A small development of two houses on the very edge of Wanborough was refused planning permission despite some councillors’ efforts to give the applicant a chance to improve his proposal.

And the support of the ward councillor, the qualified support of the parish council, and letters sent in by 26 residents in favour of the plan.

Four applicants R Griffiths, J Smith and D and J Stratford had submitted a plan to build two houses on overgrown land next to 2 Burycroft.

If approved it would see two detached three-bedroom cottage-style houses built on what had been the site of 1 Burycroft, which has long since been knocked down.

But the report to councillors on the committee had recommended refusing the plan.

The planning officer’s report said: ”The application site is located outside of any rural settlement boundary and within a rural countryside location.

“There is no adopted Neighbourhood Plan for Wanborough and therefore the application proposal does not relate to an allocation in a Neighbourhood Plan. Nor is the proposal related to the expansion of tourist or visitor facilities.

“Nor would the proposal be in accordance with other policies in the Development Plan that permit specific development in the countryside. The site is also located within a designated non-coalescence area where new development is in principle resisted.”

Other issues included a lack of information on the protection of dormice, birds and bats and biodiversity gain, and a lack of detail on drainage.

Councillor Gary Sumner the ward councillor spoke in favour of the proposal and said: “While the site is in the non-coalescence zone, that is designed to prevent the encroachment of Swindon into Wanborough.”

Cllr Sumner pointed out a number of small developments or single houses permitted in the zone.

He added: “This is a high-quality development providing modest family homes suitable for those looking to downsize.”

Chairman of Wanborough Parish Council Cllr John Ware was more circumspect. He said the council didn’t want objections to applications not in the development area or in the non-coalescence zone to be ignored as there are others which were turned down on those grounds.

But he said the council would welcome putting the site into its emerging Local Plan.

Some councillors wanted to give the applicants more time to provide more information on drainage and ecology but were warned by the committee solicitor that they needed to find a reason to overturn the policy objections to the development.

After a motion to defer the matter to give the applicants more time was defeated by one vote, a motion to refuse consent was passed.