SOME Westbury councillors were angered by a request from Wiltshire Council as to whether they would support a £15,812 contribution towards sports provision from a planned new housing development which the town council has voted against and which has provoked strong local opposition.
Gleeson Strategic Land has submitted plans for 67 new homes in Sandhole Lane, in Westbury Leigh.
Some members of the highways, planning and development committee at their meeting on Monday 15th February felt it “totally inappropriate” and “insensitive” to be asked by the unitary authority whether they would approve the authority’s request for the funds, should Gleeson’s application get permission.
In an email, Wiltshire Council’s leisure and play strategy officer said, if secured, the funds could be redirected to the Westbury Community Project, for a multiuser games area.
Committee members were told to note that any assistance they may give would not affect the town council’s decision on whether it supports the planning application or not.
Cllr Ian Cunningham proposed accepting the fund but noting that the council was totally opposed to the planning application.
Cllr Gordon King said he was happy to second and that it was a worthy project. But cllr Mike Kettlety said, “I think it’s something better left to another time and we should just note the offer.”
Cllr Sheila Kimmins told the meeting, “I find this suggestion totally inappropriate at this moment in time. Whether or not there’s money available or the town council chooses at some point in the future to approve it, I think it’s with great disrespect to residents of Rothe Rise and Leighton Road. I’m truly appalled and it surprises me that a Wiltshire Council employee has been so very insensitive at this moment in time.”
But accusing cllr Kimmins of “completely misunderstanding” the situation, cllr Cunningham responded, “I think it’s very unfair to say what you’ve said. This person is doing their job correctly. If things are not attached at proposals and they are voted through, it’s possible we miss out on the money altogther.
“I take a very different view – I’m glad the officer is making it clear that what we say is not relevant to the allocation, but should, heaven forfend, it gets its outline permission, it’s important that items and the process roll on to the next stage, so they become part of the package when a vote is made.”
Cllr Gordon King agreed saying, “All the matters of legal agreements have to be done up front because it’s part of the determination of the plan – anything outstanding after determination is then lost.
“This is an absolutely appropriate suggestion by the officer and as chair of the play areas working group I would say this would be the right place to put a MUGA (multi use games area).”
Cllr Kettlety added, “I think it’s inappropriate for the town council to do anything but note that, however, we have looked at the request and decided that with all the issues we understand we reject it. I can’t accept it.”
Cllr Cunningham said, “I think it would be unfortunate if the money went to something we thought was less useful. We’ve done it so many times where we’ve refused an application and have not said what we would like, even if we’d be lying in front of the bulldozer to stop it!”
Three members voted in favour, six abstained and so the proposal for the sports money request was agreed.
Gleeson’s bid includes associated highways works, open space, play area, allotments and landscaping.
