Meeting documents

Application Proposal: Outline application for six open market dwellings with land for up to two affordable dwellings and construction of new access and footway

 

(The Chairman, Councillor Nick Weeks, declared a personal and pecuniary interest and left the room during discussion of the agenda item. The Vice-Chairman took to the Chair and Councillor Anna Groskop acted as vice-chairman)

 

He explained to members that he had received no objection from the highways authority following receipt of further information from the applicant to detail the proposed footpath. He further confirmed that Carymoor Parish Council had recommended that that the application be approved.

 

He advised members that since the agenda had been published he had received a letter from  Foot Ansteys Solicitor’s recommending that the application be refused as well as further letter from a consultant which raised concerns over the crossing point which would be close to an existing access. The Lead Planning Officer (North/East) advised that Somerset County Council highways department had reconsidered their comments, however still did not raise an objection.

 

He further advised members that he had received an additional letter of objection from a neighbour that was unable to attend the meeting. He summarised some of the details of the letter to include that there was no support for the development and that there had been a planning appeal refused for the land opposite for reasons similar to this site. The letter further explained that the development would involve the removal of hedgerows/fences which were not owned by the council or the applicant.

 

The Lead Planning Officer (North/East) explained to members that the applicant had asked a consultant to look at the proposed crossing point which would be close to the access to the neighbouring Sunnyholm property as concerns had been raised. The consultant felt that the crossing point would cause no conflict between vehicles and pedestrians. He further advised that SCC Highways have confirmed that they are both happy with the proposed footpath and that they owned the land on which the footpath was proposed.

 

The Lead Planning Officer (North/East) presented his report to members with the aid of a PowerPoint presentation which included photographs and proposed plans.

 

He explained that the development was outside of the flood zones and that as the council does not have a 5 year land supply, policy SS2 has reduced weight. He pointed out that the landscape officer has raised objection to the application. He advised that it was the planning officers recommendation that the planning application be refused.

 

David Bennett, the Chairman of Carymoor PC addressed the Committee. He informed members that in July 2015 the parish council supported the application and clarified that on being to the vote at the PC meeting, there were 4 votes in support, 2 against and 2 abstentions.

 

Martin Roberts, a Parish Councillor for Lovington, which is one of 4 separate parishes covered by Cary Moor Parish, advised that the community did not generally support the application and suggested that there was no need for further homes in Lovington. He advised members that he had concern over the access, the proposed pavement and highway safety. He informed members that he agreed with the comments of the Landscape Officer and the Planning Officer and hoped that the planning application would be refused.

 

H Habershon, L Robinson, M Robinson, M Williams, D Stickland and F Robinson spoke in objection to the application. Their comments included;

 

·         Lovington is a quiet urban village, doesn’t need further homes

·         Homes will be highly visible from road and the entrance to the village

·         Development will ruin the character of the village

·         There is no support for the development

·         A similar application for land across the road was refused by The Planning Inspectorate. The same should apply to this site.

·         Is the planning officers advice is not going to be used this is a waste of public money

·         The pedestrian crossing will not be used and footpath is dangerous and not wide enough

·         Too many homes have been built in Lovington. Any further is over-development

·         The housing need in Lovington has been met

·         Lovington does not have a pub, it has a high-end restaurant.

·         The road is dangerous and the narrow footpath would put pedestrians in danger

·         It has been claimed that neighbours support the application, but not all neighbours were spoken to. There had been little public consultation.

 

Mr J Farthing, the applicant, addressed the Committee. He advised that he had farmed and provided employment in the community for many years. He advised members that he had ensured that the community were consulted and that the Parish Council supported the application. He pointed out that any concern over the footpath had now been resolved.

 

Mr B Carlisle, the agent, addressed the Committee. He advised that he had been working on the project for approximately 2 years and that during this time, the community had been involved. He had attended a number of Parish Council meetings and supplied public documents to the immediate neighbours. He advised that Yarlington Homes, jointly own with SCC, the area of land on which the footpath was proposed. The joint owners of this land are happy to allow land to be used to ensure that the footpath is provided and advised that the site includes plots for 2 affordable homes.

 

Councillor Henry Hobhouse, Ward Member, advised members that he has concerns over the road and highway safety. He advised that the road is over-used and not need any further traffic. However, he pointed out that flooding of the site was not a problem and that the loss of countryside was not an argument that he supported.

 

During the discussion, it was suggested that the village boundary was not clear as there were further dwellings further outside the village boundary.

 

One member suggested that a full planning application which included details of in-keeping local materials might have been looked at more favourably.

 

Following the discussion, it was proposed and seconded that the planning application be refused on highway grounds, however no vote was taken.

 

It was subsequently proposed and seconded that the planning application be refused, as detailed in the officer’s report. On being put to the vote, this was carried 5 votes in support, 3 against and 3 abstentions.

 

RESOLVED:  that planning application 16/02621/OUT be refused as detailed in the officers report.

 

For the following reason;

 

01.          The proposed development, by reason of its location and scale, will result in the extension, projection and consolidation of built form that is both intrusive within the local landscape and contrary to the dispersed pattern of development and rural nature that characterises the settlement of Lovington and which fails to reinforce local distinctiveness, respect local context or to conserve or enhance the landscape character of the area. Such harms are considered to be substantial and to outweigh the positive contribution the scheme would make towards meeting the district's five-year land supply and to therefore be contrary to the aims and objectives of policies SS2 and EQ2 of the South Somerset Local Plan as well as the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

Informatives;

 

01.       In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the NPPF the council, as local planning authority, takes a positive and proactive approach to development proposals focused on solutions.  The council works with applicants/agents in a positive and proactive manner by;

 

·         offering a pre-application advice service, and

·         as appropriate updating applications/agents of any issues that may arise in the processing of their application and where possible suggesting solutions

 

In this case, the applicant/agent did not take the opportunity to enter into pre-application discussions and there were no minor or obvious solutions to overcome the significant concerns caused by the proposals.

 

(Voting: 5 votes in support, 3 against and 3 abstentions)