‘Reluctant’ approval for new homes in Wiltshire village that has doubled in size
Wiltshire Council’s Western Area Planning Committee unanimously approved outline permission for 58 homes on farmland at Berryfield
Reluctant planning approval has been granted to a housing developer who wants to build 58 homes in a village that has doubled in size over the last decade.
Wiltshire Council’s Western Area Planning Committee unanimously approved outline permission for 58 homes on around 3.7 hectares of farmland at Berryfield, near Melksham – but only after complaining that they had no other choice.
The scheme was reduced from 68 to 58 homes following discussions involving the applicant – Martin Grant Homes – drainage specialists and the Wilts & Berks Canal Trust, which secured the route of the proposed Melksham Canal link.
The meeting heard that 160 objections had been received to the proposal – although many had been about building over the route of the canal.
The committee was told that the revised National Planning Policy Framework, published shortly before the meeting, strengthened the case for approval because Wiltshire Council could not demonstrate a five-year housing land supply.
Planning officers told the meeting that under new government rules, national policy takes precedence over local policy where councils have a housing-land-supply shortfall – as Wiltshire does.
David Pafford, speaking for Melksham Without Parish Council and the Melksham Neighbourhood Plan’s qualifying bodies, said they “maintained a strong objection.”
He said Wiltshire Council’s failure to produce an up-to-date Local Plan had created a “planning vacuum” in which developers were making speculative applications.
Cllr Pafford told committee members: “This is a free-for-all.”
He said Berryfield and the wider Melksham area should not be expected to meet a disproportionate share of Wiltshire’s housing and affordable-housing shortfall.
Cllr Richard Wood, also speaking for Melksham Without Parish Council, said the site formed part of the remaining separation between Berryfield and Melksham, and that development would erode the gap and alter the character of what remained designated as a small village.
“Berryfield has already accepted very substantial growth,” he said. “It should not be treated as an unlimited extension of Melksham.”
Cllr Andrew Griffin, the Wiltshire Council member for Melksham Without West and Rural, said the principal issue was the cumulative impact of development rather than the 58-home application in isolation.
He said Berryfield had about 550 homes in 2023, but developments completed, under construction, or in the pipeline could add around 450 more.
This could mean the village doubled in size within less than a decade without a comparable increase in infrastructure or community facilities.
Members of the committee expressed frustration at the absence of an up-to-date Local Plan and the effect of the housing-land-supply shortfall.
Cllr Ernie Clark said Wiltshire residents and councillors had been “badly let down” by the council’s lack of a Local Plan.
He said the committee had few defensible grounds to refuse the proposal.
“I would dearly love to say no, purely because it is joining Berryfield to Melksham,” he said.
“It is outside the policy limit, but we have been told that the Government has basically told us to forget that.
“It is irrelevant – just build, build, build. We don’t care where you build it – just lob it up somewhere.”
Cllr Charlie Stokes said the situation could open the door to further speculative planning applications and leave smaller communities vulnerable to piecemeal development.
She said councillors were “stuck between a rock and a really hard place”, adding that she did not want to approve the scheme but felt the committee would struggle to defend a refusal at appeal.
Cllr Griffin moved approval, subject to conditions, including a requirement for construction traffic to avoid the western end of Berryfield Lane and not use it to connect to the A350.
The motion also included a two-storey height restriction.
The proposal was approved unanimously by the committee’s nine members.