Planning appeal decision
Land at Station Works, Station Road, Tisbury, Wiltshire, SP3 6QU
redevelopment of the Station Works site to provide a mixed development of up to 86 dwellings, a care home of up to 40 bedspaces with associated medical facilities, new pedestrian and vehicular access and traffic management works, a safeguarded area for any future rail improvements, and areas of public open space
- Authority
- Wiltshire Council
- Appeal type
- major · Planning Appeal
- Procedure
- Inquiry
- Development
- residential · Major dwellings
- Inspector
- Woodwards O
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- whether or not the proposed land use is acceptable, with particular regard to the principle of the proposed loss of the existing commercial/industrial land uses and replacement with housing and a care home, including considering the need for a care home
- whether or not the appeal site is suitably accessible, with particular regard to providing adequate access to services and facilities including in the event of flooding
- the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, including whether or not it would conserve or enhance the landscape and scenic beauty of the Cranborne Chase Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
- whether or not the proposal would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Tisbury Conservation Area
- the effect of the proposal on the special architectural and historic interest of listed buildings, St John the Baptist and Gaston Manor
- the effect of the proposal on highway safety
- the effect of the proposal on the efficient operation of the highway network in the vicinity of the appeal site
- the effect of the proposal on healthcare
What decided it
The proposed walkway under the Three Arch Bridge would not remain safe and operational for users during design flood events, isolating future occupants from services and the railway station and failing the Framework's exception test for essential infrastructure in Flood Zone 3b.
The weighty benefits of housing delivery, affordable housing, care home provision, economic benefits, regeneration of an 'eyesore' site and biodiversity net gain were negated by the unresolved flood risk and accessibility failure of the walkway, which breached the site allocation and other development plan policies; the tilted balance did not apply because this constituted a clear reason for refusal, and the proposal was found to conflict with the development plan as a whole.
Framework references: 11, 57, 110, 112, 119, 166, 167, 174, 177, 197
Plan policies cited: Policy CP43, Policy CP46, Policy CP27, Policy CP35, Policy CP52, Policy CP57, Policy CP3, Policy CP60, Policy CP61, Policy CP62, Policy BL.7, Policy BL.1, Policy BL.3, Policy EB.1, Saved Policy R2
The main issues and the deciding factor are read from the published letter by Town Planner Pro; the letter itself is the record. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Research, not advice.
®