Meeting documents

The Planning Officer presented the application as detailed in the agenda report. He advised that since the report had been written two more letters of objection had been received: one re-iterating previous comments and the other advising their disillusionment with the planning process and that all positive points raised should be considered at this stage rather than at reserved matters stage.

The officer advised that on page 63 of the report reference was made that due to the nature of the site ‘it would not be easily farmed’ but the words should be replaced by: ‘land is constrained and not part of the wider farm’.

With the aid of a power point presentation various photos of the site were shown that included the Grade 2 listed and associated buildings; access details; current road layout and the vicinity of the ‘no build zone’.

The officer confirmed that as none of the technical consultees had raised concerns and a S106 obligation had been agreed, his recommendation was not to defend the appeal against non-determination.

In response to a query the Area Lead East confirmed that it had to be assumed that the cumulative impact of both this site and the site at Verrington Hospital had been considered, as the same Highway Officer had viewed both sites.

Mr R D’Arcy, Mrs S Brennan, Mrs S Macey, Dr S Tindall and Mr R Pratt all spoke in objection to the recommendation. and made the following comments, some of which included:

·         Good grade of agriculture land should not be used for development;

·         Concerned about the lack of school places;

·         Concerned about pedestrian safety;

·         Evidence was available about flooding in the area;

·         Felt that local people had had the chance to help in the process of the Local Plan and one person (the Planning Inspector) could change all of that and make the consultations pointless;

·         SSDC now have a 5 year land supply;

·         The site would not be sustainable;

·         There was no housing shortage in Wincanton;

·         The Health Centre was already overstretched;

·         The ‘no build zone’ had not as yet been agreed;

·         The riparian owner of the land where the culvert was situated would have to give permission for works to take place and that may not be forthcoming;

·         Verrington Lodge, grade 2 listed, would be visible in winter;

·         Suggested that 2 properties and a street light be removed from the plan;

·         The Verrington Hospital application had been considered to be unsustainable, this site would be no different.

Mr T Adams the beneficial owner of the site spoke in support of the recommendation and gave a background history of the site. Ward members had been kept informed throughout the process and amendments had been made along the way, this application was smaller than previous ones.

Ward Member Cllr Colin Winder wished to ensure that the Planning Inspector was aware that this application was for up to 35 dwelling only.  He disputed the Travel and Transport Statement, the bus timetable was inappropriate, residents of the site would need cars, therefore the site was unsustainable.  If SSDC were to defend the appeal, outside consultants should be used.

The Area Lead East and Planning Officer explained that the amended indicative plan showed the provision of up to 25 dwellings, the appeal had been made in relation to the original scheme of up to 35 houses, however the applicant had agreed that if the appeal was not defended 25 dwellings would be provided but the Planning Inspector could agree to up to 35 as originally requested, but no more.

The Area Lead East explained that SSDC was not unwilling to defend the appeal but it would be difficult to defend when statutory consultees had given advice to the contrary. Local concerns were indicative but clear evidence of those concerns would be required.

Ward Member Cllr Nick Colbert expressed his disappointment that there were no members of Wincanton Town Council in attendance at the meeting as they were all opposed to the recommendation. Cllr Colbert felt the site was in the wrong location, too far from local services to make it sustainable and the site would be visible from all aspects. He was also concerned about the lack of a pavement to King Arthurs School making it dangerous for pupils.  He considered that there was other, more suitable land in Wincanton.

During discussion, varying views were expressed some of which included the following:

·         Disappointed that the applicant had not given enough time for the additional information to be obtained;

·         Objectors needed to make their representations in writing to the Inspector;

·         Members should agree with the Planning Officers recommendation;

·         There was a danger that more dwellings would be approved should the Inspector make the decision;

·         The development would have a huge impact on the nearby Listed Building;

·         Although good legal advice had been given, the strong local opinion must be taken into consideration and a balance would be required to support the electorate;

·         The development would affect health provision;

·         Suggested that an external consultant be employed to defend the appeal.

A proposal was made not to defend the appeal as per the officers recommendation but was not seconded.

The Area Lead East and Planning Officer, in response to queries, explained that clear defendable reasons would be required in order to defend the objections to the proposal, and an outside consultant who would be prepared to take on the case.  Those officers who had given positive statutory advice would not be involved in the defence of an appeal.

During a short discussion members felt that reasons similar to those used to defend the Verrington Hospital appeal should be used, and to ensure that all reasons were realistic in order to avoid being awarded costs against those reasons not considered appropriate at appeal.

A proposal was made and seconded that an external consultant should be employed to defend the following objections to the proposal:

·      The proposal is for up to 35 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.

·         It has not been demonstrated that the loss of best and most versatile agricultural land (grades 1 & 3a) has been justified in this instance where there is other lower grade land available.

• 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.

·         It has not been demonstrated that the proposal to develop up to 35 houses on this site could be satisfactorily achieved whilst maintaining the setting of the grade 2 listed Verrington Lodge.

On being put to the vote, the motion was carried by 6 votes in favour and 3 against.

RESOLVED: That external consultants should be employed to defend the following objections to proposal ref 14/01704/OUT:

·      The proposal is for up to 35 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).

·         It has not been demonstrated that the loss of best and most versatile agricultural land (grades 1 & 3a) has been justified in this instance where there is other lower grade land available.

·         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.

·         It has not been demonstrated that the proposal to development upto 35 houses on this site could be satisfactorily achieved whilst maintaining the setting of the grade 2 listed Verrington Lodge.

(Voting: 6 in favour: 3 against)