Meeting documents

Update Report on Land at Verrington Hospital, Dancing Lane Wincanton (Ref. Planning Application 14/00838/OUT)

The Area Lead East explained that this report was before Members in order to obtain their views on the application in the light of  an appeal against the non – determination of the outline application for a residential development of up to 55 dwellings and provision of access at Verrington Hospital.

The officer explained that the amended application overcame the previous inspectors concerns regarding access to the site, and included an extra proposed parking space.  The application did not adequately address the Inspectors concerns with regard to the sustainability of the site relative to the town centre, however the Highways Authority had, (the day before the AEC meeting), now agreed an acceptable Travel Plan which could make the application sustainable and this put a different perspective on the officers reasons for defending a refusal on the basis of poor accessibility.

Mrs R Keep, Mrs Godbolt, Mr R D’Arcy, Mrs A Davis, Mr A Chesterman, Matron Claire Andrews and Mr C Downton, all spoke in opposition and made the following comments some of which included:

·           Local roads were already congested;

·           Other brownfield sites should be used rather than this greenfield site;

·           Residents are unlikely to walk to facilities due to the steep gradient;

·           Vulnerable and frail hospital patients would be upset by the proposal so near to the hospital;

·           Education, health, transport and employment in the town needed addressing;

·           The hospital currently has 7 calm and quiet private rooms used for a person’s last few days but if the proposal was approved those rooms would be overlooking the noisy car park 

·           Land needed to be available for the use of an air ambulance;

·           Friends of the hospital and members of the public have raised a lot of money through fundraising. That money had been used towards extra outpatient’s facilities. The next project was to install a memorial garden;

·           The ambience of the hospital would be lost;

·           Central government states that public opinion was important;

·           Community hospitals were the future of health care and should be protected;

·           The site had been divided in half and would not be good for the safety of the hospital if more vehicles used the space.

Ward Member Cllr Nick Colbert did not consider that Wincanton needed extra housing at the moment. In his opinion affordable housing was not being allocated to local people via Home Finder. The proposed development would result in the loss of high quality agricultural land.  He was disappointed that a Highways Officer did not appear to have visited the site and he was concerned that Dancing Lane would be dangerous for pedestrians if the proposal went ahead. 

Ward Member Cllr Colin Winder also spoke in opposition; he was concerned about the quality of the highways traffic survey, he also felt that economic and social needs should work together.

In response to several queries the Area Lead East explained that now he was in receipt of the Travel Plan, the Local Planning Authority would find it more difficult to sustain an objection based on the scheme being unsustainable and, he had to be guided by the views of the SCC Travel Plan Officer. Local evidence would have to be obtained in order to dispute the travel plan.

During discussion varying views were expressed by members, including:

·           It was hard to deal with the situation as the NHS had sold the land in question with a right of access through the hospital;

·           Unfortunate that the Travel Plan had only just been received although County officers had been asked some time ago;

·           County Council should pay the costs of an appeal if dismissed, the NHS and SCC were responsible for the situation;

·           There was not a continuous footpath from the site to the local Comprehensive School;

·           The impact to the appearance and character of the area had not been included;

·           The Highway Officer had not checked out the impact on the area thoroughly;

·           Did not consider that this application was sustainable on transport grounds, the distance on foot and the gradient from the site was too much to walk.  There was no suitable public  transport after 4.00 pm to Castle Cary railway station;

·           Staff of the hospital had explained their concerns regarding the car park and access arrangements

·           The hospital was a community facility that should be preserved;

·           In the future more thought should be given when selling land such as this;

·           Planning officers made their recommendations taking account of policy and guidance. Understood how difficult it was for officers as they had to be guided by policy, and reasons for refusal had to be robust and backed up by evidence; 

·           Needed to defend the sustainably issue and include other reasons if felt appropriate;

·           Concerned regarding the culmative impact of new houses and lack of local jobs;

·           Independent external consultants should be used to defend the appeal.

The Legal Services Manager explained that SSDC would handle the appeal but may have to use external witnesses to provide the necessary evidence. AEC members needed to be made aware of the likelihood of costs being awarded if reasons for refusal could not be justified. It would appear that the main issue was accessibility to the location, and whilst SCC was not the final arbiter on accessibility, it could be difficult to evidence that Travel Plan measures wouldn’t succeed.  She further advised that the High Court challenge on this site was procedural and not a judgment on the merits of the planning issues.

The Principal Spatial Planner explained that the recent Court of Appeal judgement was resolving a matter of procedure. As such, the Committee should be cautious in concluding that the judgement upheld the original reasons for refusal and/or endorsed those reasons for future reference.

The Area Lead East informed the meeting that the SCC Highway Officer who defended SSDC at the appeal did know the site well and had been involved this time around. Due to the timescale the appeal was now with the Planning Inspector and issues could not be re-visited.

Further discussion ensued regarding the reasons to be used in defending the appeal.  Members, led by the Area Lead East, discussed the following suggested reasons for refusal:

The proposal is for up to 55 dwellings on a site that is not within reasonable walking distance remote of primary schools, employment opportunities and the services and facilities available in the town centre. Given the distances, topography and nature of the route and the lack of regular bus services future residents would have no realistic alternative to the private motor car to access services and facilities necessary for daily life.

The submitted travel plan did not satisfactorily demonstrate that the future residents would have any option but to rely on the private motor car for virtually all their daily needs. Such lack of choice of transport modes constitutes unsustainable development

It had not been demonstrated that the loss of best and most versatile agricultural land (grades 2 & 3a) had been justified in this instance where there was other lower grade land available.

It had not been demonstrated that the proposed access arrangements would be conducive to the continued safe operation of the hospital.

Dancing Lane by reason of its width, lack of pavements and use by the school was incapable of safely accommodating the additional traffic generated by this development without detriment to pedestrian safety.

The development of this field would unacceptably impact on the tranquil outlook and setting of the hospital to the detriment of users of the hospital.

It was then proposed and seconded to employ external consultants to defend the above objections to the proposal. On being put to the vote this was carried unanimously in favour.

RESOLVED

That:-members resolved to employ external consultants to defend the following objections to the proposal:

1.         The proposal is for up to 55 dwellings on a site that is not within reasonable walking distance remote of primary schools, employment opportunities and the services and facilities available in the town centre. Given the distances, topography and nature of the route and the lack of regular bus services future residents would have no realistic alternative to the private motor car to access services and facilities necessary for daily life.

The submitted travel plan does not satisfactorily demonstrate that the future residents would have any option but to rely on the private motor car for virtually all their daily needs. Such lack of choice of transport modes constitutes unsustainable development contrary to the presumption in favour of sustainable development running through the NPPF which is not outweighed by any reasonable benefit arising from the development. Accordingly the proposal is contrary to the policies contained within the NPPF and saved policies ST3, ST5 and TP2 of the South Somerset Local Plan (2006).

2.    It has not been demonstrated that the loss of best and most versatile agricultural land (grades 2 & 3a) has been justified in this instance where there is other lower grade land available.

3.    It has not been demonstrated that the proposed access arrangements would be conducive to the continued safe operation of the hospital.

4.    Dancing Lane by reason of its width, lack of pavements and use by the school is incapable of safely accommodating the additional traffic generated by this development without detriment to pedestrian safety.

5.    The development of this field would unacceptably impact on the tranquil outlook and setting of the hospital to the detriment of users of the hospital.

(Voting: Unanimous in favour)