Meeting documents

SSDC Area North Committee
Wednesday, 25th March, 2015 2.00 pm

  • Meeting of Area North Committee, Wednesday 25th March 2015 2.00 pm (Item 186.)

Minutes:

Proposal: Residential development comprising of 89 No. dwellings (to include 31 No. affordable homes) vehicular access, public open space and associated works.

The Planning Officer presented the application as detailed in the agenda.  He said that since writing his report, two further letters of objection had been received citing overdevelopment, poor design and concern at the location of the meeting and late arrival of the notification letter.  He said although South Petherton already exceeded its total housing requirement of 229 properties by the year 2028 as detailed in the recently adopted Local Plan, the development was not considered in excess of Policy SS5 due to the nearby local facilities.  He also noted that the Sports and Leisure team had revised their figures as they were no longer able to request contributions towards strategic facilities. 

The Area Lead Planning Officer outlined the siting of the water attenuation tanks and the soakaway drainage proposed in the rear gardens of the properties.  He advised that an additional condition should be added to remove permitted development rights to all the properties due to increased water run-off. 

The Committee were then addresses by Mr D Cox, Mr F Dowding, Mr C Le Hardy and Ms H McDonald in objection to the application.  Their comments included:-

·         The proposed 89 dwellings represented a 39% increase in the total housing requirement for South Petherton, which had already been reached.

·         Poor urban design and layout.

·         2 ½ storey design properties is not appropriate in this setting.

·         There is only one entrance to the site and this will have a cumulative traffic impact upon Hayes End and Lightgate.

·         Small affordable houses would attract families with children which would impact on the number of local school places.

·         Sceptical that the S106 contributions will be delivered.

·         What were the provisions for dormice and the safe removal of ammonite fossils in the field?

Mr S Collier, agent for the applicant, said they appreciated the concerns of people living close to the proposed development but it was essential that decisions were made on planning merit.  He said they had worked closely with planning officers and pre-application discussions reflected the officers recommendations. 

The Ward Member, Councillor Barry Walker, referred to the Housing Minister’s comments that brownfield sites should be developed first, local communities should be helped to put development where they wanted it, and, green field sites should be protected.  He said there had been significant development in that area in the past two years and flood risk and drainage were again issues.  He also referred to the potential traffic issues, impact on school places and the loss of agricultural land.

During discussion, all Members voiced their opposition to the development.  They felt the single point of access in an emergency situation was unsatisfactory, the design and layout was poor and cramped, the drainage in the rear gardens would create maintenance issues when silt built up in the future, the projected school places which the development would generate were unrealistic, the loss of agricultural land and the fact that the development would exceed the total housing requirement of 229 properties by 2028 as detailed in the recently adopted Local Plan.

It was proposed and seconded to refuse the application and the meeting was adjourned for 5 minutes for the officers to draft reasons for refusal. 

When the meeting resumed, the Area Lead Planning officer read out proposed reasons for refusal as:-

·         level of development

·         layout of development

·         single point of access

·         design and detail of the houses

·         concern at proposed drainage strategy

·         exceeds proposed local housing figure and so contrary to policy

·         loss of agricultural land is not outweighed by the benefit of the development

On being put to the vote the proposal to refuse the application was carried unanimously.

RESOLVED:

That planning application 14/04142/FUL be REFUSED, contrary to the officer recommendation, for the following reasons:

1.   The proposal, by reason of the level of development, layout of development, with a single point of access, and the design and detailing of the houses would, fail to reinforce local distinctiveness and respect the local context and would not create a quality place with good accessibility. As such the proposal is contrary to policy EQ2 of the South Somerset Local Plan 2006-2028 and the policies contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.

2.   It has not been demonstrated that the proposed drainage strategy, incorporating large soakaways within private areas that would be difficult to access for maintenance, would ensure that the site is adequately drained in perpetuity without increasing the risk of flooding elsewhere.  As such the proposal is contrary to policy EQ1 of the South Somerset Local Plan 2006-2028 and the policies contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.

3.   The proposal for 89 dwellings would exceed the local figure of 229 additional houses in South Petherton, as set out in policy SS5, by approximately 39%. This level of growth would elevate South Petherton beyond its status as a Rural Centre in the hierarchy of settlements in the District. As such the proposal is contrary to policies SS1 and SS5 of the South Somerset Local Plan 2006-2028 and the policies contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.

4.   In light of the harmful impacts identified above, the loss of ‘best and most versatile’ agricultural land would not be outweighed by the benefits of the development. As such the proposals contrary to the policies contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.

(Voting: unanimous)

Supporting documents: