Welcome to the Rudloe and environs website.

 

Here you will find news, articles and photos of an area that straddles the Cotswold Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty in north-west Wiltshire.

 

Contributions in the form of articles or photos are welcome. Even those with completely contrary views to mine!

 

Thanks to the website builder 1&1 and Rob Brown for the original idea.

 

Rudloescene now, in January 2014, has a sister, academic rather than anarchic, website about Box history here: http://www.boxpeopleandplaces.co.uk/

It contains thoroughly professional, well-researched articles about Box and its people.

 

Contact rudloescene through the 'Contact' page.

rudloescene
rudloescene

Looks like a skewed, impressionist illustration of .... Potley. Yes folks, this is the latest planning application - 14/05686/OUT for 64 homes twixt the eastern edge of Leafield Trading Estate and Potley Trading Estate.

28th March 2016 - the Potley development

 

Wiltshire Council has published, on 17th March 2016, the 'full' (now called REM) planning application, 16/02523/REM, which covers all 'reserved matters' (hence REM) for the approved outline application, 14/05686/OUT, for 64 homes at Potley. This covers such things as estate layout, house design, access and so on. The Wiltshire Council webpage for this application may be found using the 'link' (button) below this article.

 

This will be another 'toytown' development (Britain builds, by far, the smallest new homes in Europe). The satellite image above shows Neston Park (just the House and immediate outbuildings), the 'home' of the Fuller family on whose estate land these new homes will be built. The green rectangle with red outline adjacent to the tennis court illustrates (exactly at 46.1 sqm) the total, gross living space in one of the unaffordable (whoops, sorry, affordable) apartments in this development. Anyone for tennis?

 

Representations must be made by 28th April but, in the current planning climate, representation letters (comments), 'calling-in' by the local councillor, attendance at planning meetings and having your 3-minute 'say' on the matter are all a complete waste of time. Past experience has shown that these (Northern Area in our case) planning meetings are simply for 'show'. No notice whatsoever is taken of representations or speeches; they are completely ignored. At the last Northern Area Planning Committee meeting, one of the committee members asked what was the point of the committee or the meeting - all developments, good or bad, will eventually be rubber-stamped from on high.

 

At the outset of the last government, this was called localism (remember?) 

7th April 2015 - Wiltshire Council planners response to the 4th April email

 

Dear Paul,

Thanks for your email. In answer to your first question below, it is simply the case that having been instructed by the planning Committee some time ago to approve the applications, Mark and I have been working with the respective applicants and our Solicitors to complete legal agreements to secure the contributions set out in the Committee reports. The acceptability of the proposal in all other respects is, however, tested at the point that the application is before Committee. It is common practice to manage an application in this manner – Committee Members understand what will be sought in the way of planning contributions but applicants (quite sensibly) don’t generally want to incur legal expenses until they are confident that their application is acceptable in all other respects – so the Committee can resolve to delegate to Officers to grant permission ‘subject to conditions and completion of a Section 106 agreement to secure XX...’

Particularly in the case of the Hannick site, there has been some considerable delay in agreeing more minor points of that agreement. However the changes introduced by central government yesterday (6 April) to the regulations covering legal agreements have provided a new impetus to complete outstanding agreements (such as those relating to the below sites) by the end of last week. This ensures that, should the developments proceed, Wiltshire Council collects all the off-site infrastructure contributions originally sought and can spend these in the locality.

Mark may wish to elaborate, as he is the case Officer, but my understanding is that the supporting information submitted in respect of bat issues at the Redcliffe site was simply inadequate; the Council directed the applicant as regards what additional work had to be carried out, but the applicant failed to do so. The Council never held that the proposal would inevitably create insurmountable problems for bats or that outcomes could not be adequately predicted/compensated, just that the application failed to address the relevant issues in the first instance. Conversely, the Hannick application was sufficiently comprehensive in this respect, proposing adequate measures to mitigate any impacts on protected species and thereby overcoming any planning objection on ‘bats’ grounds.

As both the below applications have now been approved in outline, these (if the developers proceed) will be followed by ‘reserved matters’ applications covering the final layouts, landscaping and design of the schemes (I think ‘access’ was a matter fixed at outline stage in the case of both). These applications will run the same 13-week course, including the statutory public consultation period, and can be called in for consideration by Committee if the Local Member so wishes.

I trust this clarifies.

Kind regards,

Chris

4th April 2015 - planning applications 13/05724/OUT and 14/04179/OUT

 

Both of the subject outline planning applications have just (2nd April 2015) been approved by Wiltshire Council. Yours truly has sent the following response to Wiltshire planners Chris Marsh and Mark Staincliffe:

 

Chris & Mark,

 
I note that this week's list of planning decisions includes the following, the first of which 'we' have been following closely here at Rudloe:
 

Application Number: 13/05724/OUT

Site Location: Land South of Bradford Road Rudloe SN13 0

Grid Ref: 385528 170302

Proposal: Up to 88 dwellings, including affordable housing, 1.2 hectares of B1 employment and landscaping

Case Officer: Chris Marsh Direct Line: 01249 706657

Registration Date: 21/11/2013

Decision: Approve with Conditions

Decision Date: 02/04/2015

 

Application Number: 14/05686/OUT

Site Location: Land to the South of Potley Lane Corsham

Grid Ref: 386622 169628

Proposal: Outline planning application for the development of up to 64 no. residential dwellings together with associated access, parking, public open space and landscaping.

Case Officer: Mark Staincliffe Direct Line: 01249 706682

Registration Date: 18/06/2014

Decision: Approve with Conditions

Decision Date: 02/04/2015

 

Going over old ground I realise but you will, of course, know that both applications are for greenfield development in west Corsham, an area with substantial brownfield sites with planning applications extant or pending - Copenacre, Rudloe No 2 Site in Westwells Road, Rudloe No 1 Site, Rudloe Estate (renaissance!), the old police station in Priory Street and so on. Hundreds of houses proposed and more than enough (brownfield, just in west Corsham) to fulfill the housing requirement for the whole Corsham area until 2026.

 

Two further speculative planning greenfield planning applications are hanging over our heads - the Gladman application at Pickwick (undergoing the planning appeal process) and the Redcliffe development at Bradford Road for which Redcliffe has now appealed the Council's refusal.

If all these greenfield applications prove successful, this will add 472 houses to burden the already stretched services of Corsham (the brownfield sites mentioned above which will, for certain, all be developed will add 350 homes to the west Corsham landscape).

Corsham cannot sustain this level of development. Indeed, having now adopted the Core Strategy, Mark (Staincliffe) has/will argue against the Redcliffe development appeal on the grounds that at the time of the Redcliffe refusal on the grounds of 'bats', Wiltshire did not have an approved 5-year land supply but now, with the adoption of the Core Strategy, it does.

Why then, having had its 5-year land supply 'approved' through the adoption of the Core Strategy, is the Council approving greenfield planning applications in west Corsham? Further, the west Corsham brownfield sites will just about satisfy the 2026 housing requirement.

Further questions ...

Why, after the 'approval' of the Hannick application at the Northern Area Planning Meeting on 14th March 2014, has the Council only formally approved this application on 2nd April 2015? (Similar question really regarding the Potley application)

As both these applications are 'Outline', are further 'Full' planning applications still to be expected?

As the Hannick and Redcliffe applications are both on the Bradford Road and both submitted similar ecological appraisals, why was the Redcliffe application refused on the grounds of 'bats' and the Hannick application approved?

Sincerely

Paul Turner
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: DevelopmentmanagementNorth@wiltshire.gov.uk
Subject: Weekly List of Planning Applications and Decisions - w/e 03/04/15
Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2015 09:23:35 +0000
 

Please find attached Weekly Lists of Planning Application received and Weekly List of Decisions for the week ending 3rd April 2015.

 

Regards,

 

 

Economic Development & Planning

Wiltshire Council

Email: developmentmanagementnorth@wiltshire.gov.uk

27th October 2014 - planning application 14/05686/OUT for 64 homes at Potley

 

Very late in reporting the approval (with conditions) of this planning application by the Northern Area Planning Committee on 27th August 2014 owing to investigating/reporting on the many other speculative planning applications in west Corsham - apologies!

 

Agree with Charles Todd's comments on the application: I am not against the provision of affordable housing in Corsham. I do object to this development which will see a further loss of green fields on the edge of the town. There are enough plans for housing already in the pipeline or recently approved to fulfill the needs of the growing population of Corsham. And even if this was not so, the planners should avoid using green field sites for housing. The fields should be used for agricultural purposes, as they always have been. Brown field sites should be used for housing developments and there are many in the area which could be put to such use.

The western edge of the new development (site can just be seen at left) will abut the eastern edge of Leafield Industrial Estate
Map of proposed development area at Potley - application 14/05686/OUT

29th June 2014 - Potley planning application

 

And the next one right this way please ... Here's the latest planning application for west Corsham from an entity called 'de Vernon Trustees Inc'. This is an organisation registered (through the Guernsey Financial Services Commission) in Sark! Marvellous isn't it - offshore 'entities' (presumably paying no UK tax) taking advantage our our currrent planning 'free for all', despoiling what remains of our farmland in west Corsham whilst making a fat tax-free profit (one assumes).

 

Clearly, the ‘estate’ has the best interests of the local community at heart ... from its website “There is an embryonic project on the planning table for affordable housing linked with the estate in the form of a modern day almshouse to ensure that housing development is appropriate for the area and that it provides affordable housing for local people.”

 

We all know that housing is now unaffordable (see ‘News’, ‘Rudloe’) but a modern day almshouse! The definition of an almshouse is ‘rent-free accommodation for the poor or aged’. With the rich getting richer etc (particularly in the UK according to OECD stats) I trust that this means that the 'estate' will be the benefactor using its (alleged) offshore, tax-free ‘vehicle’.

Print Print | Sitemap
© Paul Turner