Meeting documents

Proposal: Residential development of 30 dwellings.

The Area Lead introduced the report, advising that since the application had been deferred in January 2015, further information had been submitted by the applicants, which had been circulated to consultees. He referred to the comments of the SSDC Engineer which acknowledged the calculations would be a betterment of the current drainage situation but had also suggested that silt traps would be beneficial before water reached the attenuation pond.

It was noted further letters from residents had been received reiterating comments already raised. He summarised the points in the representations including closure and lack of local amenities. He noted that reference had been made to an attenuation pond at Farm Drive in Somerton not being maintained, however he noted lack of maintenance at a different site was not a reason to refuse this application. It was noted the parish council had been unable to meet during the latest consultation period, but they had been encouraged to formulate comments by other means. He acknowledged there were clearly concerns locally regarding drainage but the opinion of consultees was that drainage could be catered for adequately at the site

The Committee were then addressed by Mr R Crowley (on behalf of Curry Rivel Parish Council), Mrs A Higson, Mr S Wild, Mr J Youé, Mr K Wilce, Mr G Higson, Mrs W Collins and Mrs T Drake, who all spoke in objection to the application, Their comments included:

·         Concern about the amount of maintenance required for the attenuation pond / drainage system, the associated costs and who would pick up the bill?

·         Don’t understand the justification for the development as minimal benefits to building on the land.

·         Emerging Local Plan states only modest development for Curry Rivel, is 30 houses really modest.

·         Local amenities like the Post Office and fuel garage are due to close in the near future.

·         Disappointed at scale and density of the development, houses have small gardens and are not in keeping with a rural setting. Will contribute little visually. Dwellings appear to be of an urban town design.

·         1 in 100 year flooding seems to be used as basis for calculations, but the flooding events shown in the presentation have happened over the last three years.

·         Developer has made no secret that this is just phase 1 of development in this area and has made reference to future phases.

·         A phase 2 would probably be for a further 30 houses. Proposal seems to be against policy and feel there should be a legal agreement for no further development.

·         There needs to be funding for changes to the road network and to improve safety at Stanchester Way if development goes ahead.

·         Still concerned about drainage and the attenuation pond, who will actually own it and be responsible for it? Consider the pond at Farm Drive in Somerton to have totally failed.

·         Some documentation about SUDs in general suggested attenuation ponds only had a life of 25 years and degradation of construction materials may shorten that lifespan.

·         Main reason for objecting to the proposal is due to flooding following heavy rainfall.

Mr S Collier, agent, commented that the applicant understood concerns raised by locals but as consultees had mentioned, previous flooding incidents had not been caused by this development. He explained briefly how the pond/attenuation scheme would work and that it would provide a 20% betterment to the current greenfield site. It was noted the culvert lower down was the responsibility of Somerset County Council. Reference was made to policy SS2 and that officers were satisfied this was a suitable site.

Ward member, Councillor Terry Mounter, noted that we had stick to policy. He found it hard to understand why the reason for refusal stated in the officer report for planning application 14/04863/OUT (a planning application to be considered later on the agenda), did not also apply to this application. As a civil engineer by trade, he had looked carefully at the attenuation details and disputed the capacity stated and felt it was less. Referring to his calculations and figures he felt the measures proposed were inadequate. It was noted that SCC Highways had a budget for 2015-16 to address the existing flooding situation. He commented it was accepted there needed to be robust reasons for refusal but felt it we could not support our own policy why have it. He proposed refusal of the application by reason of contrary to saved policies ST3, 5 and 6, failure to respect the reviews of local residents and inaccuracies about figures for attenuation.

During discussion, varying views were expressed, with several members expressing concern about future maintenance of the attenuation system. Comments included:

·         Information provided by experts indicated drainage measures proposed were adequate.

·         Application deferred twice to get more information

·         Acknowledge concerns about future maintenance of the pond

·         Think design is bad and not satisfactory, uninspired design and doesn’t have very much character,

·         If it goes to appeal the officers will need some good reasoning to defend. If at appeal it’s possible a lot of the concerns raised by objectors might be discounted.

·         Have listened carefully to comments raised by objectors who have backed up their comments with reasoning and facts.

·         Who will be funding the maintenance of the attenuation scheme and where are the guarantees?

·         Aware of Farm Drive  in Somerton situation and cannot support the application if a similar situation may arise

·         Feel proposal is overdevelopment and no guarantees that the affordable housing will be for local people.

·         With the impending loss of village facilities, struggling to see the sustainability – feel losing more than gaining.

·         Attenuation ponds if designed correctly required little maintenance

Responses made by the Area Lead and Principal Engineer to comments made included:

·         The attenuation pond was designed to have a permanent wet pool, but the pond was likely to be predominantly empty most of the year

·         Government was changing policy and saying management companies are an acceptable way forward regarding maintenance.

·         Lack of certainty about future maintenance is difficult to take to appeal.

·         A management company would probably put a charge on each property

·         Ward member’s proposal for refusal should also consider policies SD1, SS2 and EQ2  of the emerging Local Plan, which is recommended to be agreed in just over a week (from the committee meeting)

·         Difficult to refuse application on technical grounds, as the application had been deferred  twice  for more information and consultees had indicated drainage proposals were OK

The Locum Planning Solicitor clarified that detail for maintenance of the attenuation scheme was conditioned.

As it had already been proposed and seconded to refuse the application, the in depth wording of the reasons for refusal was discussed. The proposal put forward to the vote was to refuse the application for the following reasons:

1      Siting design and lack of private amenity space represents an unwelcome and unwanted extension of development into the open, rural edge of the village which fails to respect the established  character and appearance of the settlement and immediate setting, As such the proposal is contrary to saved polices ST3, ST5 and ST6 of the South Somerset Local Plan (2006), emerging policies SD1, SS2 and EQ2 of the South Somerset Local Plan 2006-2028 and the policies contained within the NPPF.

2      It has not been It has not been demonstrated that the proposed drainage arrangements would adequately address the surface water flows that would result from the development. As such the proposal is contrary to saved policy EU4 of the South Somerset Local Plan (2006), policy EQ1 of the South Somerset Local Plan 2006-2028 and the policies contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.

On being put to the vote the proposal to refuse the application was carried 8 in favour, 0 against with 2 abstentions.

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