Design a site like this with
Get started

Objections Guide and documentation

Document links are below:

S106 schedule 5 specifically

Wiltshire Core Strategy

Wootton Bassett for Brynards Hill has a detailed history of previous planning timelines!

download a basic formatted word template here just delete and amend the address and signoff details before you send it anywhere and don’t forget to email or post a copy to Cllr Christ Hurst! (who will be our voice in Wilts Council meetings)

Summarised points from Steve Bucknell’s objection letter, to help formulate responses.

Link to existing planning application drawings and objection letters submitted

Below is a list of common objections relating to the proposed development of green space on Brynards Hill.

In order to ease the process of letter writing when drafting objections to planning application 20/11655/FUL we have created the below in order to help.

You can submit comments online here

Our standard form letter (not a copy-paste!)

Sometimes local residents circulate a standard form letter to encourage their neighbours to object on the same grounds. We essentially are doing the same thing, although we encourage everyone who wants to object to use our guide as just that, a guide. Let it prompt your response rather than using direct copy and paste. Our objective is to summarise the most common objection points so that when you are writing your letters/submitting online your responses, you don’t have to trawl the internet to find what you need. Please use our summaries above to inform your letter content. The word template can be found to your left. You can also object online through this >>>link <<<

The main consideration for Woodshaw Meadows objection to more houses being built on marked land designated for a country park are:

1. Contravention of schedule 5 in the S106 document [full document details and drawings here

Wain Homes’ agreement with Wiltshire council before construction of existing woodshaw meadows estate was to provide the completed country park before occupation of the 20th dwelling (this clearly did not happen) and to provide the car park for the country park before the occupation of the 60th Dwelling (again – not here). So to build another 61 houses without having ever provided the agreed country park is a breech of undertakings made on the section 106 agreement. Bearing in mind there are many families living here now with no access to the above stated country park building another estate on proposed green areas does not provide recreational space for families who already live here. There has been continued erosion of the country park provision as each parcel of land has been developed.

Schedule 3 of the S106 (page 45) is also a point of interest regarding the provision of a play park (that has never materialised)

2. Access Roads

a: The proposed access via Pool Meadows at its narrowest is only big enough for one car without any means to pass. There are similar narrow areas of road near plots 86 & 87, but without measuring either I’m unsure of the widths.
b. All vehicular traffic including construction plant will have to access this land parcel via one access road which is currently only wide enough for a single vehicle and is a cul de sac design.
c. The roads in Pool Meadows has already been surfaced. Any noise created in having to dig this up again would be an unbearable for the residents who’s doorstep this would be on.

d. The current existing estate is relatively quiet and safe place for the young families who live here. With the only access to the new development being via Evening star and Pool Meadows this will increase the noise levels around the estate as well as potential danger to children.

3. Destruction of green space and recreational environment. (more details below)

4. Pressure on local services and ameneties such as hospital, schools and GP services. (more details below)

Summaries of Steve Bucknell’s complaint letter

Click here for Steve Bucknell’s full letter and see below for summarised paragraphs relating to each point mentioned in his letter. They are free to copy/edit for your own letters as you wish. (consent given)

  1. The site is outside the Settlement Boundary – contrary to the aims of Core Policy 1 of Wiltshire
    Core Strategy
  2. He references Core Policy 1 and Core Policy 2, which only allow for development outside of settlement boundaries if proposals meet with criteria set out in paragraph 4.25 of the Core Strategy. This proposal does not meet such criteria and therefore the proposal is not in line with Core Policy 1 and 2. which are: Additional employment land, Military establishment, Development related to tourism, Rural exception sites, Specialist accommodation provision, Supporting rural life.
  3. Paragraph 4.26 and Core Policy 19 of the Core Strategy indicated the number of houses for development within Royal Wootton Bassett for the plan period is 1,070, with a further 385 houses in the RWB and Cricklade area. These numbers have already been exceeded.
  4. The planning proposal is premature owing to the fact both the Wiltshire Local Plan and the Royal Wootton Bassett Neighbourhood Plan are currently in a review process.
  5. The proposal makes no real mention of the infrastructural requirements in the town and offers no solution to the additional pressure it will place on schools, medical service, transport or leisure activity needs. – “As such the proposal is contrary to Core Policy 3.”
  6. 106 reference – which we have details above and also elsewhere on this site (click here)
  7. ecological factors (in relation to DEFRA’s Magic Map facility) indicates that the site, or part of the site, is covered by the following designations: Countryside Stewardship Woodland Priority Habitat, Countryside Stewardship National Habitat Network, Targeting for Brown Hairstreak butterfly, Targeting for Curlew, Targeting for Lapwing, Woodland Water Quality Lower Spatial Priority, Woodland Flood Risk Lower Spatial Priority, Keeping Rivers Cool Priority Area, Community Forest, Climate Change Vulnerability Buffer, Sites of Special Scientific Interest Impact Zone.
  8. “The applicant has sought to justify its proposal by citing the lack of a five-year housing land supply. It is understood that Wiltshire Council’s land supply currently stands at around 4.6 years and that recent planning permissions in Malmesbury and Lyneham as well as proposals at Chippenham enables Wiltshire Council to demonstrate a five-year land supply”
  9. Wainhomes is in serious breach of its s106 obligations. The country park should already have been completed. “Determination of this application should, therefore, be made on the assumption that the site is already Country Park and accordingly would amount to a loss of public open space. This is in conflict with policies of the Core Strategy including CP 52 (Green Infrastructure)”.
  10. Pool Meadows access, we have already mentioned above.
  11. Point 11 in Steve’s letter (here) is long and hard to summarise but essentially details pressure on the road network and is a very strong point. Please do view his letter to read it in detail.
  12. Development of this site would lead to an unacceptable visual intrusion when viewed from the North Wessex Downs AONB and in conflict with Core Policy 51. There has been no Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment thus far in the current proposal.
  13. Limited reference to educational infrastructure and the impact of the site’s walking distance from local primary schools. In short, it’s a long walk and therefore most families would need to drive their children to school, in turn impacting the road networks as per point 11 above.
  14. Impact on medical structure. As residents of RWB and Swindon we are already acutely aware of the pressure our GPs and local hospital suffer from year on year. “The Applicant has not consulted the Town Council on this application. The Planning Statement makes reference to the Neighbourhood Plan”
  15. “There are extant consents for residential development in Royal Wootton Bassett, including 18/06442/FUL at the top of Binknoll Lane and 18/06442/FUL off Windmill Road – both within the settlement boundary and in far more sustainable locations than Lower Woodshaw, and the former being on brownfield land. These consents have not been implemented. Why should more housing, outside the Settlement Boundary and in an unsustainable location, be permitted before these are delivered?”

When you submit your letter of objection, the wording is critical. Anything that includes emotive language or “because i just don’t want more houses there” will not be accepted and won’t be counted towards the total number of objections. using Steve’s points above will likely give your objection the best chance of not being rejected.

Wiltshire council offer this helpful list of items that will be considered in objections, and which ones will not. It may be an idea to check which points they will throw out, before penning any letters, to make sure you’re not wasting your own time on points they won’t read. (i have of course, added a few comments to help!)

“What will be considered?

The key point to remember is that you can only comment on ‘material considerations’ that affect the application. These include things like;

  • Government Guidance, Planning Policy Guidance and Statements (reference the S106, settlement boundary)
  • History – previous decisions, particularly appeals.
  • Comments from consultees
  • Amenity e.g. privacy, sunlight, daylight, noise and smell (these are very important given the closeness in proximity to heavy plant in Pool Meadows!)
  • Highway safety
  • Nature, archaeology conservation and landscape
  • Impact upon adjacent land use (traffic through the estate)
  • Design
  • Human Rights Act
  • And many others

What won’t be considered?

We will not consider matters that are not material or relevant to the application as these are outside the boundaries of the planning process and are regarded more as civil matters between parties. These include things like;

  • Loss of value
  • Loss of view << This also won’t be considered as a reason for objection … but wording it to include the above point about nature and conservation *will* be !
  • Viability, including matters such as party walls and structures
  • Private rights (access) << this won’t be accepted as a reason, but including the above point about impact upon adjacent land use will be. 
  • A change from a previous scheme
  • Moral issues
  • Restrictive covenants
  • Land ownership
  • Competition
  • The development has already taken place prior to an application being submitted”
%d bloggers like this: