Meeting documents

The Planning Officer presented the application on behalf of his colleague; he provided members with an update from the Education Department confirming that they had not made a request at this moment in time, to secure a contribution towards education from the S106 obligation, and an explanation of how the Education Department calculated the future needs of education provision.

With the aid of a power point presentation the officer showed the site, proposed plans and photos of the access points.  He confirmed that the recommendation was to approve the application.

Mr Philip Davis and Mrs Katherine Davis both spoke in objection to the application on behalf of themselves and 27 households. They were both pleased that several members of the committee had visited the site to see the Highway and access issues   for themselves.  They considered that there were other more suitable pieces of land in the area with better access than the proposed site. They understood that land had been included in the application that was not owned by the developer, there was also an incorrectly drawn red line indicating the Highway boundary.  Applications on the site had previously been refused and reference was made to the Milborne Port, 2000 Local Plan which stated no further development should take place without highway improvements.  There had been a 15% increase in new houses in Milborne Port over the past 8 years with no highway improvements and was much more than suggested in the emerging Local Plan.

Mr M Williams, the agent, spoke in support of the application. He said that Milborne Port was classed as a Rural Centre in the emerging Local Plan, if members had been minded to, they could have objected to the amount of proposed development during the Local Plan consultation process.  He considered the site to be sustainable for this low density housing, there had been no objections from the statutory consultees: Highways had advised that they considered the small development would not have a severe impact on the existing road network. There had not been any planning applications refused on this particular site, the time scale for determining this application had now been exceeded therefore he urged AEC members to make a decision.

Ward Member Cllr Lucy Wallace spoke in objection to the proposal, she was disappointed that an officer from Highways was not in attendance at the meeting to respond to various queries members had about the road network in the vicinity of the proposed site, she had written to request an officer attend the meeting but had not recived a response. She reiterated that Milborne Port did not want or need any more housing, she was also concerned that any run-off from the new development would make matters worse for the development at the bottom of the hill. She also made reference to the question regarding ownership of the land. 

In response to a query the agent could confirm that the correct certificate had been completed regarding ownership of the site.

As County Councillor for Blackmoor Vale, which included Milborne Port, Cllr William Wallace said that he regularly received numerous complaints about the traffic issues in the vicinity and had never received a response from relevant County Council officers when these issues had been reported.  Cllr Wallace felt that the application would spoil the character and distinctiveness of the locality as well as a strain on the current road network.

During discussion varying views were expressed including:

·         There did not appear to be a housing need in Milborne Port;

·         There was not much retail on offer within the centre of Milborne Port;

·         Court Lane could not accommodate any extra traffic, there was also a lack of passing places on the narrow road;

·         Any new occupiers would need to travel outside of the area for employment;

·         Lower graded agricultural land should be considered for development rather than this site of higher quality land;

·         Wessex Water should assess the site prior to the approval of any planning permission;

·         If the application was refused an appeal would more than likely be lodged as there were houses surrounding the proposed site and it could be classed as infill;

·         Concerned that a new development in the area had recently suffered from flooding although Wessex Water had assessed the site prior to that development;

·         Could not understand why a previous application in the vicinity had been refused due to an unsustainable location, yet this application was considered sustainable;

·         When members had visited the site, several considered that there would be an impact on the view from the north, and were worried about possible flooding to the lower properties;

·         Members were apprehensive about Highways making their opinion from data going back as far back as 2012 and before the Bellway Housing development had been completed. Clear evidence was required from Highways to demonstrate the proposed development would not cause an adverse Highway impact;

·         Reference was made to a recent planning appeal when the Planning Inspector had agreed with the AEC refusal on Highways grounds although Highways had recommended approval;

·         Milborne Port could eventually become unsustainable if too many houses were built and local services and utilities exhausted.

In response to queries the Area Lead West replied that:

·         The application was well past the set target date and an appeal could be made against non-determination;

·         Economic activity referred to in the report meant that jobs would be created by the construction industry during the building of the houses;

·         Wessex Water would have to liaise with the Environment Agency regarding drainage etc the developer would need to mitigate the matter.

In conclusion, the Area Lead West confirmed that members must weigh up the merits of the application - housing need as opposed to the concerns as outlined.  It was unfortunate that a Highway Officer was not in attendance in order to answer member’s queries.

A proposal was made and seconded to refuse the application and numerous reasons were suggested.

The meeting was adjourned for several minutes whilst officers gathered together the reasons given for refusal in order to ensure that all relevant reasons were included.

On reconvening the Senior Legal Executive read out the list of reasons for refusal,  Members confirmed that they were content that all of their suggested reasons had been included.

It was then proposed and seconded to refuse the application contrary to the officer’s recommendation for the following reasons:

·         The proposed development would fail to respect the form, character, setting and distinctiveness of the locality and would result in unacceptable material harm to the character and quality of the local landscape;

·         Insufficient submitted evidence to demonstrate that the proposed development would not cause an adverse Highway impact in respect of the ability of the local highway network to satisfactorily absorb the increase of Highway traffic demonstrated by the proposal;

·         The proposed development would result in a loss of high quality agricultural land. it was not considered to be a sustainable form of development due to poor public transport, a lack of available jobs which would increase the future needs of residents to travel further afield for employment and service facilities; and would not adequately mitigate against the risk of surface water, foul drainage and flooding.

On being put to the vote the motion was carried by 8 votes in favour: 1 against and 1 abstention.