Meeting documents

The Planning Officer presented the application as detailed in the agenda.  He provided members with several updates including a letter of objection that had been received after the agenda had been produced, which made reference to the boundary between Bayford and Wincanton; the possible destruction of wildlife, bats etc; the grade of land on the proposed site and made reference to the existing wall of trees. Additional information had also been received from the Ecologist regarding the bat survey.

With the aid of a power point presentation the officer showed photos and indicative plans of the site.  He confirmed that his recommendation was to refuse the application as detailed in full in the agenda report.

Mr T Maccaw spoke in objection on behalf of Stoke Trister & Bayford PC (Parish Council). The PC was concerned about the impact of extra vehicles and possible speeding issues; they felt that Highways had carried out insufficient or no research into the impact of extra vehicles on Bayford Hill in particular.  The PC had recently carried out a traffic count survey and had obtained detailed traffic data. If the application was refused Mr Maccaw asked that a reason should be included regarding the anti-social impact of the increased vehicle movements.

Mr R D’Arcy, Mr A Chesterman,Mr D Castle, MS B Loader, and Mrs L Elson representing CPRE (Council for the Protection of Rural England) all spoke in objection to the applications and made the following comments some of which included:

·         There was other, more suitable land available;

·         Heritage sites should be protected;

·         There would be no definite division between Wincanton and Bayford, both would be merged together;

·         Reference was made to the NPPF and land within a green belt;

·         Referred to the agenda report and the linear woodland on the Southern boundary adjoing Grants Lane that should read’ adjoining Bayford Hill;

·         Pedestrian access to the recreation ground would be required;

·         Lower quality land should be used;

·         Better infrastructure was required;

·         An archaeological survey was needed;

·         Concerned about the possibility of flooding in and around the site;

·         The target for growth in Wincanton had been met already.

The agent Mr I Woodward–Court addressed the committee and requested a copy of the traffic survey conducted by the Stoke Trister & Bayford PC. In his opinion the site was not in the green belt and the land had been classified as Grade 3b by an independent assessor.  Mr Woodward–Court explained that he had requested that consideration of the application be deferred but the Local Planning Authority felt that they were in receipt of enough information for the application to be determined.

Ward Member Cllr Mike Beech did not support the application and did not want to see Bayford and Wincanton merged together, he was also concerned about the possibility of the new development exacerbating flooding in the vicinity.

Ward Member Cllr Colin Winder made reference to the Local Plan and Ward Member Cllr Nick Colbert felt there were already too many new houses in Wincanton which in his opinion were not always allocated to local people. He was also concerned about the grade of land used for development and the possibility of flooding and wanted to ensure reasons for refusal were relevant.

During discussion it was suggested that the application should be deferred in order to be able to assess the traffic data.  The Area Lead East confirmed that any appeal would not be jeopardised by deferring the application.

Further discussion ensued regarding future education requirements and the need to have robust reasons for refusal.

It was then proposed and seconded to defer the application in order to be able to take account of the new information regarding traffic data and to ensure that Highways had sight of that information.

On being put to the vote the motion was lost by 2 votes in favour and 7 against.

The Area Lead East had not received a copy of the traffic data and requested a copy of it.

It was then proposed to refuse the application as per the officer’s recommendation with additional reasons. However the Area Lead East explained that in his opinion the reasons for refusal given in the report were already sound and it would not be sensible to add others. The traffic data did however give doubt to the issues of the impact of additional traffic therefore an additional reason could be included but it would be necessary for County Highways to be given a chance to review their data.

It was subsequently proposed and seconded to refuse the application as per the details in the agenda report plus an additional reason: It has not been demonstrated that the existing road (Bayford Hill) can safely accommodate the proposed access and additional traffic without detriment to highways safety.

On being put to the vote the motion was carried by 7 votes in favour and 1 vote against.

RESOLVED: That Planning Application 14/02107/OUT be refused  for the following reasons:

01 The residential development of this site, by virtue of its topography, the prominent location and the introduction of a suburban form of development would result in a visually intrusive development, at odds with the character of the locality to the detriment of the visual amenities of the locality and the broader landscape character when viewed from publicly accessible vantage points. As such the proposal is contrary to saved policies EC3, ST5, ST6 and ST3 of the South Somerset Local Plan and paragraphs 17 and 109 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

02.The application is supported by insufficient information to understand the potential impact of the proposal to the significance of the archaeology and as such has an unacceptable potential to have an adverse impact upon archaeological assets and is therefore contrary to policy EH12 of the South Somerset Local Plan and paragraph 128 of the National Planning Policy Framework

03.The application is supported by insufficient information to understand the potential impact of the proposal to the significance of the ecology, namely the lack of a dormouse survey that remains outstanding and as such the proposal has an unacceptable potential to have an adverse impact upon ecological assets and is therefore contrary to policy EC8 of the South Somerset Local Plan and paragraph 118 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

04.The application lacks supporting evidence that a safe access can be achieved while protecting the future well-being of the adjacent (TPO's) trees. As such the proposal has an unacceptable potential to have a prejudicial impact upon important designated specimen trees and is therefore contrary to policy ST5 and ST6 of the South Somerset Local Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

05.It has not been demonstrated that the existing road (Bayford Hill) can safely accommodate the proposed access and additional traffic without detriment to highways safety. As such the proposal is contrary to policy ST5 of the SSLP 2006.

(Voting: 7 in favour; 1 against)