Plans for 462 homes on Old Sarum Airfield Refused
Plans have been refused for up to 462 homes on the site of Old Sarum Airfield after planners flagged concerns over the proposal's impacts on heritage, highways and noise.
The application had sought consent for the homes alongside employment space and associated infrastructure on land at Old Sarum Airfield near Salisbury.
The scheme’s developer is currently appealing the council’s non-determination of the application, but the council chose to refuse the plans ahead of the appeal.
According to a Wiltshire Council planning report, the council’s core strategy "in principle" permits development on the proposed parcels of land, but only if any scheme addresses "various criteria outlined in the policy".
These criteria include that any development should enhance the site’s landscape, provide community benefits and "noise controls over the existing airfield operations".
The report said that the "provision and enhancement of existing airfield facilities and operations is welcomed, particular where this would also enhance the overall visitor experience and provide public related community facilities, as well as enhanced employment opportunities".
Officers also welcomed the provision of community facilities, open space, pathways and cycleways.
However, planners added that the scheme was "subject to significant concerns from various consultees and third parties, regards the harm caused to the heritage assets, particularly the character and setting of the listed hangar buildings, the Old Sarum Ancient Monument and the airfield Conservation Area".
The report added that there "remain outstanding matters and concerns regarding the likely impacts of the airfield use on the existing and proposed dwellings in terms of noise disturbance".
Planners added that the "impacts of the proposed housing on the adjacent highway system remain subject of an objection from the council’s highways officer" and there "remain outstanding issues in relation to the impact of the works in ecological terms".
The report concluded that the scheme is "not a sustainable development".