Up to 50 homes at Land Adjacent To 10 Hambridge Way, Pirton

“Erection of up to 50 dwellings including affordable housing, together with amenity space, landscaping and all associated infrastructure and works (all matters reserved except means of access) (amended and additional plans received 10.04.2026).”

“The application site is located to the east side of Pirton and consists of two agricultural fields that sit outside of the Pirton Village Boundary. The site measures approximately 3.06 hectares in size and is situated within the Rural Area Beyond the Green Belt.”

“The site is largely bound by mature vegetation consisting of trees and hedgerows. There is also mature vegetation that runs east/west through the middle of the two fields. The site is neighboured to the north and west by existing residential development (Drovers Way and Cotman End). To the south of the site is the Pirton Recreation Ground. To the east of the site is open arable countryside.”

“Consideration Weight Benefits Market Housing (30 Units) Significant Affordable Housing (20 Units) Very significant Economic Benefits Moderate Open Space over-provision Limited Harms Rural Area beyond the Green Belt (reduced weight due to policy being ‘out-of-date’) Limited Loss of BMV agricultural land Limited…”

“In conclusion of the above, the proposal is considered to be a logical extension of the village that would make an important contribution towards market and affordable housing land supply within the district. The collective benefits of the proposal would be substantial. Any adverse impacts of granting planning permission would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the NPPF 2024 taken as a whole.”

“The BNG plan must be resubmitted and if the attenuation basin was assumed wet but is now dry, the BNG calculation would be reassessed and credits adjusted. • Condition 30 could be strengthened by requiring an updated noise assessment and securing further mitigation. • If an updated noise assessment showed unacceptable noise, officers would need to secure mitigation; Committee may delegate reconsideration, and the application could return if the recommendation changes.”

“The noise issue could not be provided as a reason to refuse this application, and mitigations were proposed in the conditions drafted. • The application felt incomplete and missing key elements, a deferral would be supported. • Conditions were good but concerns would not be resolved, feared statutory nuisance complaints could still arise even after deferral and updated assessments. • Any alternative recommendation must be supported by a material planning reason.”