Developers win Paxcroft Mead appeal

4.39.00pm BST (GMT +0100) Fri 11th Jul 2008

An outline planning application for another 150 houses on part of the 'H8' land between Paxcroft Mead and Larkrise School went to planning committee in October 2007. The application was recommended for permission with 25 conditions, and subject to a legal agreement to get contributions to affordable housing, school places, sports and open space provision, and highway improvements.

However the committee decided to refuse the application for two reasons. One being that there would be no vehicular access to the estate other than through the existing road network on Paxcroft Mead, so the status of Leap Gate as possibly the largest cul-de-sac in the country would be further enhanced. County Highways had objected to the application unless the East of Trowbridge development, which will involve Leap Gate becoming a through road, was underway.

The second reason was that the District Plan had identified H8 as being suitable for 230 houses. Given that the part currently under construction will have 187 homes, this application would take it to about 330. This would mean too much pressure on the existing estate road network to the detriment of existing and future residents.

Planning Inspector Paul Griffiths has today over-ruled the District Council and granted permission.

Mr Griffiths said that the increased housing "would have no significant impact on highway safety." He accepted that there would be more traffic, but said this would not create problems for existing residents.

"A greater volume of traffic does not necessarily equate to a level of noise and disturbance that would be detrimental to the living conditions of the occupiers," he continued.

The inspector also dismissed the other reason for refusal - that there would be simply too many houses on the site - on the grounds that this was partly due to previous permissions on other bits of the allocation, and that in any case government policy encouraged cramming.

An attempt by the County Council to get a contribution to the Hilperton Gap road was also rejected. "I do not accept that a requirement for a contribution ... in order to put right difficulties with previous legal agreements, can be described as reasonable. This conclusion is underlined by evidence ... which suggests that WCC is the source of a significant proportion of those difficulties," said Mr Griffiths.

The inspector also awarded costs against the council, saying councillors had acted unreasonably in attempting to stand up for local residents.

The full decision can be seen at

http://www.pcs.planningportal.gov.uk/pcsportal/fscdav/READONLY?OBJ=COO.2036.300.2.10884876&NAME=/Decision.pdf