DEVELOPERS behind a failed bid to build up to 81 houses on land off Purton Road have taken their case to a planning appeal.

The outline scheme drew objections when it was first submitted in October last year and three months ago Wiltshire Council planning officers threw it out.

Now their decision has been challenged by Beechcroft Land Ltd, John Webb Sally Ballard and Carole Lindsey.

Among the objectors was Purton Parish Council which highlighted a flood risk, existing traffic problems and said: “This application will not go to help the housing in Purton, although in the Parish, and will be classed as an urban extension of Swindon.”

It was also criticised by residents. David Belsher wrote: We are very worried about extra traffic using the North/West Swindon roads. Turning both left towards Akers Way and right towards Mead Way are already over congested. Until adequate infrastructure is in place, building new houses is adding to the problem.”

Swindon and Cricklade Railway Trustees objected because it would mean the heritage attraction could never connect with the mainline from Kemble to Swindon. “This will prevent forever the possibility of charter trains travelling directly from other parts of the country onto the Swindon and Cricklade Railway,” wrote secretary Roger Barber.

Planning officers turned it down, saying the development was outside the framework boundary for Purton, it did not make provision for affordable housing on the site and it was within a county wildlife site.

Other reasons for the refusal included a lack of flood risk and drainage detail in the plans, the proposed lay out was not of a high enough standard and the access would cause problems on Old Purton Road.

But in their appeal statement agents Hunter Page Planning said the site was close to Swindon where the borough council’s housing land supply was significantly below what was required for the next five years. They said the applicants intended a legal agreement to secure affordable housing and that as far as the wildlife was concerned, the building site would be limited to the area with the lowest ecological value.

There were also plans to improve habitats on other parts of the site.

The firm also suggested the council had refused the application before looking at revised plans for access, which were only indicative. “It is not meant to, nor could it be a detailed layout. It is clear that the council have considered the layout as if it were fully detailed.”

It added: “The appellants made numerous requests for a meeting with the Council to discuss the matter but were turned away.”

The appeal will be dealt with by the Planning Inspectorate.Comments can be made online at planningportal.gov.uk/pcs