Meeting documents

Application proposal: Residential development of 30 dwellings.

Prior to presenting the report the Planning Officer advised that there was a typo in the agenda report under the recommendation which referred to the application being 01/03154/OUT. He clarified this was not an outline, but a full application, and the reference should have read 14/03154/FUL.

He also noted there was mention in the report of the site being around 1.5ha, and clarified that the actual area within the red line was 1.33ha. He explained that there was no blue line and that the land owner had been notified. He updated members that four further letters of representation had been received since the agenda had been published endorsing original concerns and objections. Concern about ecology had been raised by one local resident regarding the impact of lighting for bats and concern about the presence of slowworms and the response of the Ecologist.

It was acknowledged that concerns about drainage had been raised in almost all letters of representation. All statutory consultees had been consulted on the matter but none had raised any objections. 

The Planning Officer then went on to present the application as detailed in the agenda and explained that the proposal was to connect the development to Maple Road. The presentation included photographs submitted by the ward member and by neighbours. Other points highlighted included:

·         the Landscape Officer had not raised any objection regarding the impact on character and appearance of the area, and the detail of design was of an acceptable standard

·         drainage had been assessed by the Environment Agency and other statutory consultees but no objections had been raised.

·         the Highway Authority raised no objection

·         It was considered ecology issues and sloworms were covered by condition 3. With regard to bats, the Planning Officer noted that if members were minded to approve the application, the Ecologist was happy that a condition be included for lighting. It was acknowledged there would be an impact on the ecology as a result of the development  but not to such a scale as to be a reason for refusal.

·         Wessex Water had not raised an objection

·         The County Council were satisfied there was adequate capacity at nearby schools

·         No amenity concerns are raised that would warrant a refusal of the application

·         Concerns regarding ongoing maintenance of the proposed attenuation pond could be conditioned

·         Proposal was of an appropriate density and represented an acceptable extension to the village which would in the long run increase its general sustainability.

The officer recommendation was for approval of the application.

Mrs M King-Oakley, spoke on behalf Curry Rivel Parish Council in objection to the application and made reference to surface water run-off from the site and drainage. She noted flooding of properties and roads had occurred in the last few years and that the current drainage pipes could not cope. She noted the Parish Council maintained their objection to development on this site.

Ms T Drake, Mr J Youé, Mr K Wills, Ms A Higson, Mr G Higson, Mr D Drake, Mrs R Hale and Mr R Deans spoke in objection to the application and their points raised included:

·         Strongly oppose application, feel it’s against policy

·         Degree of flood risk has been severely under estimated

·         No pressing need for this site to be developed

·         Don’t feel attenuation pond and existing ditches could cope with run off from the site

·         Difficult to understand how flood attenuation measures are calculated given flooding events in the locality in recent years

·         The archaeological report referred to should be made public

·         Due to the natural gradient of the land, gardens of nearby properties were already saturated and it was only a matter of time before it became more of an issue.

·         Pavements along roads to the site were narrow and a safety issue.

·         Reference to environment regulations and renewable energy.

·         If the proposal was needed why had there only been one letter of support but around 157 against the development

·         Access to the site via Maple Road was already difficult due to parked cars and being near a bend.

·         Reference to agricultural land and statistics for food production

·         Feel some parallels with the Goldwell Hill near Crewkerne application which has been dismissed at appeal.

·         Size and location of attenuation pond raises issues regarding safety as near play area and properties.

·         Need reassurance attenuation pond would be maintained regularly and correctly

·         Inappropriate scale and density

·         Reference to recent press article by CPRE about building on brownfield land.

·         Question why build 30 houses on viable agricultural land outside the development area.

·         Feel reference to reliance on use of buses in the transport statement is economical with the truth

·         Area of development has crept up slowly

·         Concerns about sustainability

·         Feel statutory and technical consultees may not have visited the site or know the village.

·         Concern about increase in traffic and reliance on cars to travel

·         Cannot control what will fall from the sky and predictions are that rainfall won’t get any better.

The Area Lead responded to comments and questions raised during public participation, including briefly explaining about flood zones and flood mitigation measures, and how it was calculated in order that there would be no additional run off from the site. He noted that the Environment Agency, Wessex Water, SSDC Engineers and SCC Highways had looked at the drainage aspect in detail, and none had raised any objection to the proposal on drainage grounds. He also referred to other comments made about sustainability issues, house building and brownfield land. He noted that SSDC had a 5-year land supply at this point in time but it was not possible to use it as a reason to refuse unpopular schemes.

Ward member, Councillor Terry Mounter, noted the decision made needed to be robust enough to defend at appeal and referred to the Goldwell Hill decision. He noted the application site was a decent bit of agricultural land which the NPPF encouraged to be retained. He referred to an email from the SSDC Development Manager which stated Curry Rivel was not suitable for anything but small scale development. The ward member felt the figures in the developer’s Flood Risk Assessment were skewed and inaccurate. It was noted three or four flooding incidents had occurred in the last ten years and SCC had allocated money in their 2015 budget for flood relief works. He considered the proposal would impact on drainage and the comments of the numerous objectors could not simply be ignored. He proposed refusal of the application.

The Area Lead noted that the Goldwell Hill decision was acknowledged in passing. The parallels between the two sites were not relevant and fundamentally different.

During a long discussion comments raised by members included:

·         Many concerns raised about drainage

·         Not against principle of development but major concerns about drainage if properties are already affected by the site

·         In recent weeks the nearby River Parrett had reached high levels and this proposal would exacerbate the issue

·         Government says listen to localism and many objectors had travelled some way to be at the meeting

·         Concern about parked cars along the road through the proposed development

·         Don’t feel volume of attenuation pond has been adequately calculated

·         Flooding aspect is not satisfactory. The current 150mm drainage piping for the area could not cope.

·         People won’t be working in Curry Rivel but will need to travel elsewhere

·         Believe should be judging against policy SS2 in emerging Local Plan – which is not one of the Inspector’s concerns

·         Need more evidence to support what’s being said by objectors

·         Looking at the end of Dyers Road, development of the site had probably been in the pipeline several decades ago.

·         Attenuation ponds if built to the right capacity do work, need to be assured what is proposed is of adequate size

·         No need been demonstrated for the housing in Curry Rivel

·         Flooding aspect needed an in depth study

It was first proposed and seconded to refuse the application on grounds of flooding, land drainage, policy reasons and various elements of the NPPF.

The Area Lead responded to comments made and noted he considered there was enough information in front of members to make a decision. He advised members that in fairness to the applicant, there needed to be clear reasons for refusal and member should clarify their policy reasons. Based on comments made during discussion and further suggestions from the proposer, he suggested wording for the justification for refusal could be:

·      It has not been satisfactorily demonstrated flood risk can be mitigated and that there would be no increased risk of flooding elsewhere. As such the proposal is contrary to policies EU4, ST5, ST6 and the NPPF.

·      No justification based on economic, environmental or community benefits has been provided for 30 dwellings outside the development area, for which there is no local support or evidence of local need. As such the proposal is contrary to saved policy ST3 and emerging policy SS2 and the policies contained within the NPPF.

The Area Lead and Chairman expressed concerns about the reasons for refusal and whether they could be sustained on appeal. There was a short discussion but not an agreement about referring the application to Regulation Committee. The Area Lead explained to the public about Regulation Committee.

When put to the vote, the proposal to refuse the application was tied 6 in favour of refusal and 6 against. The Chairman used his casting vote against the proposal and so the motion fell.

An alternative proposal was to defer the application to seek more information and clarification regarding drainage issues including:

·      flooding not only at the application site but in the locality

·      more information about capacity of the attenuation pond

·      to take into account rainfall predictions

·      para 2.6 in applicants Flood Risk Assessment

A member proposed taking a named vote but it was not seconded. The proposal to defer, having been seconded, was put to the vote and carried 11 in favour of deferral and 1 against.

(Voting: 11 in favour, 1 against, 0 abstentions)