Client
Hannick Homes & Developments Ltd
Size
Up to 26 dwellings
Sectors
Residential
Council
Wiltshire Council
Key Project Information
Permission was granted at appeal for up to 26 dwellings.
Pegasus Group submitted a planning application on behalf of Hannick Homes, preparing many of the technical reports in support of this application.
Our planning and economics areas of expertise were then instructed to represent the applicant at the appeal on planning and housing land supply matters.
The story
Pegasus Group submitted a planning application for up to 26 dwellings, public open space, landscaping and associated engineering works at Land south west of Park Road and prepared many of the supporting documents including the Planning Statement and the Design and Access Statement.
In light of the information provided, the case officer recommended that planning permission should be granted. However, committee members disagreed and refused planning permission identifying 3 reasons for refusal on planning and landscape grounds and the absence of an agreed s106.
A s78 appeal was lodged against this decision, and the appeal was conjoined with that for a neighbouring site at Land off Park Road for up to 50 dwellings which was being promoted by Stonewater Housing Association and White Lion Land Ltd.
Pegasus Group were instructed to represent Hannick Homes at appeal on planning matters, and both appellants on housing land supply matters.
The resultant appeal decision was the first in a long line of decisions in Wiltshire to acknowledge and respond to the housing land supply position that exists.
The Inspector found that the five-year land supply shortfall could not be described as modest, that there was no indication that this shortfall would be remedied in the near future, that there is a plan period shortfall which is particularly pronounced in the North and West Wiltshire Housing Market Area and that as such planning permission should be granted providing there are no major policy obstacles other than a site being outside of settlement boundaries.
On this basis, the Inspector found that the limited harms arising from either proposal would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits and allowed both appeals.
