Meeting documents

Proposal: Residential development of land, formation of vehicular access, provision of roads and open space, demolition and alteration of wall.

The Planning Officer presented the application as detailed in the agenda report and provided members with updates including:

·         that comments had been received suggesting that the applicant being shown as ‘The Cook Family’ was in effect anonymous – this was not the opinion of the Local Planning Authority (LPA), the description was adequate and the necessary certificates had been served.

·         Point 5 under recommendation (a) on pages 26/27 of the agenda should be disregarded as monitoring fees were no longer applied.

·         If members were minded to approve the application it was recommended that there be an addition condition for the requirement of a construction management plan.

The presentation included illustrations of the indicative layout and design for the site. It was noted that the application included the removal of a small length of the boundary listed wall to the south of the site. This would require listed building consent which was the subject of a separate application, but many comments in this presentation would apply.

He noted that much representation had been received about coalescences between Huish Episcopi, Langport and Wearne. Concerns had also been raised about accessibility and the angles of road junctions. The presentation included extracts of the South Somerset Local Plan with plans indicating that there would be approximately a 200 metres distance between the edge of the proposed site and the primary road running east to west through Wearne.

Mrs S Nicholas, representative for Huish Episcopi Parish Council and Mr J Wood, representative for Huish Episcopi Parish Council and Langport Town Council, made comments in objection to the proposal including:

·         Concerns about coalescence with Wearne

·         Officer report mentions jobs but where would they be, and don’t think there are  local  opportunities available, and reference to Census data regarding percentages of people travelling to work

·         Feel strongly that Huish Episcopi has had enough applications

·         Concerns about the suggested access onto Wearne Lane

·         Approval of this application would take the approved housing figure well over the aspirational policy figure stated in the Local Plan, and would make Huish Episcopi three times the size of Langport. This was one large development too many with not enough being done to bring communities together.

Mrs A Michell, Mr K Howe, Mr R Morfee, Mr R Moore, Mr B Wilcock then addressed members in objection to the proposal and raised comments including:

·         Residents of Wearne and the Kelways estate were very much against the application.

·         Concerns about education and the figures quoted in the report not being the most relevant – this proposal would effectively push the local primary school to breaking point by 2017. The school has an operating figure of 150, but 139 pupils at the moment with 150 expected for September.

·         Application has caused much local anger and seems contrary to the Local Plan. No local need for the housing and concerns about coalescence with Wearne and the proposal would leave nothing but a small paddock between the settlement of Huish Episcopi and Wearne.

·         Transport movements from the proposed site would double the traffic through the existing Old Kelways development. This would include potentially negotiating three right angle bends, parked cars as well as children playing, and locally raised serious road safety issues.

·         Scale of growth not in line with the Local Plan and contrary to Policy SS5, and would build 158 more homes than the area can sustain, and be at detriment to local services.

·         There were negative impacts of the development including part demolition of heritage asset, building on quality agricultural land, no land set aside for employment and conflict between different road users should be prevented.

Mr M Williams, agent, commented that the applicant had worked with officers to address issues and minimise work to the listed building. The proposal site was in the direction of growth within in the Local Plan, and that direction could not now be put aside. He noted that sooner or later that the land was likely to be developed. He highlighted that SSDC would take control of the open space at the north of the site to offer some comfort, and there were a number of reasons to approve the application but minimal to refuse.

Ward member, Councillor Shane Pledger, commented there were a number of issues and he did not like the application. With reference to the Local Plan he acknowledged the site was in the direction of growth but also that that the locality was already over subscribed for housing. He was of the opinion that if there had been long-term plans to develop the land that the road layout on the Kelways estate would have been better designed. He felt there were a number of policies in the Local Plan that could be grounds for a refusal and the highways on the Kelways estate were not big enough for accessing the proposed site.

During a lengthy discussion by members, comments raised included:

·         Inappropriate proposal and struggling to understand why recommendation is for approval. The application should be refused.

·         Scale and design of existing Kelways development had been carefully considered due to listed building.

·         Proposed road layout is crazy and how would emergency access onto Wearne Lane be policed?

·         Too many houses in that area, not the right application for this site.

·         Proposal would create housing well above and beyond level of development in the Local Plan, acknowledge it’s possible to approve but we need to be absolutely sure the infrastructure can cope and there are benefits for the local community.

·         Feel no need for the houses, there’s a plot nearby with permission yet to be built, and there is no employment so difficult to support the application.

·         Acknowledgement that officers have to work within policy and guidance given. Number of houses beyond aspirational figure in the Local Plan could form a basis for refusal.

·         Concerns about shortage of school spaces. County Education have requested funding to provide additional school places but where would any additional classroom space go, only option would be on the field but then there would be no outside play space. Feel County have got it wrong.

·         If permissions weren’t given on good agricultural land then wouldn’t be building anywhere.

·         SSDC should start to gather evidence regarding any impacts from the loss of agricultural land.

Responses by the Area Lead, Development Manager and Principal Spatial Planner to comments raised during discussion included:

·         The starting point for any consideration were the policies within the Local Plan.

·         Referring to the direction of growth, if not building on agricultural land then likely to be going into flood zones.

·         Understood that the existing Kelways development was designed with further development in mind. County Highways did not consider the proposal to be so unsafe as to warrant refusal.

·         A key consideration was over delivery of housing so early in the Local Plan which did bring in some concerns.

·         Acknowledge concerns about education provision but as County Education were not objecting it was difficult to make a case for refusal.

·         Difficult for officers to support robust reasons for refusal based on the Local Plan but hear the substantial local concerns and that this scheme would take us 40% over the housing figure in the Plan.

·         Impact on the listed building and impact from the level of growth were acknowledged.

·         Unrelated to this application there had been discussions about building on agricultural land in general regarding the loss of the land and impacts. Learning from other appeal decisions, there was a need to clearly substantiate the damage/impact of loss of agricultural land if it was deemed to be a reason for refusal.

·         Bollards would be placed across the emergency access to Wearne Lane.

At the conclusion of discussion, members were minded to refuse the application on grounds of over delivery of the housing target as set out in the Local Plan, erosion of the open gap between Langport/Huish Episcopi and Wearne, and impact on the setting of the listed wall. Some members felt strongly that the reason for refusal should also include the non-provision of employment space and loss of agricultural land, however most members did not agree that these two aspects should be included in a reason for refusal.

As members were minded to refuse the application the Principal Spatial Planner suggested the wording for a refusal could be that the proposal for up to 71 dwellings would take the level of growth for Langport/Huish Episcopi to 532 dwellings over the plan period through to 2028. This would represent a scale of growth which is 42% over the identified target of at least 374 dwellings for the town as set out in Policy SS5 of the South Somerset Local Plan (2006-2028). As such, the development would be a significant increase over that envisaged in Policy SS5 and would be contrary to the intended growth strategy and settlement strategy as set out in Policy SS5 and Policy SS1 of the South Somerset Local Plan. The development would adversely erode the gap between Langport and Wearne and would have a significant impact on the setting of the listed wall to the north of the Old Kelways site, contrary to the aims of Policy EQ3 of the South Somerset Local Plan (2006-2028).

It was proposed and seconded to refuse the application, contrary to the officer recommendation, for the reason as worded by the Principal Spatial Planner. On being put to the vote, the proposal to refuse the application was carried 11 in favour with 1 abstention.

(One member abstained as they had arrived late and missed the start of the officer presentation.)

(Voting: 11 in favour, 1 abstention)