Meeting documents

The Committee considered the applications set out in the schedule attached to the agenda. The planning officers gave further information at the meeting and, where appropriate, advised members of letters received as a result of consultations since the agenda had been prepared.

(Copies of all letters reported may be inspected in the planning applications files, which constitute the background papers for this item).

Planning application 14/00458/OUT – Outline residential development on land between Old Vicarage and 15 Yeovil Road, Yeovil Road, Tintinhull. Applicant: Bunny Construction.

The Planning Officer presented the application as detailed in the agenda and highlighted it was an outline application for residential development with all matters reserved. Members were advised of a number of updates including:

·      Since the agenda had been published additional representations had been received from the occupants of the Old Vicarage and 11 Yeovil Road, raising additional comments and these were summarised to members.

·      Planning policy comments in light of SSDC now having a five-year land supply

·      Building Control had been consulted in response to representation. The only concern raised relates to design of the attenuation pond and professional advice should be sought to ensure the Old Vicarage is protected from soil pressue and water ingress issues. They consider there is no reason to assume there would be any issues that could not be overcome by building regulations.

·      Formal comments had been received from the Highway Authority, who now suggested a number of highway related conditions.

She highlighted that:

·      The Old Vicarage, adjacent to the site, was grade 2 listed. The Landscape Officer had suggested additional planting to the west boundary and a landscaping condition was proposed to secure this.

·      The Highway Authority maintained that the grass verge alongside the highway in front of the Old Vicarage was in their ownership.

The application was felt to be broadly in accordance with emerging policy SS2 and the NPPF, and not considered to raise any substantive harm, as such the officer recommendation was for approval of the application, subject to a Section 106 planning obligation.

Mr R Le Flufy and Ms S Lavers, councillors of Tintinhull Parish Council, spoke in objection to the proposal and raised a number of points including:

·         The site is outside the development area and would increase pressure on the road. They had originally supported the application as it was a better option than another larger development proposal elsewhere in the village.

·         The proposal and need for such dwellings was not included in the Tintinhull Community Plan.

• Earlier that week, the parish council had formally re-considered the application, in light of SSDC agreeing they had a 5-year supply as of June 2014, and unanimously voted against the proposal.
• The Highway Authority had twice raised substantial issues but no longer raised an objection regarding the revised layout, but the parish council had not been consulted on the revised layout.
• Feel application is prejudicial to highway safety - the road is not that wide, and is a main commuter route into Yeovil and. Not possible to construct a path to meet Manual for Streets guidance and wthout a path the development would be isolated.

Mr P and Mrs K Buckhurst, as residents of the Old Vicarage, spoke in objection to the application and raised a number of issues including:

·      Concern about swale discharge into ditch on their land, ditch overfilled from run-off last year, and already have to pump basement.

·      Have a professional report indicating subsidence at their property is due to seasonal changes and trees.

·      Proposal is for more trees along the boundary, but they have already had to reduce the number of trees on their land to meet insurance requirements. More trees would be at detriment to the Old Vicarage.

·      The proposal is an intrusion into open countryside.

·      Query if the open space proposed is for general public use or a buffer zone.

·      Proposal would cause a loss of light and windows on the east side of their home would be overlooked.

·      Concerns about safety if they lost control of the ditch on their property, and difficult to understand why the applicant felt they could discharge into it.

·      Limited services in the village.

Mr N Moger, as a resident of 11 Yeovil Road, also spoke in objection and noted that inevitably water ran off the neighbouring field onto his property. He felt the reference to flooding in the officer report was incorrect as there had been a further flooding incident in 2005. The development would put further pressure on the storm drains and exacerbate flooding. He felt there was insufficient room along the highway to construct a pavement of recommended size.

Mr P Horsington, addressed committee and noted he did not have an opinion either way on the planning application. As a former parish councillor of the village, he was aware that for at least 30 years there had been an issue for residents walking from eastern properties in to the village. He felt the provision of a pavement would be a positive for the community.

Mr P Smith, agent, commented he had nothing further to add to the officer report and presentation, but would try to respond to some of the representations made including:

• Had evidence from the Highway Authority that the grass verge was in Highways ownership.
• Applicant had owned land for 35 years. Looking at title deeds of applicant, it had been considered the ditch was in his ownership. Acknowledged that the committee meeting was not the forum for boundary disputes.
• Regarding the buffer zone planting, there was no wish to prejudice neighbouring property and expert advice had been sought about planting and species.
• Loss of light would be minimal
• Pavement would not be full width but something would be better than nothing
• A mix of open market and affordable housing was proposed but could be open for negotiation.

Ward member, Councillor Jo Roundell Greene commented that it was unfortunate that the parish council had originally supported the development, but now on acceptance of the 5-year land supply, they no longer held that opinion. She noted that the application needed to be considered on planning policy grounds, but was concerned about drainage, where the water was running from, the pumping out of the basement at the Old Vicarage, and the provision of the footpath as she didn’t feel the verge was suitable. It was known the road had flooded in the area for many years, but acknowledged works had been completed in more recent years to help alleviate the issue. She noted the Landscape Officer did not support the proposal which was worrying. Clarification was sought as to whether the development could be all affordable housing as the site was outside development limits, and also the detail for how the path would be provided as there was a large culvert.

In response to comments made by the ward member and the public, the officers noted that:

• The adopted Local Plan was 3 years out of date and that policy ST3 did not comply with the NPPF. Applications needed to be looked at on their merits. Looking at exception sites of 100% affordable housing was probably no longer relevant. Modest developments bringing benefits after consideration of impacts was acceptable. He was uncomfortable to suggest that Tintinhull should have no development. With the provision for the new pavement, the development was considered to be in a sustainable location.
• Acknowledge pavement would be substandard width and would only use the existing verge and no go onto private property or encroach into the road.
• Detail for construction of the path would be by condition and to the requirements of the Highway Authority. Highways considered there was enough room along the verge to provide an adequate path.
• When the ground is sodden water will run off the land. When ground conditions allow there would be soakaways. There would be no additional run-off from the development than the current greenfield site. There was no reason to assume the scheme would not work or make or would make it worse.
• The open space area was designed for the development and not the wider village but it was not anticipated to exclude anyone.
• The west boundary planned to be lower level planting to provide a dense buffer. Condition provided safeguarding for future maintenance of landscaping and the attenuation scheme.

During the ensuing discussion, other comments and varying opinions were raised including:

• Attenuation scheme is slightly elevated from, and close to, the Old Vicarage and difficult to see how future maintenance could be enforced.
• Feel attenuation pond is in the wrong place and there will be issues.
• Concerns about flooding.
• Feel proposal is in the wrong place and development in the open countryside.
• Adverse impact on the Old Vicarage.
• Difficult to say Tintinhull is a sustainable location as it has few facilities
• The village has a school and proposal would be filling in a gap between houses.
• If small scale sites such as this are not allowed to be developed could fall back into the position of not having a 5-year land supply.
• The drainage scheme proposed could improve things if done in accordance with recommendation of the appropriate officers
• Have to rely on advice and guidance from the Highway Authority about the pavement.
• Close to listed building.
• No evidence of local need.

In response to comments made, the officers clarified that:

• The 5-year land supply catered for a number of windfall sites such as this proposal.
• Inspectors allowed authorities to count sites with outline permission in the 5-year land supply.
• Policies in the emerging Local Plan supported development in rural communities if there are benefits. This application was proposed to bring forward bungalows, 35% affordable housing and a pavement.
• Referring to the emerging Local Plan and policies within, at least two defined facilities needed to be present in a settlement for it to be defined as sustainable, and Tintinhull had about four or five
• If members felt what could be delivered was not needed then there was an issue.
• Access and drainage were reserved matters, and full detail would be discussed at the reserved matters stage.
• Conservation Officer had originally raised concerns about siting, but had not maintained his objection when the landscape proposal had been made. The Landscape Officer maintained his concerns.

It was proposed and seconded to refuse the application, contrary to the officer recommendation, on grounds of highway safety, flooding, drainage and siting to the listed building. It was also requested that that the comments of the Landscape Officer be referred to.

In light of concerns raised by members, the Area Lead suggested the wording for a refusal could include reference to insufficient information provided to indicate that a safe path can be provided, that a satisfactory drainage solution can be achieved, that setting of the listed building can be safeguarded or that the landscape impact can be reasonably mitigated. As such the proposal is contrary to various saved policies of the Local Plan and NPPF.

The proposal was put to the vote, for the reason as clarified by the Area Lead, and on being put to the vote was carried 8 in favour of refusal, 0 against and 2 abstentions.

(Voting: 8 in favour of refusal, 0 against, 2 abstentions)