousplanning permissions atStation Road/ The Ham, at


3009

planning permissions.F6 and F7, and the area isAny futurethe subject of planningdevelopment of thisapplications on the land

that include permissions forresidential dwellings.

area could be includedwithin a subsequentreview of settlementboundaries.

No action. Support noted. Support inclusion ofIndustrial Estate at A4, A5,B3, B4, B5, B6, B7, C3, C4,


3009

C5, C6, C7, C8, C9, D3,D4, D5, D6, D7, D8, D9,E3, E4, E5, E7, E8, F3 andF4.

No action. Noted. However, themethodology excludesunimplemented

Note that Land North ofBitham Park, at J7 and K7,which has planningpermission, has not beenincluded.


3009

planning permissions.Any futuredevelopment of thisarea could be includedwithin a subsequentreview of settlementboundaries.


No action. Support noted. Support proposed changeat L8.


3009

No action. Support noted. Support the protectedgreen space at K11 andL11.


3009

No action. Support noted. Support the proposedchange at D14.


3009

No action. Noted. Note that the proposedchange at J6, J7 and I7reflects The Meaddevelopment


3009

No action. Noted.No specific comments onproposed changes at K8,D15 and D16 and H14.


3009

No action. Noted. This is builtdevelopment that isphysically related to

Object to inclusion ofWestbury railway stationand car parks. Puts at risktheir long-term public use.


3191

the settlement and,therefore, under themethodology, isincluded within thesettlement boundary.However, Core Policy66 specificallypromotes thedevelopment and/ orimprovement ofWestbury railwaystation. The landrequired for this andother realisticproposals on thestrategic transportnetwork will beprotected frominappropriatedevelopment.


Object to inclusion of theWhite Horse Health Centreand car park. Puts at risktheir long-term public use.


3191

the settlement and,therefore, includedunder themethodology. Core


Policy 49 protects thepublic use ofcommunity facilities.


Object to inclusion ofWestbury Leigh PrimarySchool and playgrounds.Puts at risk their long-termpublic use.


3191

the settlement and,therefore, includedunder themethodology. CorePolicy 49 protects thepublic use ofcommunity facilities.


Support extension ofWestbury settlementboundary to include built

AbsoluteSolvents(1134308)

2733

unimplementeddevelopment to the northplanning permissions.of the avoiding railway line.Any futureHowever, it could go furtherdevelopment of thisand include areas at Brookarea could be includedLane, at C6, C7, D6 andwithin a subsequentreview of settlementboundaries.

D7, and elsewhere inWestbury and allocations/permissions that form partof the housing supply toprovide a realistic pictureof the built form during thePlan period.


24.45 Table of representations relating to the settlement boundary review for Yatton Keynell (7representations)

Table 24.45

Proposedaction



Include Land atTiddlywinks, at K10 andL10, within proposedrevised settlementboundary.

D and GA’Bear(1124865)

441, 549, 550

changes to the builtform since thedrawing up of theexisting settlementboundaries.

The settlement boundaryfor Yatton Keynell hasbeen drawn tightly aroundthe existing built form and This site was

considered during thesite selection process.

provides little opportunityfor small scale futuredevelopment. Almost allinfilling has been taken upwithin the previousdecade and there will beno small scale suitableand available housingsites within the village upto 2026.

The proposed allocation,East of Farrell’s Field, willcreate a major visualimpact at the beginning ofthe village and a reductionof landscape quality, aswell as a significant lossof countryside.

A selection of smallersites would be more inkeeping with the villagecharacter and could beaccommodated wherethey would have littleadverse landscapeimpact.

Self or custom builddwellings more likely to bedelivered through smallsites rather than a largehousing allocation. Thiswill require space within


existing villages ratherthan a tightly drawn,restrictive boundary


The proposedsettlement boundaryincludes the curtilage

Include the full curtilageof The Old Forge, YattonKeynell, at J8, within theproposed revisedsettlement boundary:• It is a large garden(mixture of mown lawnleading onto wild grass

Chris Hutton(893262)

874

revisedsettlementboundary asfar as toinclude the

of a property thatrelates more closelyto the builtenvironment (e.g. agarden) or has limited

and mown paths). Not curtilage ofcapacity to extend thelarge enough to be splitbetween garden andpaddock• Border clearly defined byfence, trees or hedges.Existing boundary bisectsgarden.• Neighbouring gardenslarge. The existingboundary bisects through

The OldForge, YattonKeynell, atJ8, that hastheappearanceof a garden,which bringsit roughly intoline with the

built form of asettlement. Part of thecurtilage of thisproperty outside theexisting settlementboundary clearlyappears in aerialphotographs to beused as a garden.This area would be

their lawns but the proposedmore or less in lineproposed revisedsettlement boundary willinclude all of their gardens• Garden presents limitedcapacity to substantiallyextend the built form of

extensions tothesettlementboundaryalongside theneighbouringproperties.

with the proposedsettlement boundarybehind theneighbouringproperties.The part ofthe curtilage furthestfrom the main dwellingthe settlement and not

large enough to be usedfor a paddock• Inconsistent approach tolarge gardens withinYatton Keynell and in

contains whatappears, from aerialphotograph andphotographssubmitted with the

other settlements, e.g.Bratton and Derry Hill &Studley

representations, to bean agricultural shedand comprise wildgrass and mownpaths.

No action. Noted. However, theinformal consultationundertaken between

None of the parishcouncils within theChippenham Community

NicolaBridgeman(1126445)

901

July and SeptemberArea responded to the2014 provided townconsultation. This raisesand parish councilsquestions about thewith the opportunity toquality of the consultationcomment on draftthat has taken place andproposals forwhether the Council hasamendments to


settlementboundaries. Thesecomments then

complied with itsstatement of communityinvolvement.

informed the proposedamendments to thesettlement boundariesin the draft WiltshireHousing SiteAllocations Plan.

No action. Noted. However, theparish councils werenotified of the

Quality of the consultationin question as none of theparish councils within the

AnthonyHardingham(1131760)

2122

consultation andChippenham CAinvited to the publicresponded to theconsultation events.consultation on the siteFurthermore, anallocations plan and

settlement boundaryreview.

informal publicconsultation on draftsettlement boundarieswas carried out with town parish councilsbetween July andSeptember 2014.

No action.The WiltshireHousing SiteAllocations Plan is

Noting that the landadjacent to Farrells Fieldis in open countrysideoutside the currentsettlement boundary.

AnthonyHardingham(1131760)

2122

proposing housingallocations outside ofthe settlementboundary becausethere is a presumptionin favour ofdevelopment withinthe settlementboundary.


South Housing Market Area

24.46 Table of representations relating to the settlement boundary review for Amesbury (1representation)

Table 24.46


Action: Updatesettlementboundaries to

Settlementsboundaries in thedraft Wiltshire

Include built andcommenced developmentat King’s Gate, pursuant to

BloorHomes(Southern)(395552)

3089

take account ofHousing Siteplanning permissionsimplementedAllocations Plan weregranted in 2016 and 2017.planningpermissionssince April 2016.

updated to takeaccount ofimplemented planning

Unless the proposedrevised settlementboundary is brought up to

permissions up toApril 2016, which wasthe cut-off date.

date, it will not be accuratenor form a sound basisagainst which to assessfuture planningapplications.


24.47 Table of representations relating to the settlement boundary review for Broad Chalke (4representations)

Table 24.47

Proposedaction


No action.It is not possible forthe Wiltshire HousingSite Allocations Plan

Sites 3338 and 3339 were putforward for inclusion with therevised settlement boundary

AT Jeans(1130378)

1739

to run concurrentlyfor Broad Chalke but werewith everyrejected during the siteneighbourhood plan,selection assessment.which each progressHowever, the settlementto an individualboundary review should runtimescale. However,concurrent with theif a neighbourhoodneighbourhood plan process

so that both plans are thesame.

plan subsequentlyreviews its settlementboundary than, whenit is Made, this willreplace thesettlement boundaryin the WiltshireHousing SiteAllocations Plan.

Action:Exclude theproperty,


This AONB is, however, veryconcerned by the BroadChalke boundary extension at

CranborneChase andWest

1782

Rest Harrow,excludes isolatedI8. The majority of theWiltshireDownsAONB(556113)

at I8, fromthe proposedrevisedsettlementboundary.

dwellings that are notphysically related tothe settlement. Thisproperty is anisolated property onthe south side ofBury Lane.

extension is the garden of adwelling that is an isolatedproperty on the south side ofthe lane. If the purpose of theboundary review is toregularise land that is builtupon then the AONB stronglyrecommends that theboundary should be drawntight to the southern side of thedwelling and not along thesouthern garden boundary.

Action:IncludeManor Farm

Manor Farm, withassociated buildings,is built residential

There does not appear to beany explanation why theestablished Manor Farm and


1783

anddevelopment that isphysically related tothe settlement.

associated buildings, at I6, J6,I7 and J7, are not includedwithin the settlement boundary

WiltshireDownsAONB(556113)

associatedbuildings, atI6, J6, I7 andwhen those buildings appearJ7, within theto be adjacent to the eastern

side of the extended boundaryat I7.

proposed



Action:Include thehousing

The settlementboundary of BroadChalke comprises

Pleased previous commentssubmitted during informalconsultation with town and

BroadChalkeParishCouncil(893417)

2945

developmentat Gurston

three separatesettlement

parish councils have beentaken into account. Therefore,

Road, at B6,boundaries insupport removal of all SHLAAB7, C7, D7,proximity to eachsites in Broad Chalke fromB8 and C8,other. The housingconsideration for housingwithin adevelopment atdevelopment; rationalisationseparatesettlementboundary

Gurston Road is nofurther from thesethree separate areasthan they are fromeach other.

of settlement boundaries toreflect recent development,curtilage of existing propertiesand environmental factos, andconclusion that there is noscope for large scale housingdevelopment in Broad Chalke.

However, concerned that:• The housing development atGurston Road (north of theMarsh), on the western side ofthe village, at B7, C7, D7, B8,C8 and D8, is not includedwithin the settlement boundary• Timing of consultationprecludes inclusion of positiveproposals emerging from theneighbourhood plan


24.48 Table of representations relating to the settlement boundary review for Coombe Bissett (1representation)

Table 24.48

Proposedaction



The settlementboundary excludes thecurtilage of properties

Retain the existing settlementboundary at J6, K6 and K7because concerned about

CranborneChase andWestWiltshireDowns(556113)

1773

settlementboundary atJ6, K6 andK7.

that have the capacityto extend the builtform of the settlementin terms of scale and

extending into the river floodplain. Unfortunate to indicatethat further development couldbe acceptable in this location.

location. TheAny development wouldextension of theeffectively and visually narrowsettlement boundaryin this location wouldhave this effect.

the river valley and restrictviews across it where there isa public right of way but itwould also be contrary to thenatural form of the valley floorwidening as it progresses tojoin the River Avon.


24.49 Table of representations relating to the settlement boundary review for Dinton (2representations)

Table 24.49


Action: Amend theproposed revisedsettlement boundaryto :

Support noted.

The extension of thesettlement boundaryreflects the extent of

This AONBwelcomes theretention of theDinton settlementboundary to the

CranborneChase andWestWiltshireDowns(556113)

1784

•exclude isolateddevelopment, at F8,F4 and I6

the built form andincludes builtdevelopment that is

areas of housing. However, the AONBis concerned that the

physically related to thedevelopment•give the settlementboundary a morecompact form byincluding areas, atF5 and F4

settlement. However,the revised settlementboundary reviewmethodology excludesisolated development

boundary’s containedarea is beginning toappear rather thinand straggly in thenorth-west and

that is not physicallyrelated to thesettlement.

south-west sectorsby the inclusion ofextended, andsomewhat isolated,developments.

•follow but notinclude roads at F5,F4, F5, G5 and I5.

Action: Amend theproposed revisedsettlement boundary

The revised settlementboundary methodologyincludes the curtilage

The new settlementboundary cutsseveral of theresidential gardens inSnow Hill in half.

DintonParishCouncil(390575)

1964

to include theentirety of the

of a property thatrelates more to the built

residential gardensin Snow Hill, at G5and H5.

environment (e.g. agarden) or would notsubstantially extend thebuilt form.


24.50 Table of representations relating to the settlement boundary review for Downton (5representations)

Table 24.50

Proposedaction


Action(s):Retain theexisting


Moot Lane the PlayingField, Moot Garden andpart of Moot House’s

IanCampbell(899946)

268

settlementrecreational or amenitygarden, at L5, M5, K6, L6,boundary at K5,space at the edge of aM6 and K7, the MemorialL5, M5, K6, L6,settlement that relates

more closely to thebuilt environment.

Garden and the CricketField, at, at G5, H5 and I5,should remain within the

M6 and K7 toinclude Moot

settlement boundary. Lane, theThese recreational or Playing Field,amenity spaces relate tothe settlement, rather thanthe open countryside.

Moot Gardenand part ofMoot House’sgarden.

Retain theexistingsettlementboundary at G5,H5 and I5 toinclude theMemorialGarden and theCricket Field.

Action: Extendthe settlementboundary to

The cut-off date forcommenceddevelopment to be

Include Charles Churchdevelopment, at F4 andG4, which is under

IanCampbell(899946)

268

include theincluded on theconstruction, possibly parttennis courtspre-submissionof Scott’s Houseand Downtonsettlement boundarydevelopment, at F3 andFootball Clubpitch at E5, F5,E6 and F6.

maps was April 2016.These maps will beupdated prior tosubmission and/ oradoption.

G3, the tennis courts andDownton football clubpitch, at E5, F5, E6 andF6, within the settlementboundary. Thepre-submission boundary


is so irregular that it isdifficult to follow on theground.

recreational or amenityspace at the edge of asettlement that relatesmore closely to thebuilt environment.


No action.DowntonNeighbourhood Plandid not review the

The boundary should bemade consistent withDownton’s NeighbourhoodPlan.

IanCampbell(899946

268

settlement boundaryfor Downton. However,it is the prerogative ofthe community toreview settlementboundaries through theneighbourhoodplanning process.

Action(s):Retain theexisting


Inconsistencies in relationto car parking areas:

a) Doctor’s surgerycar park, at L6,remains but

IanCampbell(899946)

268

settlementboundary at K5,L5, M5, K6, L6,

of a property thatrelates more closely tothe built environment,

adjoining Moot M6 and K7 toe.g. a car park, andGarden car park, atL6 and M6, hasbeen removed

b)White Horse’s carpark, at I5 and J5,has been extendedbehind the Co-op

include MootGarden carpark. (seeabove change).

Retain theexistingsettlement

built communityfacilities development,such as religiousbuildings, that arephysically related tothe settlement.

boundary at I6c)Trafalgar Schoolcar park, at H6, hasbeen added

to include theBaptist Churchcar park.

d)Leisure Centre carpark, at E5 and F5,has been added

Extend thesettlementboundary at L3and M3 to

e)Downton BaptistChurch car park, atI6, has beenremoved

include theCatholic Churchand car park.

f)Catholic Churchcar park, at L3 andM3, has not beenadded

Action: Extendthe settlementboundary at L3


Include the Church of theGood Shepherd, BarfordLane, at L3 and M3, within

CliftonDiocese(1125625)

671

and M3 toof a property thatthe settlement boundary.include theCatholic Churchand car park.

relates more closely tothe built environment,e.g. a car park, and

This would be consistentwith other amendments to


the Downton settlementboundary and themethodology.


Action: Extendthe settlementboundary at L7,


Include the garden, at L7,M7 and L8, within thesettlement boundary.

SamanthaBennie(1126770)

985

M7 and L8 toof a property thatOthers, for example at I4include thegarden of theseproperties.

relates more closely tothe built environment,e.g. a garden.

and J4, have beenincluded, whereas thesehave been excluded. Thisgarden, though on theedge of the settlement,lies between two existingbuildings and should,therefore, be included.

No action. Noted.This AONB is notcommenting on theproposed settlementboundary amendments toDownton.

CranborneChase andWestWiltshireDownsAONB(556113)

1774

No action.The cut-off date forcommenceddevelopment to be

Include the CharlesChurch development, atF4 and G4, within the

DowntonParishCouncil(467669)

2874

included on thesettlement boundary.Thispre-submissionwas granted full planningsettlement boundarypermission on 01/06/2016

(14/065161/FUL) and hascommenced.

maps was April 2016.These maps will beupdated prior tosubmission and/ oradoption.


Support exclusion ofrecreational ground at theMoot, at L6, and the


2874

methodology includescricket ground, at H5, butrecreational or amenitythe Borough greens, at H5space at the edge of aand I5, should also besettlement that relatesmore closely to thebuilt environment.

excluded from thesettlement boundary, asthey are amenity greens.

Action: Extendthe settlementboundary at L3


Include the catholicchurch, at M3, within thesettlement boundary, as


2874

and M3 toof a property that


relates more closely tothe built environment,e.g. a car park, and

St Laurence Parish churchand graveyard areincluded.

include theCatholic Churchand car park.




Include the Baptist churchcar park, at I6, howeveraccept that the plot is


2874

boundary at I6of a property thatseparate from the churchand may be exempt frominclusion.

to include theBaptist Churchcar park.

relates more closely tothe built environment,e.g. a car park, andbuilt communityfacilities development,such as religiousbuildings, that arephysically related tothe settlement.

No action. Noted. Downton NeighbourhoodPlan did not undertake areview of the settlement


2874

boundary for Downton, asstated in Table 2.3,section 2.9 of theSouthern WiltshireCommunity Area TopicPaper, because did notreceived advice to do soat the time and theboundary was underconsultation as part of the2015 review. However,would consider makinguse of the ability within theneighbourhood planningprocess to do so as partof a review of the MadeDownton NeighbourhoodPlan, to makeamendments within thePlan period (i.e. prior to2026).


24.51 Table of representations relating to the settlement boundary review for Durrington (5representations)

Table 24.51

Proposedaction


No action.This is infill developmentand the area is alreadyincluded within theproposed settlementboundary for Durrington.

Include built/ commenceddevelopment of fourdwellings for elderly people,with associated car parkingspaces, on land to the rearof 17-20 Charles Road,Durrington, at H8 and I8.

WiltshireCouncil -Housing(979503)

389

No action.The Wiltshire CoreStrategy Inspectorrequired the Council to

Object to expansion of thesettlement boundary forDurrington. There has been

DurringtonTownCouncil(1124540)

670, 1255

undertake a review ofover 40 infill developmentsthe existing settlementwithin the past five years, inboundaries to ensureaddition to the 140 homesthey are up to date andbuilt at Avon Fields. With theproperly reflectincrease of 440 homes indevelopment that hasLarkhill, the town will see ataken place. The34% increase in housingpurpose of theover an 8-10 period,settlement boundarypotentially making Durringtonreview is to reflectless sustainable. There ischanges to the built formconcern that the settlementsince the existingboundary will continue toboundary was drawn up;expand to include furtherthe revised settlementnew sites that come forward

outside of the existingsettlement boundary.

boundary methodologyexcludes unimplementedplanning permissions orsite allocations.

No action.The revised settlementboundary excludesisolated development

Include Land at Hackthorn/SHLAA site S98 (will provideabout 170 dwellings) and

RichardGreenwood(1119095)

1583

that is physicallydetached from thesettlement.

nearby PDL land, at F3, G3,F4, G4, H4, F5, G5 and H5,within the proposedsettlement boundary:

It is not the purpose ofthe settlement boundaryreview to allocate sites

•Inconsistent application ofmethodology for Durringtonand Bulford; correctly for development. Thisincluded Durrington School site has been assessed

through the site selectionprocess.

and Leisure Centre andwestern extent of Bulford butexcluded northwestern


The final, adoptedsettlement boundary willform part of the Policies

extent of Durrington,including most of S98 andpreviously developed land

Map, which will includeother designations, suchas Conservation Areas.

•Proposed revisedsettlement boundary fails toallocate land fordevelopment on urban fringeof Durrington

The revised settlementboundary reviewmethodology excludes

•Proposed revisedsettlement fails to showDurrington’s Conservation

site allocations for thereasons set out in TopicPaper 1: Settlement

Area boundary, which shouldbe shown alongside thesettlement boundary

Boundary ReviewMethodology (June2017).

•Settlement boundary shouldinclude new allocated sitesbecause they establish thenew outer edge of thesettlement by 2026. Notincluding them has createdconfusion among the public,indicates that the Councilmay not believe them likelyto be built during the Planperiod and undermining thePlan’s clarity and publicconfidence in the Plan


The proposed revisedsettlement boundary forDurrington given by Wiltshire

MichaelFelce(1131395)

1985

changes to the built form(as I understand the position)of the settlement thatis inconsistent withhave occurred since theWiltshire’s proposals for

extra housing. [Noexplanation is given].

drawing up of theexisting settlementboundaries. TheWiltshire Housing SiteAllocations Planallocates sites for futureresidential development.


24.52 Table of representations relating to the settlement boundary review for Fovant (3representations)

Table 24.52

Proposedaction


No action.This is a greenfieldsite on the edge ofthe village. The

Include Land at Sutton Road,Fovant, at E5, F5, E6 and F6,within the proposed revisedsettlement boundary:


392

purpose of thesettlement boundary

•Site previously considered foraffordable housing

review is to reflectchanges to the builtform since the

•Scheme unable to progress dueto minimal local support forconstruction on this land

drawing up of theexisting settlementboundaries, not toallocate site fordevelopment.

•Currently an exceptions site

No action.Noted.The AONB is not commenting onthe proposed settlementboundary amendments for Fovantand Ludwell.

CranborneChase andWestWiltshire

1779

DownsAONB(556113)

No action.Fovant is classifiedas a large village inthe Wiltshire Core

Fovant should not have asettlement boundary because itshould be a small village. This

FovantParishCouncil(391071)

2219

Strategy and,was accepted during the Souththerefore, has asettlementboundary.

Wiltshire Core Strategyexamination. However, a furtherassessment during the WiltshireCore Strategy apparentlyconcluded that Fovant wasactually a large village but a copyof this assessment has not beenseen by the parish council. TheCore Strategy Planning Inspectorrequested that the Council takeaccount of Fovant’s incorrectclassification during thepreparation of the WiltshireHousing Site Allocations Plan.


24.53 Table of representations relating to the settlement boundary review for Great Wishford (1representations)

Table 24.53

Proposedaction


No action.Noted.This AONB is not commentingon the proposed settlementboundary amendments to


1771

Great Wishford.WiltshireDownsAONB(556113)


24.54 Table of representations relating to the settlement boundary review for Hindon (3representations)

Table 24.54

Proposedaction

Officer responseIssue Name(s) Representationnumber(s)

Action: UpdateTable 2.3 in allcommunity

Noted. However, table2.3 states ‘unknown atthis stage’, as to

Hindon Parish Councilconfirms that it will beallocating land for housing

HindonParishCouncil(854597)

140

area topicwhether emergingand reviewing thepapers toneighbourhood planssettlement boundary inreflect thewill be allocatingtheir emerginglatest positionhousing sites orneighbourhood plan.of emergingneighbourhoodplans.

reviewing settlementboundaries, unless theneighbourhood plan is

Therefore, table 2.3, page7, of the Tisbury AreaTopic paper is incorrectas it states ‘unknown atthis stage’.

sufficiently advanced,i.e. unless, at least, adraft plan has beenpublished forconsultation.

No action.Support noted.The AONB welcomes theconfirmation of thesettlement boundary forHindon on the north side,H5.


1778

No action.Noted. However, thepurpose of thesettlement boundary

CG Fry & Son have aninterest in Land atChicklade Road/ East

CG Fry &SonBuilders(449489)

3095

review is to reflectStreet, Hindon (SHLAAchanges to the builtsite 3157), which they areform that have occurredworking with Hindonsince the drawing up ofNeighbourhood Planthe existing settlementGroup to bring forward for

development. However,they are concerned that:

boundaries. Potentialdevelopment sites inFovant, Hindon and

•Settlement boundariesfor local service centresand large villages are too

Ludwell were assessedthrough the siteselection process. The

tightly drawn and, thus, a Wiltshire Core Strategyconstraint on future Inspector instructed thedevelopment and Council to review itsdamaging for the more settlement boundaries,rural settlements, wherebrownfield/ infill sites arelimited

which it is doing as partof the Wiltshire HousingSite Allocations Plan.However, the Core


•There’s still an unmethousing need for theTisbury Community Area

Strategy and theWiltshire Housing SiteAllocations Plan clearly

Remainder, which will state thatneed to be met in Fovant, neighbourhood plansHindon or Ludwell. may wish to allocateHousing opportunitiesneed to be explored morefully in these settlements

sites for developmentand review settlementboundaries.

•More importance shouldbe placed upon the role ofneighbourhood plans toallocate sites fordevelopment and toreview settlementboundaries


24.55 Table of representations relating to the settlement boundary review for Ludwell (2representations)

Table 24.55

Proposedaction

Officerresponse

IssueName(s) Representationnumber(s)

No action.Noted.The AONB is not commenting on theproposed settlement boundaryamendments for Fovant and Ludwell.


1779


No action.Support noted.Support.MichaelVaughan(1135445)

2916

Unclear whicharea is beingreferred to bytherepresentation.

The provision of extra land within thesettlement boundary will aid thecouncil's five year land supply. Thisis a positive allocation, it is justifiedto deliver much needed housing andis consistent with national policy.

To ensure timely delivery the landowner would request a meeting withthe council with a view to submittinga planning application in anticipationof the formal adoption of the policyin line with the NPPF paragraph216.This would ensure that the planis effective in what it is seeking toachieve.


24.56 Table of representations relating to the settlement boundary review for Mere (11representations)

Table 24.56

Proposedaction


No action.Support noted.Support the proposedextension of the settlementboundary along ShaftesburyRoad, Mere, at M10, M11and M12.

Anthea Beck(1122264)

172

No action.Support noted.Support inclusion of their sitewithin the proposed revisedsettlement boundary forMere, at K10.

Woodlands(Mere) Ltd(448866)

178

Action:Updatemaps prior

Noted. Thesettlement boundarywill be updated prior

Planning permission(16/09081/FUL), twodwellings on land adjacent


391

toto submission and/ orto 2 Homefield, Mere, at F5submissionand/ oradoption.

adoption to reflectsubsequentdevelopment since

and F6, due to commenceon 04/09/2018 and completein spring 2018.

the cut-off date forthe pre-submissionmaps of April 2016

No action. Noted. Amendments are proposedto the settlement boundaryof Mere.


1768


No action. Noted. Proposed amendments tothe settlement boundary ofMere do not impact directlyon the AONB and thereforewe have no comments.


1769


Broadly supportive ofproposed revised settlementboundary, which is in line

Mere ParishCouncil(477226)

1904

includes the curtilagewith our comments madeof a property thatduring the informalrelates more closelyconsultation with parishto the builtenvironment, forexample a garden.

councils but suggest that thegarden area of OrchardHouse, at M8, be removedfrom the settlement boundary


because it contains the siteof Southbrook Pond, whichis an important drainage/water holding pond for theSouthbrook area in wetweather.

Action:Includegardens of




1905

propertiesincludes the curtilagewith our comments madeon theof a property thatduring the informaleastern siderelates more closelyconsultation with parishofto the built

environment, forexample a garden.

councils but suggest that, forconsistency, there are threeextended gardens on the

ShaftesburyRoad, atM10.eastern side of Shaftesbury

Road, at M10, be includedwithin the settlementboundary.

Action:Includegardens of




1906

propertiesincludes the curtilagewith our comments madeon theof a property thatduring the informalwesternrelates more closelyconsultation with parishside ofto the built

environment, forexample a garden.

councils but suggest that, forconsistency, there are threeextended gardens on the

ShaftesburyRoad, atL10.western side of Shaftesbury

Road, at L10, be includedwithin the settlementboundary.

No action. Support noted. Support inclusion ofcurtilage of properties, i.e.large gardens, on

StuartChappell(1131447)

2001

Shaftesbury Road, at M10,M11 and M12, within theproposed revised settlementboundary, that relate moreclosely to the builtenvironment. Properties withlarge gardens should not beallocated or given planningpermission for newdevelopment. Paragraph 48of the NPPF says thatwindfall allowance should notinclude residential gardens.



Include land to the rear ofHinton, Mere, at G7, withinthe proposed revised

C Hazzard(449233)

2440

changes in the builtsettlement boundary. Thisenvironment sinceland and the Townsendthe drafting of theNursery site, which isexisting settlementproposed to be includedboundaries in thewithin the settlementformer district localboundary as employment

land, is suitable forresidential development.

plans, not to allocatesites fordevelopment. Thisshould be consideredas an omission sitethrough the siteselection process forthe Wiltshire HousingSite Allocations Plan.


Include Land at CastleStreet, Mere, at E6, F6, E7,F7 and E8, within the

RichboroughEstates(1138546)

3231

changes in the builtproposed revised settlementenvironment sinceboundary and/ or allocate the

site for residentialdevelopment.

the drafting of theexisting settlementboundaries in theformer district localplans, not to allocatesites fordevelopment. Thisshould be consideredas an omission sitethrough the siteselection process forthe Wiltshire HousingSite Allocations Plan.


24.57 Table of representations relating to the settlement boundary review for Pitton (2representations)

Table 24.57

Proposedaction



Retain existing settlementboundary by land at AboveHedges, Pitton, at H6. This is a


735

excludes allCouncil site that is adjacent to andunimplementeddirectly opposite an existingplanning permissionsresidential development. Although(this site now hasadjacent to the edge of the villageoutline planningand open countryside, it shouldpermission for onebe considered as infilldetached fourdevelopment. Pre-applicationbedroom dwelling –advice for the construction of17/09121/OUT).Thesingle dwelling considered that,site is part of a largerfield at the edge ofthe settlement.

as a site for infill development, itwas considered to have adequateinfrastructure and suitable fordevelopment.

This site is not one that wasconsidered and dismissed throughthe SHLAA consultation. The sitereferred to by Pitton ParishCouncil, in their response to theinformal consultation onsettlement boundaries, is at theimmediate end of Above Hedges,which is outside the settlementboundary. This site is currentlywithin the boundary. The ParishCouncil response was of the viewthat any substantial developmentapart from infill would bedetrimental. This site is infill andwould be substantialdevelopment, therefore nodetrimental impact on the village.

This site is amenity space at theedge of a settlement that relatesmore closely to the builtenvironment than the opencountryside. It does not have thecapacity to substantially extendthe built form of the settlement interms of scale or location.


No action.The large area in themiddle of the villageis surrounded by

Object to including additional landwithin the settlement boundaryuntil the flooding issue is resolved,

Pitton &FarleyParishCouncil(392675)

2113

built developmentand there is no

particularly the large area (1.15ha)in the middle of the village and

reason under theother areas to the west. Pittonrevised settlementsuffers from groundwater flooding,boundary reviewevery three years on average, thatmethodology tofloods homes and roads, disrupts

local businesses and overwhelmsthe four drainage system.

exclude it from withinthe settlementboundary.

Flooding concernsassociated with newdevelopment can beaddressed throughthe planningapplication process,against Core Policy67 and other relevantpolicies.


24.58 Table of representations relating to the settlement boundary review for Salisbury (21representations)

Table 24.58

Proposedaction



Include Land Opposite45-65 Lower Road,Salisbury, at G8 and H8,within the proposed revisedsettlement boundary:

EamonBundred(1122207)

167, 169

changes to the builtenvironment since thedrawing up of the

•Omission site existing settlementboundaries. Omission

•On edge of settlementboundary, new proposedboundary to east and west

sites will beconsidered throughthe site selectionprocess.

•Boundary follows river upto this site, diverts aroundand then back again

•Part land flood zone 1,potential two houses, notgreen belt

No action.There is a generalpresumption in favourof development within

The Core Strategy shouldbe revised to allowconsideration of

WilliamRoper(1122632)

183

settlementdevelopment outsideboundaries. However,defined settlementthe Core Strategy andboundaries. Allow new

settlement to the north ofSalisbury to be considered.

the draft WiltshireHousing SiteAllocations Planallocate sites fordevelopment that areoutside of the existingsettlementboundaries. Potentialdevelopment sitesnorth of Salisbury,which were submittedthrough the SHLAAprocess, wereassessed through thesite selection process.

Action:Include theLondon Road

The car park is part ofthe built form of thesettlement and by

Include London Road Parkand Ride Car Park, at L6and M6, within theproposed revisedsettlement boundary.


740

Park andRide Car

including it thesettlement boundary


would follow a clearlydefined physicalfeature, i.e. therailway.

Park, at L6and M6,within theproposedrevisedsettlementboundary.

No action.The development atOld Sarum is includedwithin the proposed

Need to clarify whetherOld Sarum forms part ofthe settlement of Salisbury.

MargaretWilmot (378123)

779

1043, 1044,1045 revised settlementThe proposed revised

Salisbury CityCouncil (393725)

1383boundary forSalisbury. Thepurpose of the

settlement boundaryappears to include OldSarum, at L1, K2, L2, M2,

settlement boundaryK3 and L3. However, if OldLaverstockand FordParishCouncil (825522)

is to reflect changesin the builtenvironment since thedrawing up of theexisting settlementboundaries. There is

Sarum is part of thesettlement of Salisburythen this conflicts with thedefinition of ‘continuousurban areas’ in paragraph5.2 of the Core Strategy.

no necessity for theOld Sarum is notsettlement boundary,continuous with Salisbury

so fails to comply with theabove definition.

which reflects thelimits of development,to be a continuous

If Old Sarum is part of thesettlement of Laverstockand Ford, then it fails to

line; there can be twoor more separatesettlement boundariesfor a settlement.comply with Core Policy 1

in that small villages do nothave a settlementboundary.

The development at OldSarum should not be partof the settlement ofSalisbury. It is within theparish of Laverstock andFord, as well as theSouthern WiltshireCommunity Area. It formsan ‘island’ that is separatedfrom the main urban areaof Salisbury. Why is thissettlement not identifiedwithin the SouthernWiltshire Community AreaTopic Paper? There arealready seven separatesettlements identified withinSouthern Wiltshire, OldSarum should be the 8th.


Action:Update thesettlement

The proposedrevised settlementboundary includes

There is no explanationwhy the Longhedgestrategic housing

MargaretWilmot (378123)

779

boundariesbuilt or commencedallocation, at J1, K1, J2with built ordevelopment up toand K2, which is now beingcommencedApril 2016, the cut-offbuilt alongside Old Sarum,developmentdate. Prior tois not included within asince Aprilsubmission and/ orsettlement boundary when2016, up toadoption, it will beOld Sarum is included

within a settlementboundary.

the date forwhich the

updated withsubsequent

latestdevelopment built orinformation iscommenced up to theavailabledate for which the

latest information isavailable.

prior tosubmissionand/ oradoption.

No action. Infrastructure directlyrelated to adevelopment is

Where a settlement isextended into aneighbouring parish, there


1044

usually providedneeds to be an explanationdirectly by theof the mechanism whereby

supporting infrastructure isidentified and delivered.

developers or securedthrough planningobligations in section106 agreements.Other infrastructuremay be fundedthrough theCommunityInfrastructure Levy orother mechanisms, forexample grantfunding. The parish inwhich thedevelopment takesplaces receives aproportion of CILcontributions from thedevelopment. Thenecessaryinfrastructure may beidentified eitherthrough theInfrastructure DeliveryPlan, which supportsthe Core Strategy,site allocations plansor during the planningapplication process.


No action.This is a matter todiscuss through theplanning applicationprocess.

No involvement ofSalisbury Area Board orSalisbury City Council inpre-application discussions


1045

regarding the developmentat Longhedge. Thisconflicts with thecommitment in Core Policy3 to identify and deliverinfrastructure requirementsthrough liaison with areaboards, town and parishcouncils and appropriatelocal stakeholders. This isa major concern becauseof the impact thisdevelopment will have onthe city of Salisbury andthe missed opportunity forSalisbury City Council andSalisbury Area Board todiscuss and agreeinfrastructure requirements,such as sustainabletransport links between thedevelopment and thesettlement of Salisbury.

No action. Support noted. Support the change in thedraft settlement boundary,which was consulted upon

Laverstockand FordParishCouncil(825522)

1383

with town and parishcouncils in 2014, has beenmodified and thesettlement boundary is nowrestricted to the boundaryof the dwellings in thevicinity of Hampton Park,Bishopdown Farm andRiverdown Park, at J4, K4,L4, M4, J5, K5, L5, M5, K6and L6.


To deliver much neededhousing, there needs to beseveral corrections to thedraft housing andsettlement boundary DPD.

RichardGreenwood(1119095)

1604

changes to the builtform that haveoccurred since thedrafting of the existingsettlementboundaries. TheWiltshire Housing Site


Allocations Planallocates sites forhousing development.

No action. Support noted.However, the revisedsettlement boundary

Support allocation at Landat Rowbarrow, at K11 andK12, and request Council

MN, PA & RCTilley(1130961)

1823

review methodologyto confirm allocation of siteexcludesfor 100 dwellings in theunimplemented sitesubmission Plan and

extend the settlementboundary accordingly.

allocations from withinthe settlementboundary.


Include The Yard,Salisbury site, at J4, K4,L4, J5, K5, L5, K6 and L6,

Trustees ofThe DJPearce 1998Settlement(1131544)

2053

changes to the builtform that have

within the settlementboundary (also an omissionsite) occurred since the

drafting of the existingsettlementboundaries, not toallocate sites.Omission sites will beassessed through thesite selection process.

No action. Support noted.Omission sites will beassessed through thesite selection process.

Support inclusion of site atHarnham Trading Estate,at G10, within proposedrevised settlement

Legal andGeneralPropertyPartners(1131754)

2120

boundary for Salisbury.However, wish for site tobe allocated for housing inthe WHSAP.

Action:Update thesettlement

The proposedrevised settlementboundary includes

Inconsistent application ofthe revised settlementboundary review

Five RiversHomes Ltd(1132956)

2477, 2492

3087, 3088boundariesbuilt or commencedmethodology, with a

Hills HomesDevelopmentLtd (900566)

with built orcommenceddevelopmentsince April2016, up to

development up toApril 2016, the cut-offdate. Prior tosubmission and/ oradoption, it will be

number of commencedschemes not includedwithin the proposed revisedsettlement boundaries,such as:

the date forupdated with•Fugglestone Red which thesubsequent

latestdevelopment built or•Longhedge information iscommenced up to the

availabledate for which thelatest information isavailable.

•[A 200-unit schemenorth-east of Calne]

prior to


submissionand/ oradoption.

•[A 12-unit scheme nearCalne]

Therefore, the proposedrevised settlementboundaries do not correctlyfollow the methodology andthere should be a completerevisit of all the settlementboundaries.

Salisbury is a principalsettlement. Thus,commenced permissionsand/ or existingemployment sites shouldbe included within theproposed revisedsettlement boundaries.

No action. Supported for thecontinued inclusion ofthe Castle Works site,at J5, noted.

Support the continuedinclusion of the CastleWorks site, at J5, within theproposed revised

Five RiversHomes Ltd(1132956)

2477, 2492

settlement boundarybecause it is an existingemployment developmentthat is physically related tothe settlement.

No action.The revisedsettlement boundaryreview methodologyexcludes siteallocations.

Include Land atQuidhampton Quarry, at E6and E7, within theproposed revisedsettlement boundary forSalisbury:

S Walsh &Sons Ltd(1134260)

2737

•Large brownfield sitecapable delivering 200-300houses

•Adjacent to residentialdevelopment and localservices and facilities

•Quarrying ceased andpermission granted toreturn to developmentplatform

•Allocated in Core Strategyfor employment but nomarket demand andhousing more suitable


•Re-grading/ restorationcan be done quickly andcontribute to five yearhousing land supply, whichWiltshire cannot currentlydemonstrate

•Should be considered forhousing given nationalpolicy focus on brownfielddevelopment (e.g.Brownfield Land Registerand Permission inPrinciple)

Action:Include Landat Salisbury


Include Land at SalisburyRetail Park, London Road(the ‘Asda site’), at M5,within the proposed revisedsettlement boundary:

Asda StoresLtd(1136627)

3066

Retail Park,London Road

includes built orcommenced

(the ‘Asdaemployment•Site with a history ofplanning consents,including a bulky goods

site’), at M5, within theproposed

development that isphysically related tothe settlement.

retailing scheme in the revisedsettlementboundary.

Development on thesite can be said tohave commenced and

mid-1990s, under which astart was made on thescheme (creation of anaccess arrangement offLondon Road)

the site is physicallyrelated to thesettlement.Taking thesettlement boundary

•Planning Officers reporton planning application foran Asda store (which was

up to the road, whichsurrounds the site tothe north-east, would

approved but, due to ensure it follows aclearly definedphysical feature.

market conditions, there isno longer a need for afoodstore in this location)accepts that this is abrownfield site and thatbuilding had commencedon the site with the creationof the access road.

•Site located adjacent toresidential and commercialdevelopment with goodtransport links


•Not including site withinthe proposed revisedsettlement boundary wouldmean that the Plan has notbeen positively prepared.

Action:Include Landat Mill Lane,


Include Land at Mill Lane,Stratford Sub-Castle, atH5, within the proposedrevised settlementboundary:

Landowner ofLand at MillLane,StratfordSub-Castle(1130720)

1815

StratfordSub-Castle,at H5, within

includes recreationalor amenity space atthe edge of a

•Small parcel of landsurrounded on three sidesby existing residential

the proposedrevisedsettlementboundary.

settlement that relatesmore closely to thebuilt environment.Thesite is surrounded ondevelopment; access to

this land is already withinthe settlement boundary

three sides byresidentialdevelopment and its

•Including this piece of landwould not substantiallyextend the built form oraffect the special characterof the area

inclusion would onlybring the settlementboundary out in astraight line withresidentialdevelopment on eitherside.

•Land is not within a floodrisk area nor are there anyhistoric environmentconstraints



Include the entirety of thegarden of Elmfield House,Petersfinger, at M10, within

Keith Rodger(472513)

3371

the garden ofincludes the curtilagethe settlement boundary.Elmfieldof a property thatThe garden lies betweenHouse,relates more closelythe Park and Ride to thePetersfinger,to the builtWest, the A36 to the South

and Elmfield House to thenorth.

at M10,within thesettlementboundary.

environment, e.g. agarden, or has limitedcapacity to extend thebuilt form of thesettlement in terms ofscale and location.This area is thegarden/ orchard ofElmfield House andhas limited capacity toextend the built formof the settlementbecause it is enclosedbetween the park andride and the A36 road.


24.59 Table of representations relating to the settlement boundary review for Shrewton (1representation)

Table 24.59

Proposedaction


No action.The purpose of the settlementboundary review is to reflectchanges to the built form of

The absence of housingsite allocations inShrewton is unjustified.

Ms MoriaBarton(1138571)

3255

the settlement that haveThis position should beoccurred since the drawing upreconsidered and ‘Landof the existing settlementoff Elston Lane,boundaries. This is anShrewton, at I2, should

be included forconsideration.

omission site and should beconsidered through the siteselection process.


24.60 Table of representations relating to the settlement boundary review for South HousingMarket Area – settlements not being reviewed (1 representation)

Table 24.60

Proposedaction

Officer responseIssueName(s) Representationnumber(s)

No action.Noted. However, EastKnoyle is a small villageand, therefore, does nothave a settlement boundary.

Additionaldwelling in EastKnoyle completed

Wiltshire Council(Housing)(979503)

388


24.61 Table of representations relating to the settlement boundary review for Tilshead (2representations)

Table 24.61

Proposedaction



Include area of land,SHLAA site 3383, atJ5 and J6, within theproposed revisedsettlement boundary.


1264

changes to the built formof the settlement that haveoccurred since thedrawing up of the existingsettlement boundaries.This site has beenconsidered through thesite selection process.

Action:Include theaccess to

This is a mapping error.The pedestrian andvehicular access to

The proposed revisedsettlement boundaryhas excluded the

JonathanKyte(1144754)

3367

Treetops, offTreetops, Back Lane,pedestrian andBack Lane,should be included within

the proposed revisedsettlement boundary.

vehicular access toTreetops, Back Lane,Tilshead, at G6. This

at G6, withinthesettlementboundary.

is contrary to themethodology thatincludes the curtilageof a property.


24.62 Table of representations relating to the settlement boundary review for Tisbury (8representations)

Table 24.62

Proposedaction



Extend the settlement boundaryto include a paddock, at F8,adjacent to Applewell House.

DavidLacey(1106181)

76

methodologyexcludes land thatrelates more to theopen countrysidethan the builtenvironment, e.g.a field or paddock.

Action:Include thegardens and


Include all of the gardens at E8and F8 and draw the settlementboundary line to follow the line

WestTisburyParishCouncil(1121411)

143, 375

recreational/amenity

methodologyincludes gardens

of large conifer trees (E8),joining Monmouth Road at West

space at E8/and recreational orEnd cottage but carry on downF8 within thesettlementboundary.

amenity space atthe edge of asettlement that

the road to the conifer trees andhead off in a straight line until itgets to the gardens at the back

relates moreof Mount Pleasant then turningat a right angle to join thecurrent line.

closely to the builtenvironment andhas limitedcapacity to extendthe built form of thesettlement.

No action.Support noted.Support the inclusion of theschool site, at F4, G4, F5 andG5, but only for educationaldevelopment.


143


Keep the open spaces withinTisbury, at G3 and G4, G4, H4,G5 and H5, outside of thesettlement boundary.


143

methodologyincludesrecreational oramenity space thatrelates moreclosely to the builtenvironment.


No action. Support noted. Support extension thesettlement boundary to includethe Nadder Centre, swimming


743

pool, school and former sportscentre, at F4, G4, F5 and G5. Itis a well-established, heavilydeveloped site. It has a clearcurtilage which relates moreclosely to the built environmentthan the open countryside andhas limited capacity to extendthe built form of the settlementin terms of scale and location.

No action. Support noted. Support inclusion of the railwaystation works site within thesettlement boundary.

St ModwenProperties(1126246)

816

No action. Support noted. Support retention of settlementboundary along thenorth-western edges of the River


1776

Nadder valley floor, particularlyin sectors H9, H8, I8, I7, I6, J6and K6.


No action. Noted. Concerned that the inclusion ofthe brownfield site to thesouth-west of the railway station


1777

within the amended TisburyWiltshiresettlement boundary could beDowns

AONB(556113)

misunderstood. Recommendsthat development proposalsthere should not come forwardbefore the completion of theNeighbourhood Plan.

No action. Support noted. Support amendment at F3 toG4. This reflects new edge ofvillage development ofemployment units at WyndhamsPlace.

TisburyParishCouncil(391632)

2829

No action. Support noted. Support amendment at thestation works site, formerlyParmiter, at I8, J8, I9 and H9.


2829

This parcel of land is a derelictbrownfield site which the parishcouncil supports for mixedre-development. It will beallocated in the neighbourhoodplan.


No action. Support noted. Support amendment at I4, J4,I5 and J5. This revision reflectsexisting development of Duck St


2829

and Ladydown View on thenorth-eastern edge of thesettlement but potentially wouldencourage undesirable infillingalong a very narrow single tracklane with few passing places.Not in the neighbourhood plan.Narrowness of the lane maymake further developmentunsuitable.

No action. Support noted. Support amendment at TheAvenue, at I6, J6 and K6. Theparish council strongly supports


2829

the adjustment of the settlementboundary to the northern side of‘The Avenue’, reflecting theexisting settlement.


Object to amendment at H3, H4and I4. This is back gardendevelopment along Hindon


2829

methodologyLane. The parish council doesincludes thenot support these revisions ofcurtilage of athe settlement boundary whichproperty thatare not conducive to sustainable

development as there is noexisting access.

relates moreclosely to the builtenvironment, e.g.a garden, or haslimited capacity toextend the builtform of thesettlement in termsof scale andlocation.


Object to the amendment atNadder Close car park, at I6.This area is currently in use as


2829

methodologythe village car park and shouldincludes builtremain so. The parish councildevelopment thatobjects to the movement of theis physicallyrelated to thesettlement.

boundary. The site should betransferred permanently to theownership and control of theparish council.



Object to the amendment atThe Old Farmyard, at K6. Thisparcel of land is in the flood plainand floods regularly. It isunsuitable for development.


2829

methodologyincludes builtdevelopment thatis physicallyrelated to thesettlement.


Object to the amendment at F4,F5, G4 and G5. The parishcouncil objects most strongly to


2829

methodologythis proposed revision. Theincludes builtproposed new boundary isdevelopment,around the site of St John’s

school and the former NadderMiddle School.

includingcommunityfacilities, that isphysically relatedto the settlement.

The parish council supports therecommendations of TisPlan,the emerging neighbourhoodplan that this site should bereserved only for future potentialexpansion of educationalprovision. The site should notbe allocated for generaldevelopment.


Object to the amendment at theland and gardens around theSouth Western Hotel, at I8. This


2829

methodologyrevised boundary reflects theincludes builtre-development of the olddevelopment thatoutbuildings but the gardensis physicallyrelated to thesettlement.

flood routinely. They should beexcluded from the developmentboundary.


24.63 Table of representations relating to the settlement boundary review for Whiteparish (3representations)

Table 24.63

Proposedaction



The revised settlementboundary review methodologyincludes the curtilage of a

Include the entirety ofthe garden curtilage ofThe Banks, Common

Ian Scaife(473545)

378, 1077

the gardenproperty that relates moreRoad, at H7, withincurtilage ofclosely to the builtthe settlementThe Banks,environment, e.g. a garden, orboundary. PlanningCommonhas limited capacity to extendconsent S/07/1416,Road, atthe built form of a settlement.dated 27 FebruaryH7, withinThe proposed area for2008, confirms that

this area is gardencurtilage.

thesettlementboundary.

inclusion is in use as a gardenand its inclusion would havelimited capacity to extend thebuilt form of the settlementgiven its relationship toneighbouring properties (e.g.Church Barn and MemorialHall).

No action.The revised settlementboundary review methodologyincludes built and commenced

Unsure whyWhiteparish Church,Common Road, at H7,

Ian Scaife(473545)

378

community facilitiesis included within thedevelopment such as religiousbuildings that is physicallyrelated to the settlement.

settlement boundary.This appears to reflecta misunderstanding ofthe nature of the site,its sensitivity andexisting use as aGrade 1 listed church.


The revised settlementboundary review methodologyexcludes farm buildings andfarmyards at the edge of largevillages.

Exclude buildings atE7 and F7. These areagricultural buildings,not residentialdevelopment asdescribed in table ofchanges.

WhiteparishParishCouncil(500702)

951

settlementboundaryat E7 andF7 toexclude theagriculturalbuildings.

No action.The revised settlementboundary review methodologyincludes the curtilage of a

Exclude strip of landto the rear ofproperties on


951

property that relates moreCommon Road, at H7closely to the built


environment, e.g. a garden, orhas limited capacity to extendthe built form of the settlement

(west). This is moreclosely related to thecountryside.

in terms of scale and location.The strip of land appears tobe the immediate back gardento the property and itsinclusion would notsubstantially extend the builtform of the settlement.

Action:IncludeChurch

The revised settlementboundary review methodologyincludes built and commenced

Include Church Barn,Common Road, at H7(east) within thesettlement boundary.


951

Barn,residential development thatis physically related to thesettlement.

CommonRoad, atH7 (east)within thesettlementboundary.

No action.The revised settlementboundary review methodologyincludes built and commenced

Exclude rectangularand square extensionsto the settlement


951

residential development thatboundary, at G9,is physically related to thebecause they aresettlement and the curtilageagricultural and push

out into the NewForest National Park.

of a property that relates moreclosely to the builtenvironment, in the case ofthe square extension a carport.

The revised settlementboundary review methodologyincludes the curtilage of aproperty that relates moreclosely to the builtenvironment, e.g. a garden, orhas limited capacity to extendthe built form of the settlementin terms of scale and location.The rectangular extensionappears to include the gardencurtilage of the two properties.

No action.The table of changes for theproposed settlement boundaryfor Whiteparish says, for the

Large gardens of twohouses on Dean Lane,at I4 and I5, are


951

proposed changes in I4 andincluded withinI5, ‘Amend boundary toproposed settlementinclude the curtilage of a [sic]boundary, however


table of changes saysthat the settlementboundary is being

properties physically relatedto the built form of thesettlement.’

amended to excluderecreational oramenity space at theedge of settlementsthat relates more tothe open countryside.

No action.The revised settlementboundary review methodologyincludes the curtilage of a

Exclude AshmoreHouse, Dean Lane, atH4 and H5, from the


951

property that relates moresettlement boundary.closely to the builtThis is a large countryenvironment, e.g. a garden, orhouse set in grounds

and should beexcluded.

has limited capacity to extendthe built form of the settlementin terms of scale and location.


24.64 Table of representations relating to the settlement boundary review for Wilton (2representations)

Table 24.64

Proposedaction

Officer responseIssueName(s) Representationnumber(s)

No action.The revised settlementboundary reviewmethodology excludes allunimplemented planningpermissions.

Include planningpermission(14/02287/FUL) at CobCottage, BurcombeLane, at H9 and I9.

Wilton EstateOffice(390659)

136

Action: Includethe existingPark Garden


Include the existingPark Garden House,Wilton House GardenCentre, at M6 and L6.


136

House, Wiltonbuilt or commencedHouse GardenCentre, at M6and L6.

development that isphysically related to thesettlement.

Action: Includeland atBurdens Ball


Include Land atBurdens Ball Farm,Queen Street, at K4/


136

Farm, QueenStreet, at K4/L4.

built or commenceddevelopment that isphysically related to the

L4. The railway lineforms an effective edgeto the settlement and

settlement. Theaccess comes from thenorthern point of thesite.

settlement boundaryshould follow, wherepracticable, clearlydefined physical features,such as railway lines.

No action. Support noted. Support confirmationof the south-westernextent of Wilton,particularly at F9, F10,G11 and G12.


1781


24.65 Table of representations relating to the settlement boundary review for Winterslow (3representations)

Table 24.65

Proposedaction


No action.The revised settlementboundary reviewmethodology includes

Include the entirety of thegarden of Beechwood, at E5,F5, E6 and F6, within the

Ian Flindell(861791)

381, 382

the curtilage of asettlement boundary. Atproperty that relatespresent, the boundary ismore closely to the builtdrawn through the middle ofenvironment, e.g. athe site. The emerginggarden, or has limitedWinterslow Neighbourhoodcapacity to extend thePlan recommends the wholebuilt form of theof this site for residentialsettlement in terms ofdevelopment. Developmentscale and location.of this site would beHowever, the inclusionsustainable under local (Coreof the entirety of thisStrategy) and national policygarden would(NPPF) and contribute tosubstantially extend thedelivering a five year housingbuilt form of thesettlement in terms ofscale and location.

land supply. The site iswell-positioned in terms oflocal facilities and servicesand has good road access. Itcomplies with the settlementboundary reviewmethodology. No landscapingor planning considerations tojustify bisecting site.


Include Land at Witt Road, atL6, within the settlementboundary. The settlement

Kents OakLtd (1131190)

1892

built form of theboundary review should takesettlement, not tothe opportunity to includeallocate sites. This sitesmall areas of land that are

close to the village centre andin a sustainable location.

should be considered asan omission site throughthe site selectionprocess for the WiltshireHousing Site AllocationsPlan.


Settlements not reviewed and general comments

24.66 Table of representations relating to the settlement boundary review for settlements notreviewed (6 representations)

Table 24.66

Proposedaction

Officer response Issue Name(s)Representationnumber(s)

No action.The settlementboundary for Pewsey isnot being reviewed by

Pewsey:

Exclude Land to the East ofBalls Road, Pewsey, from thePewsey Neighbourhood Plan.

BernieBradshaw(869060)

116

the Wiltshire HousingSite Allocations Planbecause it has alreadybeen reviewed by thePewsey NeighbourhoodPlan.

No action. East Knoyle isclassified as a smallvillage by Core Policy 1

East Knoyle:

Further to the ongoingWiltshire Housing SiteAllocations Plan, having


388

of the Wiltshire CoreStrategy and, therefore,it does not have asettlement boundary.

regard to the Councils ownCouncil House BuildProgramme, I am pleased toconfirm/ update on thefollowing:

15/10824/FUL: Two singlestorey houses for elderlypeople, with associatedaccess road and car parking,on land south of 1 ParkHouses, East Knoyle. Thedwellings are now constructedand occupied, this was an infilldevelopment site.

No action.The settlementboundary for Holt is notbeing reviewed by the

Holt:

Amend the Holt settlementboundary to include the wholeof the Tannery site. Neither

J&TBeaven(1129146)

1519

Wiltshire Housing SiteAllocations Plan

the Wiltshire Core Strategy because it has alreadynor Holt Neighbourhood Plan been reviewed by the

Holt NeighbourhoodPlan.

have amended the boundaryin this way, despite providingsupport for the redevelopmentof the site for housing andemployment, and retain the


existing settlement boundary,which goes through themiddle of the site.

No action. Maiden Bradley isclassified as a smallvillage by Core Policy 1

Maiden Bradley:

Include site at Sydenham’sTimber Merchants, BradleyLane, Maiden Bradley,Warminster Wilts BA12 7JRwithin settlement boundary.

TheTrustees ofLordSeymour’s1971Settlement/SherborneHoldings (1131720)

2111

of the Wiltshire CoreStrategy and, therefore,it does not have asettlement boundary.

No action.The settlementboundary for Pewsey isnot being reviewed by

Pewsey:

Short-sighted and damagingnot to review Pewseysettlement boundary. Further

BovisHomes (998345)

3003

the Wiltshire HousingSite Allocations Plan

housing sites likely to be because it has alreadyproposed through the Core been reviewed by the

Pewsey NeighbourhoodPlan.

Strategy Review. Settlementboundary review should formpart of combined CoreStrategy Review/ Housing SiteAllocations Plan with housingallocations included withinrevised boundaries.

NoLatton is classified as asmall village by CorePolicy 1 of the Wiltshire

Latton:

Include Land at GosditchRoad/ A419 within thesettlement boundary.

Barry Oram(1146217)

3368

Core Strategy and,therefore, it does nothave a settlementboundary.


24.67 Table of representations relating to the settlement boundary review for non-settlement specificcomments (6 representations)

Table 24.67

Proposedaction

Officer response Issue Name(s)Representationnumber(s)

No action.The revised settlementboundary reviewmethodology includes

Suggest settlementboundaries could be lesstightly drawn around


744

community facilitiesschool sites. Theydevelopment, such asexclude the wider schoolreligious buildings, schoolssite and playing areas.and community halls, whichConcerned that this doesis physically related to thenot allow for future

on-site expansion of theschools.

settlement. The extent towhich the wider school siteand playing areas ofindividual schools areincluded within thesettlement boundary havebeen judged against othercriteria in the methodology,such as those relating tothe curtilage of a propertyand recreational/ amenityspace at the edge ofsettlements.


Tightly drawn settlementboundaries leave little tono opportunity for self or

AndrewFlemingAssociatesLtd(1124863)

782

settlements, not to allocatesites for development. For

custom builddevelopment. These

the remainder of the Plantypes of development areperiod (i.e. up to 2026), thisonly likely to be deliveredis being undertakenthrough small sites,

rather than large housingextensions.

through the site selectionprocess for the WiltshireHousing Site AllocationsPlan. The Local PlanReview will consider theneed to allocate furtherdevelopment beyond thePlan period.

No action. Core Policy 1 of theWiltshire Core Strategyretains settlement

Removing settlementboundaries from largevillages would provide for

LandDevelopment& PlanningConsultantsLtd (162663)

1094

boundaries for settlementsclassified as principal

rural developmentwell-related to existing

settlements, market towns,settlements and, togetherlocal service centres andwith the neighbourhoodlarge villages.The Wiltshireplanning process, allow


for larger allocations tomeet the identified needsof the community.

Housing Site AllocationsPlan must be in conformitywith policies in the CoreStrategy.

No action. Support noted. Support the settlementboundary review.However, aware that any

Test ValleyBoroughCouncil(911081)

1286

future amendments tosettlement boundariesclose to the border withTest Valley could lead toincreased pressure onhousing requirements inthe Borough and, thus,infrastructurerequirements (e.g.transport, open spaceand other services) thatwould require furthercross boundaryco-operation.

No action.The revised settlementboundary reviewmethodology excludes all

Settlement boundariesshould include extantplanning permissions and

AbsoluteSolvents Ltd(1134308)

2730

unimplemented planningsite allocations. Theypermissions and sitemay not come forwardallocations. The role of aimmediately but wheresettlement boundary is tothey are part of a housingdefine the built form of theor employment supplysettlement. Unimplementedthat the Council is relyingplanning permissions, byupon during the Plandefinition, have yet to beperiod then theirbuilt and, therefore, do notinclusion wouldform part of the builtdemonstrate that

development in that areais supported.

environment. Until they arebuilt, there is still a degreeof uncertainty over theexact layout of the urbanform.


Support the settlementboundary review.Settlement boundaries

WebbpatonClient Group(1134382)

2739

unimplemented siteshould be adjusted toallocations.The purpose ofaccommodate sitesthe settlement boundary isto define the built form of asettlement.

promoted fordevelopment through thisconsultation. Settlementboundaries adjoining the


There is likely to beuncertainty over how muchspace within the red line ona site plan drawing is takenup by the built form.

Swindon BoroughCouncil area should bereviewed to fit with theCouncil’s commitment fora joint HMA for Swindonand the M4 corridor with

The purpose of thesettlement boundary reviewis to reflect the built form of

Swindon BoroughCouncil. It would beagainst this commitment

settlements, not to allocateif the Site Allocation DPDsites for development. Foris agreed before thethe remainder of the Plancompletion of this jointperiod (i.e. up to 2026), thisinitiative. No need foris being undertakensettlement boundariesthrough the site selectionwith a policy of restrictingprocess for the Wiltshiredevelopment;Housing Site Allocationsdevelopment should bePlan. The Local Planin sustainable locationsReview will consider theas defined by planningneed to allocate furtherdevelopment beyond thePlan period.

law and the NPPF. TheCore Strategy shouldidentify the allocatedsites but not prevent

Core Policy 1 of theWiltshire Core Strategyretains settlement

other sites comingforward because they arenot within a settlement

boundaries for settlementsboundary where there isa lack of five yearhousing supply.

classified as principalsettlements, market towns,local service centres andlarge villages.The WiltshireHousing Site AllocationsPlan must be in conformitywith policies in the CoreStrategy.


This document was published by the Spatial Planning team, Wiltshire Council,Economic Development and Planning Services.

For further information please visit the following website:

http://www.wiltshire.gov.uk/wiltshsgsiteallocationsplan.htm

Information about Wiltshire Council services can be made available in other formats (such as large print or audio) and languages on request. Please contact the council on 0300 456 0100, by textphone on (01225) 712500 or by email on [email protected].

Wiltshire Housing Site Allocations Plan · 2704 (977912) 2719 (977912) 2743 (1134431/1134428) 2967...

Documents

Transcript of Wiltshire Housing Site Allocations Plan · 2704 (977912) 2719 (977912) 2743 (1134431/1134428) 2967...