Major development plan approved for Salisbury

A MAJOR 1,250-home development for Salisbury has been given the thumbs up by planners.

At a meeting of Wiltshire Council’s southern area planning committee last night, outline approval was granted for the plan submitted by Persimmon Homes and Pegasus Planning Group for land to the north west of Fugglestone Red and Bemerton Heath, but a proposal for a new cemetery near the site was turned down.

The development, for which detailed plans will still have to go through the planning process, is to include a new primary school, a business park and a community centre with local shops.

It will also be linked by road and foot and cycle paths to the existing communities at Fugglestone Red and Bemerton Heath.

Local councillor Ricky Rogers said: “This is a huge development with some welcome employment land. The remit from my community has been to ensure it is not a disaster like the ‘Fugglestone One’ development, which has no bus links or footpaths.

“We have had a wide consultation, and I thank the applicants and the planning officers for that. They have listened to the residents’ concerns and wishes. We did not want a separate community, we wanted them to be linked together, and I think we have achieved that.”

Cllr Brian Dalton said: “This is 1,250 houses with 500 affordable homes, which is probably the biggest number to come forward in the county for a very long time. The waiting list for affordable homes is long, and this will be very welcome.”

The application includes putting in a new roundabout at the New Cut crossroads off Devizes Road, at the intersection of Camp Hill (known as Snakey Hill) and The Avenue.

Cllr Ian West told the committee that the most signatures on a petition he had ever received were calling for something to be done about the roads at that location, which is known as an accident blackspot.

“All they wanted was a roundabout,” he added, “and now this is finally something that is in line to be done.”

Concerns have been raised by Salisbury Civic Society and others about the impact on the landscape, particularly the views towards the city from Old Sarum, as well as about increased traffic and light pollution.

But the land is allocated as development land in South Wiltshire Core Strategy and councillors considered the benefits of the development would be considerable, with the proviso that measures for alleviation of concerns are looked at more closely once a detailed plan for the development is submitted, and that conditions are attached to any future permission.

The separate plan for a new 2.1-hectare cemetery with access from The Avenue was rejected on the grounds it would intrude on the countryside, wouldn’t have adequate public transport links and would be in too remote a location.

Comments (11)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

2:29pm Sat 16 Feb 13

rantone says...

With the democratic decision taken on the cemetery - does this mean that the 1250 new homes adjacent will NOT eventually have a bus service into the city - or that the P&R could not have route at times to serve the Avenue and then into Devizes Road and rail station? With the water table as it is in the inner city area - could the more experienced councillors who served on the old SDC recommend where a suitable site exists! Residents were seeing the initial cost of the cemetery being met under the developers plan for the Fugglestone 2 site. Three local parishes see the need for a new cemetery, pity other councillors could not appreciate the need.
With the democratic decision taken on the cemetery - does this mean that the 1250 new homes adjacent will NOT eventually have a bus service into the city - or that the P&R could not have route at times to serve the Avenue and then into Devizes Road and rail station? With the water table as it is in the inner city area - could the more experienced councillors who served on the old SDC recommend where a suitable site exists! Residents were seeing the initial cost of the cemetery being met under the developers plan for the Fugglestone 2 site. Three local parishes see the need for a new cemetery, pity other councillors could not appreciate the need. rantone
  • Score: 0

4:25pm Sat 16 Feb 13

virage says...

Surely with a new roundabout on the A360 at New Cut, should the northern by pass now be firmly considered from this access across to the A36 Southamton Road via the Beehive P&R.
Surely with a new roundabout on the A360 at New Cut, should the northern by pass now be firmly considered from this access across to the A36 Southamton Road via the Beehive P&R. virage
  • Score: 0

8:30pm Sun 17 Feb 13

JackyC says...

NONE of the concerns which have been put forward by local residents have been considered!!
NONE of the concerns which have been put forward by local residents have been considered!! JackyC
  • Score: 0

5:35pm Mon 18 Feb 13

Champers says...

Quite agree with JackyC. It was the same with Hampton Park 2. One can't help feeling that despite the usual 'nod' to democracy, the decision had been made already. Funnily enough, if a previous Conservative government hadn't sold off all the council house stock at dirt cheap prices, we wouldn't have had a shortage affordable hosing now.
Quite agree with JackyC. It was the same with Hampton Park 2. One can't help feeling that despite the usual 'nod' to democracy, the decision had been made already. Funnily enough, if a previous Conservative government hadn't sold off all the council house stock at dirt cheap prices, we wouldn't have had a shortage affordable hosing now. Champers
  • Score: 0

5:37pm Mon 18 Feb 13

Champers says...

Sorry, should read : a shortage of affordable housing. :-{
Sorry, should read : a shortage of affordable housing. :-{ Champers
  • Score: 0

3:18am Tue 19 Feb 13

karlmarx says...

virage wrote:
Surely with a new roundabout on the A360 at New Cut, should the northern by pass now be firmly considered from this access across to the A36 Southamton Road via the Beehive P&R.
Along with a bridge across the Avon valley and its flood plains, another roundabout on the A345, another flood plain to cross then another roundabout on the A338, another roundabout on the A30 and finally the big hill climb to avoid Laverstock.
I'll chip in £1, all we need now is another 23.7 million suckers.
(Cost based on Newbury by-pass which didn't have to contend with valleys, flood plains and hill climbs)
[quote][p][bold]virage[/bold] wrote: Surely with a new roundabout on the A360 at New Cut, should the northern by pass now be firmly considered from this access across to the A36 Southamton Road via the Beehive P&R.[/p][/quote]Along with a bridge across the Avon valley and its flood plains, another roundabout on the A345, another flood plain to cross then another roundabout on the A338, another roundabout on the A30 and finally the big hill climb to avoid Laverstock. I'll chip in £1, all we need now is another 23.7 million suckers. (Cost based on Newbury by-pass which didn't have to contend with valleys, flood plains and hill climbs) karlmarx
  • Score: 0

6:27pm Tue 19 Feb 13

IanMcL says...

The answer to the question put by poster one, is that the cemetery should be included in the huge land space put forward for the housing and cemetery and not in new 'open countryside' land which was not included for development and lies outside of the city boundary.

It could be said that the developer wished to have cake and eat it.
The answer to the question put by poster one, is that the cemetery should be included in the huge land space put forward for the housing and cemetery and not in new 'open countryside' land which was not included for development and lies outside of the city boundary. It could be said that the developer wished to have cake and eat it. IanMcL
  • Score: 0

7:45pm Tue 19 Feb 13

rantone says...

Replying to IanMcL, this has merit, but outline planning permision WAS granted last Thursday with the cemetry NOT within the plans shown. One sensible suggestion from a councillor was to reduce the number of proposed homes by 100. This then gave the opportunity to address other concerns and these will be raised later no doubt. The cemetery site being outside the city boundary is not perfect, but the landowner, the 3 parish councils had agreed on the site along with the developer and the section 106 proposal. Now I have seen the agenda for the meeting, I note that the consultations by WC officers saw NO objections from the MOD, Environment Agency,Natural England, Highways, Eng Heritage, WC Archaeology. Four objections to the site were valid, but again where in the parish of Salisbury city is there a place for a new cemetery? Those residents from Salisbury and Wilton will soon not have a place to be buried if that is their wish. I take it space at Laverstock can meet future requests for L&Ford residents! As for comments from Jacky C - what concerns? Councillor Rogers spoke well and was of the opinion that consultations with the developer and local residents at Bemerton and Fugglestone 1 were excellent.
Replying to IanMcL, this has merit, but outline planning permision WAS granted last Thursday with the cemetry NOT within the plans shown. One sensible suggestion from a councillor was to reduce the number of proposed homes by 100. This then gave the opportunity to address other concerns and these will be raised later no doubt. The cemetery site being outside the city boundary is not perfect, but the landowner, the 3 parish councils had agreed on the site along with the developer and the section 106 proposal. Now I have seen the agenda for the meeting, I note that the consultations by WC officers saw NO objections from the MOD, Environment Agency,Natural England, Highways, Eng Heritage, WC Archaeology. Four objections to the site were valid, but again where in the parish of Salisbury city is there a place for a new cemetery? Those residents from Salisbury and Wilton will soon not have a place to be buried if that is their wish. I take it space at Laverstock can meet future requests for L&Ford residents! As for comments from Jacky C - what concerns? Councillor Rogers spoke well and was of the opinion that consultations with the developer and local residents at Bemerton and Fugglestone 1 were excellent. rantone
  • Score: 0

10:27am Wed 20 Feb 13

Dr S Brule says...

There is no "need" for a cemetary. Last time I went (unfortunatly!) the crematorium was in working order.
There is no "need" for a cemetary. Last time I went (unfortunatly!) the crematorium was in working order. Dr S Brule
  • Score: 0

1:45am Thu 21 Feb 13

IanMcL says...

Yes space in L&F as most use the crem. Last I heard, only 1.5 burials a week for Salisbury, so a green space for a cemetary, within the city (in the large dev area) would remain green for years and years and could assist with the landscaping.

It was not clear that 3 parishes had agreed, at the planning. It even had to be said from the floor that Wilton was in on it! No one had heard from South Newton!

There's a long way to go on this site.
Yes space in L&F as most use the crem. Last I heard, only 1.5 burials a week for Salisbury, so a green space for a cemetary, within the city (in the large dev area) would remain green for years and years and could assist with the landscaping. It was not clear that 3 parishes had agreed, at the planning. It even had to be said from the floor that Wilton was in on it! No one had heard from South Newton! There's a long way to go on this site. IanMcL
  • Score: 0

5:54pm Sat 2 Mar 13

JackyC says...

Meetings may well have taken place but they are all one sided. Read the letters from the residents currently living in the Fugglestone Red area, that will give you an idea of the concerns raised.
Meetings may well have taken place but they are all one sided. Read the letters from the residents currently living in the Fugglestone Red area, that will give you an idea of the concerns raised. JackyC
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree