Preserve Durrington Village

Durrington Village is sited in the upper avon chalk valley on the southern edge of Salisbury Plain, it has a population of approximately 5000. Durrington has a long history, dating back to the Neolithic era. Two ancient sites lie in the parish: Durrington Walls and Woodhenge.

The MOD/DIO wish to construct 540No new homes adjoined to the village and/or on the greenfield site between Durrington and Larkhill increasing the population by 35% and thus changing its character and identity of the ancient village. The population welcome the return of the army but insist that sustainable housing must be built in the right location to benefit of the whole community.

Background

As part of the ‘2020 Army Basing Programme’, Army Units continue to be withdrawn from Germany as they have been for the past decade and are being relocated to create a ‘Salisbury Plain Super Garrison’. The MOD have been working with Wiltshire Council since mid-2013 preparing the master plan. The population welcome the return of the army but insist that sustainable housing must be built in the right location to benefit of the whole community.

The ‘preferred Site Consultation’

The residents of Durrington have already been able to express their opinions in the first round “Consultation” during which strong trends emerged with local residents calling for the boundaries and green fields separating the Garrisons from the village to be maintained.

The MOD reported the local residents consensus was “you do not want development alongside the A345 and want to see a separation between Durrington and any development North of the Packway to protect the village identity” and “any SFA to be as close to the base as possible, located centrally or within the wire”.

Despite this, the “preferred sites” suggested by the DIO for development are located to the east of Larkhill beyond the existing settlement boundary and will cover the land currently separating the village from the nearby settlement of Durrington which is an existing green field site. The choice of these sites (L15a, L15b, and L17a) over other assessed alternatives will effectively bring about an unacceptable amalgamation of the currently separate villages of Durrington and Larkhill.

This is acknowledged in the DIO Planning Context Report (February2014) but in our view has been given an insufficient weighting at Stage 4 of the Multi Criteria Analysis of Candidate Parcels undertaken for the potential sites (p21 – see bottom of page for link).

This will increase Durrington’s population by up to 35%. This has led to a public outpouring of dismay and concern from local residents, with many others coming forward to speak out and support the community of Durrington in their quest to preserve their ‘village’ as opposed to becoming part of a newly extended ‘Larkhill Garrison’.

Core Policy 37 (from the emerging Wiltshire Core Strategy, Pre-Submission 2012) states that “Development at operational or redundant (military) sites should enhance the overall character of the site. All development at operational or redundant sites should mitigate any adverse impacts on local infrastructure, and not erode the character of the surrounding area”. The proposals do not meet this policy as they erode the distinctly separate characters of Larkhill and Durrington.

Contradiction with Local Planning Policy

The proposals to develop these sites are contradictory to several policies and objectives expressed in Local Planning Policy.

South Wiltshire Core Strategy was formally adopted in 2012. It states clearly that one of the principle pressures on the area that needs to be addressed is “ensuring that the new strategic growth required to meet local needs does not erode the separate identity, character and visual and functional amenity of settlements”.

Strategic Objective 1 states that a very important contribution can be made to the aims of sustainability by ensuring new development is sited in the most sustainable location, a desired outcome to this objective is that ”new growth be accommodated in a manner sympathetic to the existing patterns of settlements”.

The proposed preferred sites set out by the DIO are in contradiction with these local policy aims as they erode the separate identity of Larkhill and Durrington and do not constitute a sustainable pattern of development.

Loss of valuable Green Space

The Military Civilian Integration programme stated aim is to balance the benefits of the military presence in the county with acceptable environment impact. The proposal goes against this guiding principle and will cause the loss of a greenfield site and associated detrimental impact on the valuable landscape character of the area.

Core Policy 51 (from the emerging Wiltshire Core Strategy, Pre-Submission 2012) is concerned with the impact of development on landscape and states that; “development should protect, conserve and where possible enhance landscape character and must not have an unacceptable impact upon landscape character, while any negative impacts must be mitigated as far as possible through sensitive design and landscape measures”.

It further states that development must demonstrate that several key criteria have been considered including:
i. the locally distinctive character of settlements and their landscape settings
ii. the separate identity of settlements and the transition between man-made and natural landscapes at the urban fringe.
The proposals at Larkhill are therefore not in accordance with this emerging local policy.

Supports existing businesses in Larkhill

The vision for the Amesbury Community Area (Emerging Wiltshire Core Strategy, Pre-Submission Draft, 2012), in which Larkhill is located, states that small settlements such as Durrington “…should become more self-contained. They will have more services and facilities to meet their own needs, meaning that functionally these settlements are less reliant on Amesbury”.

Strategic Objective 4 in this document seeks to ‘Build Resilient Communities’ by supporting development that is appropriate to rural communities and help to maintain the vitality and viability of small settlements. The joining incurred by the potential development of the proposed sites would undermine this vision and could damage the local services centres in both villages.

The increasingly wide spread feeling among the communities is that:-

• Resident’s views will not be listened to; the MOD has firm, pre-conceived ideas, that this is a ‘rubber stamp’ exercise. View’s reinforced by the 1st round consultation outcome, the swift timeline.

• That the ‘preferred sites’ are akin to a commercial developer seeking location/location/location for maximum end value and/or return on investment. No developer would be permitted planning approval for such an ill-conceived scheme.

• That long term, more comprehensive, ‘whole scheme plans’ for the proposed super garrison including both Army new homes and Army new infrastructure should be made available such that the full impact can be understood by the general public.

• That should the MOD ‘preferred sites’ be adopted, there is a strong likelihood of subsequent ‘infilling’ of the green space that results for either additional homes and/or additional Army infrastructure.

• New home accommodated discreetly within the existing army fence line or centrally within Larkhill would be more suitable as the proposed development would then be adjacent to the existing army quarters and the local services within Larkhill.

• That there is clearly strong support from the Village and the Army personnel for central garrison development and to build these communities which will support Larkhill local business, allowing new occupants to reside close to the workplace and to reduce commute carbon emissions.

• Little mention seems to be made of social, welfare, environmental considerations, shops, leisure facilities, sports facilities, parking, public transport, health care, schools, road widening etc.