406 homes and country park at Phase2 - Land South of Netherhampton Road, Salisbury

What was proposed

The application sought 406 homes, landscaping, parking, roads, paths, open space including a 5.5-hectare country park, drainage and related infrastructure.

“This is a full planning application for the erection of 406 dwellings, hard and soft landscaping, car parking including garages, internal access roads, footpaths and circulation area, public open space, including 5.5ha Country Park, attenuation basins and drainage with associated infrastructure and engineering works.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site comprised agricultural fields beside housing under construction, covered 28 hectares, and included public rights of way and gently rising land.

“The site consists of agricultural fields which border the housing development which is currently ongoing on land between the site and Netherhampton Road (A3094) to the north of the application site. The site area extends to 28 ha of the total 46 ha site of the outline permission, as shown by the red line and blue line on the site location plan above.”

“To the south on higher ground at the rear of the site runs The Old Shaftsbury Drove byway and beyond that further fields. A bridleway runs through the site (NHAM10/SALS13) and a public footpath SALS12 at the eastern edge of the site. A footpath NHAM2 lies further to the West of the site.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval subject to conditions and completion of a Section 106 agreement, finding the development sustainable and its adverse impacts acceptable.

“Phase 1 of the outline permission (comprising 234 of the 640 houses, a local centre and phase 1 of the Country Park) is currently being developed in accordance with reserved matters approvals. Reserved matters approval has also been granted for a loop road which would serve phase 2 of the residential development and a separate reserved matters approval of the second (and final) phase of residential development comprising 406 dwellings.”

“The development would not result in conditions prejudicial to highway safety and would not place unacceptable impacts on the capacity of the local road network. or result in unacceptable impacts to the amenities of the occupants of the surrounding residential properties, ecology and biodiversity or heritage assets.”

Officer report

What consultees said

Highways, conservation, drainage, ecology and other council services raised no objection subject to conditions or obligations, while the National Landscape office raised concerns about indirect recreational effects.

“WC Highways: No objection subject to conditions/planning obligations…”

“WC Ecology: HRA required. No objection subject to conditions and planning obligations.”

Officer report

What people said

Councils, parish representatives and two third parties objected over traffic, infrastructure commitments, landscape, trees, affordable housing, parking and consultation.

“Endorse comments by Salisbury Swift Group for swift bricks and inclusion to be confirmed by an ecologist. • Endorse comments by Cranborne Chase. • Request view of the number of visitor spaces. • Agreement with Cllr Pauline Church’s comments. • Reiteration of previous objection comments. • Recommend consultation with DIGS. • There is concern over breaking of Policy 1 which states there must be one tree per 10m of road. • There is no tree management plan.”

“Harm to landscape character/visual amenity through extension of urban form/sprawl • Building heights of up to 2.5 storeys will cause rooflines to break natural horizon • Adverse visual effects to users of public rights of way • Adverse traffic/highway impacts/congestion from additional vehicle movements • Over-provision of car parking • Lack of current traffic data • Inadequate consultation and community engagement with residents of West Harnham • Comment on superficial…”

Officer report

Who spoke

An agent spoke in support, while Councillors Pauline Church and Brian Dalton raised concerns about contributions, transport, connectivity, congestion and community benefits.

What members debated

Members considered policy requirements, highway evidence, infrastructure timing, transport contributions, footpaths, tree planting, affordable housing and stronger lighting controls.

“The Highways Officer advised that an updated transport assessment had been undertaken dating from October 2025 and no objection had been raised by the Highway Authority. Further work would be carried out to improve connectivity to outlying villages as part of the refresh of the Salisbury Transport Strategy that would be presented to members for approval in the coming months.”

“Details were sought about why contributions towards the Cranborne Chase National Landscape could not be secured given that payments had been secured for the New Forest. It was explained that a Community Infrastructure Levy compliant payment mechanism was not in place. The New Forest benefitted from Wiltshire Council’s recreation mitigation strategy for the internationally protected site.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee agreed to grant permission subject to completing the Section 106 agreement and applying the listed conditions, including the amended lighting requirement.

“The Committee noted that the existing Section 106 agreement for the site did not include a provision that lighting would be dimmed at night, such measures would be within the control of a future estate management company as required by part of the planning obligations. This issue could be covered as part of the drafting of the Deed of Variation.”

“That planning permission be GRANTED 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, including the reference to Environmental Zone E1 standards in Condition 14.”

Minutes