A plan to redevelop a disused dairy farm slowly becoming derelict to create two houses has been turned down largely because of the need for the future residents to rely on their cars.

The new application was refused even though the owners of the land already have permission to convert farm buildings into two houses – and the difference in car trips generated between the two schemes is acknowledged to be negligible.

Members of Swindon Borough Council’s planning committee were recommended to refuse the plan to delouse some of the old farm buildings in the yard at Lushill Farm near Hannington and build two new houses put forward by Mrs A Kennedy and her family.

The issue for the planners was twofold - firstly that there was little or no public transport or local amenities in the village, so new residents would have to use their cars, and secondly they said the new buildings would impact a significant landscape.

But some were clearly in favour of the scheme, which had seen no objections from neighbours, the parish council or most of the council’s consultees and had garnered the support of North Swindon MP Justin Tomlinson.

Mrs Kennedy told the committee: “We already have prior approval to convert the buildings into two houses, but we believe it would be better to demolish the buildings and build new. The two houses will be for rent and bring in new families to support the school and the pub in the village, supporting its vitality.”

Members who were convinced by that argument made the point that the existing prior approval meant the effect of two new houses would be no worse than that already approved.

And Coun Jane Milner-Barry went further: “What we have is an area of disused farm buildings and a lot of concrete.

"That could be replaced by two well-designed and built houses, with solar panels and electric vehicle charging points, and a much more attractive large area of grass, increasing biodiversity.”

But members in favour were warned they must find good planning reasons for overturning the officer’s recommendation.

After a protracted discussion over local and national planning policies and rules, and whether there was precedent to allow such developments because of the quality of its design the matter was put to the vote, with a motion to support the recommendation and refuse permission.

The proposal was backed, and therefore permission was refused, by two votes.