Town Planner Pro
Search appeal decisions

Planning appeal decision

Allowed15 June 20263373278

Land South of Snarlton Farm, Snarlton Lane, Melksham, Wiltshire, SN12 7QP

Authority
Wiltshire Council
Appeal type
major · Planning Appeal
Procedure
Inquiry
Development
residential · Major dwellings
Inspector
Wilders B

Main issues, as the Inspector framed them

  • Whether the appeal site is an appropriate location for the proposed development
  • If not, whether the proposal would result in any other harm, with particular regard to landscape and BMV
  • Whether the Council can currently demonstrate a five-year housing land supply and if not, the extent of the shortfall
  • Any benefits of the proposal and the weight to be given to them
  • If the Council cannot demonstrate a five-year housing land supply, whether the adverse impacts of granting planning permission significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole, taking into account the recently made NP and the wording of paragraph 14

What decided it

the very significant shortfall in five-year housing land supply (2.16 years) and acute affordable housing need meant that the benefits of housing delivery, taken with the uncertainty over the JMNP2 housing requirement following withdrawal of the emerging Local Plan, were not significantly and demonstrably outweighed by the harms, including conflict with the neighbourhood plan.

significant weight given to market and affordable housing, and moderate weight to other social, economic, drainage and biodiversity benefits, were found to outweigh the limited weight given to landscape harm and conflict with out-of-date development plan policies and the moderate weight given to loss of BMV land, such that the adverse impacts of allowing development conflicting with the neighbourhood plan did not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.

Framework references: 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 48, 49, 57, 58, 61, 69, 70, 78, 135, 187, 188, 207, 216, 232

Plan policies cited: WCS Policy CP1, WCS Policy CP2, WCS Policy CP15, WCS Policy CP43, WCS Policy CP45, WCS Policy CP51, WCS Policy CP52, WCS Policy CP57, WCS Policy CP58, WCS Policy CP60, WCS Policy CP61, WCS Policy CP67, JMNP2 Policy 3, JMNP2 Policy 6, JMNP2 Policy 11

Judgments cited: City of Edinburgh v Secretary of State for Scotland and Others [1997] UKHL 38; [1998] 1 All ER 174; [1997] 1 WLR 1447; Tesco Stores Limited v Dundee City Council [2012] UKSC 13; R v Rochdale MBC, ex parte Milne [2000] EWHC 650 (Admin); R (on the application of Hampton Bishop Parish Council) v Herefordshire Council [2014] EWCA Civ 878; Corbett v Cornwall Council [2020] EWCA Civ 508; Suffolk Coastal DC v Hopkins Homes; Richborough Estates v Cheshire East [2017] UKSC 37; R (Corbett) v The Cornwall Council [2020] EWCA Civ 508

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.

In the app this decision sits on the map beside every other appeal around it, with the full reasoning summary, the letter held on file, and the case law it applies.