Melksham: Conrad (Melksham) Ltd, which runs Riverside MOT centre on Bradford Road, Melksham, has applied for permission to install a 7.5MW flexible gas-fired generation plant on land at the site. This form of generation plant is designed to create electricity at short notice to fill an energy gap within the electricity network. Applicants believe it will mostly be needed during the hours of 4-7pm when the UK energy supply is at its greatest. The application was initially called-in for scrutiny by councillor Phil Alford after concerns about the size, noise and environmental impact of the proposal. However following a visit to the site he withdrew the application. He said: “I looked at the site and the plans as well as the height of the application and my concerns regarding screening. I am happy that this is not necessary really and that the noise will not be particularly loud.”

Lyneham: A wall put up to shield residents from looking at a nearby solar farm has been given retrospective planning permission. Bradenstoke Solar Park Limited is located near MOD Lyneham and the earth bund wall was put up to limit the view of nearby residents of Church Park of the solar panel. The site is 0.23 Hectares in size and is not part of any special landscape requirements.

Marlborough: A shop in Hughenden Yard has been granted approval to become an orthodontic practise in Marlborough. Paul Greatrex of Wells Orthodontics Ltd submitted the now approved application. The shop where Complete Interiors was once situated has been granted approval to become the dental practise. It will be open Monday to Friday, 8am-6pm. Wiltshire planning officers said: “o bringing a redundant space back into functional use ensures the viability and vitality of the town and enhances the diversity of uses within the town centre.” Marlborough town council has no objections to the proposal.

Bowerchalke: (Pictured)A perimeter fence must come down after Wiltshire Council refused planning permission- despite it already having been built. Applicant Jason Bolger of Ebble Thatch erected the 1.8m fencing around his home last June, without getting planning permission. Planners stated: “The fence as constructed is highly visible and creates an incongruous hard urban edge to the otherwise rural street scene, and partly obliterates the public view of the attractive thatched annexe building, which is considered to contribute positively to the landscape character.” Nearby resident Roger Weaver called the fencing “unacceptable.”

Brinkworth: A planning refusal has been made to stop a outhouse from being turned into a separate home in Braydonside. Planners, while allowing it to be used as an annex to the main home it is connected to, stated that it could not be clased as a separate home because it did not fall within an area with a need for extra housing. Although similar decisions have been approved for farm buildings and redundant outhouses, this was not deemed to be suitable because of its countryside location.

Burbage: A rear extension to a home has been refused planning permission at Pike Cottage on Marlborough Road. Speaking in objection, the Parish Council called the plans ‘over development’ and raised concerns about neighbours losing their privacy. The council objected to the plans and conservation experts also objected to the extension. An officer said: “The use of large format glazing in such a prominent location is also likely to have other impacts on the area and neighbouring properties, such as increased light spilling out at darker times of the day and throughout the year.”

Devizes: A new home will be built at land at The Bottom in Urchfont. Despite objections from Urchfont Parish Council, the four bedroom house, with three new parking spaces, has been approved. A previous application for a home was refused at the site in 2014 however in 2017 an application for three bedroomed home was approved. An officer stated: “Despite the increase in size of the dwelling, the plot is large enough to accommodate the proposal without the appearance of an overdeveloped site.”

One objector stated: “Bearing in mind the predominance of smaller scale housing adjacent to the site this could easily have been achieved with a small terrace of 2 bedroom houses or similar small scale development.”