contact us

Please include me on all things going on in our beautiful part of the country. Thank you.

This cannot happen!

Totally against the idea and planning application of houses being built at Home Farm, more than happy to help in the fight!!

I’d like to register my interest and opposition to this development please. Please keep me updated. I live on Boreham Road.

Five bedroom homes mentioned as well, hardly affordable to most people.

I strongly oppose the proposed development at Home farm Warminster. I have often seen hares and deer in this area. More buildings and human activity will destroy more wildlife habitats!

Warminster is expanding everywhere, soon it will become an urban sprawl. With little areas to look good for recreation! It will lose it’s unique character on the end of precious plains and hills of historic significance. The army has a lot of land too. The countryside here needs protection from sabotage. Preserving it for the future.

We would like to register our interest and our opposition to the development

Time to stop this unnecessary, unwanted development driven only by greed with thought of the environmental or social consequences

I am certainly against any further development in Warminster. The infrastructure is bursting already due to the number of new builds etc.

I would not wish to see yet another local green area taken over by developers and built on. This proposal will adversely impact of the local area/infrastructure and put additional pressures on existing habitants, not to mention the further erosion of flora and fauna

we MUST protect all our agricultural land – otherwise it will be too easy for an aggressor to starve these islands into submission. It has nearly happened before in the 1940’s and it will be much easier for the enemy next time. We must learn to build low rise blocks of flats on brownfield sites in our towns. More affordable and near the bus stop/station.

I note that they are only proposing to build in 1/2 of the area shown in green; does this mean that in another few years they will repeat their request to build another 100, or more houses in the other 1/2 ???

Why we are also against this development is a different reason, woodcock road in the mornings at school time of which these new houses will have children who may go to primary or secondary school is becoming a no go area or one to avoid at pick up and drop off times. More houses built nearby will add to this as there is not enough parking especially for Kingdown school. The secondary school is oversubscribed as our neighbours daughter has to be bused to Westbury as are a number of children in the nearby estate close to this proposed development.

I strongly oppose development of land at Home Farm as I have in the past.

The River Wylye is a chalk river, which is one of the world’s rarest and most threatened habitats. Given that is an undeniable fact, why are we now considering significant development close to the river and its’ catchment area?

If there truly is the need for further housebuilding, surely the only criteria that must be applied are those locations most suitable for the purpose, i.e. sites offering the least environmental, social and economic impact…

Given the declines in the health of our environment, our cultural heritage, and (currently), our economic outlook, can decision makers confirm whether or not they think they’re doing the right thing by proposing significant development in an environmentally important, cultural significant, and economically important part of the landscape?

It begs the question about how and why the land adjacent to Home Farm has been included as a potential site, given the significant historical opposition (which would surely have been known to the “decision makers”), and the outcome of the previous planning refusal

I just attended the public meeting and am opposed to the development at Home Farm. The multiple reasons that have blocked this historically are still as relevant today and the site needs protecting.

The resubmission of this development proposal must be rejected on the already established grounds of its negative impact on the environment, posing flood risk, pollution of the river Wylye, infrastructure challenges and despoilment of the natural area and wildlife conservation area. The proposal by Bellway housing is underhanded, unnecessary sand motivated solely by profit and not the housing needs of the community.

What a most comprehensive report (of the EBBRAG 10th Jan meeting). Well done to all concerned. It is such a good (bad) example of how broken our housing policies are and just how little regard Bellway (and other shoddy builders) have for the places and people they come into contact with, including their customers. WC also need a big kick to up their game. Good luck!

Please pass on my thanks to all EBBRAG committee members for doing all this amazing research, canvassing, surveys and technical report writing on our behalf. I only hope it is successful.

Bellway’s speculative planning proposal would have a detrimental impact on the rural setting and tranquillity of the surrounding area, qualities that contribute significantly to the local visitor economy. Nearby businesses, including Bishopstrow Hotel, rely upon the preservation of the area’s attractive and largely unspoilt landscape to attract visitors and support local employment. The permanent urbanisation of these historic surroundings risks undermining local tourism and economic sustainability. This is contrary to paragraph 89 of the NPPF, which seeks to support a prosperous rural economy whilst recognising the importance of protecting environmental and heritage assets that contribute to the attractiveness of rural areas.

The proposal would cause unacceptable harm to biodiversity, heritage assets, landscape character and settlement identity. The site is an unsuitable location for development at the scale proposed. For these reasons, Wiltshire Council should refuse planning permission for Application PL/2026/02717.

The Wylye Valley corridor between Stonehenge and Warminster contains one of the most archaeologically significant landscapes in southern England. The area includes Neolithic long barrows, Bronze Age barrow cemeteries and Iron Age hillforts, including Battlesbury Camp and Scratchbury Camp. Archaeological investigations near the proposed Home Farm allocation have already identified evidence of multi-period settlement activity. Under NPPF paragraphs 189–202, planning policies should ensure that the significance of heritage assets is properly understood and that harm is avoided where possible. Allocation of development before comprehensive archaeological assessment has been completed risks irreversible loss of heritage evidence.

Warminster has experienced significant flooding events in recent years, including major incidents in 2014 and 2024, affecting homes, businesses and infrastructure. Development on land that functions as natural drainage pathways does not remove flood risk; it can increase runoff and displace flooding elsewhere, particularly within complex catchments such as the upper River Wylye system. Under NPPF paragraph 160, planning policies should apply a sequential risk-based approach to development, while paragraph 167 requires development to ensure flood risk is not increased elsewhere and that cumulative impacts are properly assessed. Strategic planning evidence has previously recognised that Warminster’s hydrology is complex, and that a Level 2 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) is required to properly assess flood risk associated with site allocations. Because of this complexity, site-specific flood risk assessments prepared at planning application stage cannot substitute for a town-wide Level 2 SFRA, which is required to understand cumulative and off-site impacts across the catchment. A Level 2 SFRA has not been prepared for Warminster and without this strategic assessment, it is unclear: how cumulative flood impacts have been assessed, whether development could increase flood risk elsewhere and whether the allocation complies with national flood risk policy. For these reasons, Wiltshire Council should refuse planning permission for Application PL/2026/02717.

The proposed access arrangements for development at Home Farm raise concerns regarding highway safety. Boreham Road already experiences a mix of traffic including buses, heavy goods vehicles and military traffic, and contains constrained sections and bends. Under NPPF paragraphs 105 and 110, development should ensure safe and suitable access for all users and minimise reliance on private vehicles. Standing traffic entering the Home Farm development just after the blind bend into Warminster is likely to be a safety risk. Until clear evidence demonstrates that safe access can be achieved without unacceptable impacts, this speculative planning should be rejected.

The proposed development is outside the Warminster settlement boundary, situated on the urban/ rural fringe of the town. Should planning permission be granted, it would effectively close the existing green gap between the town and the surrounding countryside and landscape. The site is also very close to the Bishopstrow Conservation area which borders the proposed site on two sides. Is there not a need to safeguard and protect this area of countryside? This plot of land has not been allocated in any local or county development plans and there was resounding opposition to its naming as a potential site for development in the Draft Neighbourhood Plan as such, PL/2026/02717  should be refused.

Bellway make much in their application of their attempts to preserve existing heritage and conservation assets but in reality, the proposed access point largely ignores previous documented archeological and conservation concerns around a development with an access point off the Boreham Road, in favour of following the recommendations/opinions of consultants in their employ. Failure to acknowledge historical comment and opinion on these issues is a failure to acknowledge and understand the complexities of this site. For this reason alone, Wiltshire Council should refuse planning permission for Application PL/2026/02717.