Up to 58 homes at Land North of Berryfield Lane, Melksham

What was proposed

The application sought outline permission for up to 58 dwellings, a new access and associated works, with other matters reserved.

“PL/2025/00626: Land North of Berryfield Lane, Melksham, SN12 6DT (Pages 127 - 222) Outline planning application for up to 58 dwellings and formation of n ew access and associated works (All matters reserved other than access).”

Officer report

Site visit and main issues

Members visited the site, and officers identified housing supply, landscape, heritage, amenity, ecology, highways, drainage and other planning matters.

“It was noted that Members had undertaken a site visit on the day of the Committee meeting, Wednesday 19 August 2026, with the Case Officer being present.”

“Principle of development and Housing Land Supply • Safeguarding the Melksham Canal Route • Design and Visual Impacts • Landscape Impacts • Loss of BMV (best and most versatile) Agricultural Land • Impact on Heritage Assets (built and buried) • Residential Amenity Impacts • Environmental Impacts • Highway Safety Considerations • Impacts on Protected Species or Habitats • Drainage and Flood Risk • S106 Heads of Terms Summary of Planning Obligations / Developer Commitments…”

Minutes

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval subject to conditions and a legal agreement, saying further contributions were not justified and substantial weight supported sustainable housing.

“Gen Collins, as the Principal Planning Officer, presented the report which recommended that the Committee grant outline planning permission, subject to conditions and completion of a Section 106 legal agreement, for up to 58 dwellings and formation of new access and associated works with all other matters reserved other than access.”

“In response to the public forum, officers advised that the issues raised during the public forum had been fully assessed and were contained within th e report, and that drainage, ecological, construction management, and sustainable travel matters could be appropriately controlled through planning conditions.”

Minutes

Who spoke

Two local residents and the parish council spoke against the application, while the agent spoke in support.

What members discussed

Members questioned trees, landscaping, building heights, the canal route, drainage, highways, national policy and cumulative effects of development.

“Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions to the officers and sought clarification on the protection of mature trees and landscaping within the Berryfield Triangle (land outside the application site but adjacent to the proposed access), and the proposed building heights and neighbouring impacts.”

“In response, officers confirmed that matters pursuant to the canal route, tree protection, drainage, and highway matters were all covered by proposed planning conditions and where relevant, Section 106 clauses. The transport and cumulative impacts were part of the officer assessment, and these informed th e conclusions as set out in the report.”

Minutes

Concerns about growth

The local member raised concerns about cumulative housing growth and infrastructure, especially local healthcare provision, while recognising these could not determine the application.

“Councillor Andrew Griffin, as the Local Unitary Member, then spoke to the application where he raised concerns as to the cumulative impact of housing growth in Berryfield and the wider Melksham area, noting that significant levels of completed and proposed/allowed development on appeal were not being matched by corresponding infrastructure improvements, particularly in terms of local healthcare provision.”

Minutes

Why members approved it

Members accepted the housing supply and national policy context limited refusal grounds and considered refusal difficult to defend at appeal.

“A debate then followed where Members expressed concern over the recently withdrawn Local Plan, the time it would take to finalise a new adopted plan, the housing land supply deficit, and recent changes to the NPPF reducing the weight afforded to the Council’s strategic policies and settlement boundaries and the increased the likelihood of further speculative development.”

“Whilst acknowledging these concerns, Members recognised that the Council's housing land supply position and the prevailing national policy context significantly limited the grounds on which the application could be refused.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

Following a vote, the Committee granted permission, subject to completing a legal agreement and applying the listed conditions.

“Following a vote on the motion, it was then:”

“The Committee GRANTED planning permission, subject to delegation to the Head of Development Management for the completion of a Section 106 agreement legal agreement covering the matters set out in the report, and subject also to the planning conditions listed below:”

Minutes