Meeting documents

Proposal: Residential development of land for 95 dwellings (reserved matters following outline approval 13/02474/OUT) (Details of the appearance, landscaping, layout and scale are the reserved matters) Discharge of the remaining conditions on the outline permission will be subject to a separate application, and supplementary information relating to these conditions is included with this application.

(Cllr Patrick Palmer having declared a pecuniary interest left the table for this item and did not take part in discussions or voting on the item)

The Planning Officer introduced the application and noted it was a re-submission of reserved matters. He reminded members why the previous application had been refused when considered in December, and provided members with updates including:

·         An amended plan provided more detail of some site levels.

·         Since the report had been published further comments had been received from SSDC Housing and County Highways but neither raised any concerns.

·         A further letter of representation had been received raising concerns about safety of the attenuation and drainage measures, and elements of the application not fully meeting objectives in the outline permission.

·         Some drainage and filtration testing had recently taken place, which indicated ground conditions would not accommodate soakaways. More detail would be provided and considered when the application to discharge the relevant condition was made.

The Planning Officer went on to present the application as detailed in the agenda, noting that the proposal was to retain some 2½ storey dwellings for variation but the quantity had reduced from 34 to 8, the ridge heights also being reduced so that they were more akin to nearby two-storey dwellings. He highlighted the design changes since the previous application had been considered, plus changes to the attenuation scheme and associated fencing. Advice received from Wessex Water and the Drainage Board indicated they would not agree to the ditch being culverted. It had been suggested by the Drainage Board, for safety that steps were put in to facilitate an escape and to erect additional fencing. The state of surface of the Hills Lane track was outside the responsibility of the applicant, but it was acknowledged that the path links from south of the application site would lead onto it.

Mr N Bloomfield, representative for the parish council, noted they were grateful to the developer for their efforts and further consultation, however the parish council were still of the view that three storey dwellings had no place in Martock. This proposal is urban development in a rural setting and is too dense, with small gardens and the estate would be very enclosed. It was accepted the attenuation ponds needed be there, but the development was of a poor design and not good for Martock.

Mrs J Hulme-Atthis, Mr A Clegg, Mr F Dowding then addressed committee in objection to the proposal and points raised included:

·         Village cannot cope with more development and extra traffic

·         Possibility of winter flooding

·         Proposal is dense with tall, narrow and deep houses.

·         All the houses are in each other’s shadow so impacting on energy consumption. Would be helpful if the design could have gone to a design review group.

·         Would be better if materials more sympathetic to Martock could be used. Could some dwellings be built from natural stone?

·         More effort could be made for an interesting design.

Mr D Hayes, agent, noted the current application followed the previous refusal based on the 2½ storey element. Clearly the parish council did not feel the reduction in numbers is still appropriate. He noted that over the previous months the comments of consultees, parish council and residents had been carefully considered. It was felt the changes made incorporated a design that is of acceptable density and design, and appropriate to the area.

Ward member, Councillor Graham Middleton, acknowledged the willingness of David Wilson Homes to engage in consultation and noted he had been recently approached by them regarding an informal meeting about the proposal. He suggested deferring the application for further consultation and negotiation about design, as there were still local concerns and issues to be resolved.

The Area lead clarified that legal advice was that it was inappropriate to have further informal meetings. He noted the 3 / 2½ storey dwellings had been designed to look like two storey with loft extensions. There were similar buildings in Martock, but admittedly not many. Regarding materials the site was well outside the historic area of Martock.

During discussion varying views were expressed including:

·         Feel there will be little light between the houses. Development should reflect Martock, and other recent developments have been done more considerately.

·         The Paul Court development includes 2½ storey dwellings and in a sort of way is attractive as it’s different. Agree that David Wilson Homes have gone to lengths to consider comments and engage in consultation.

·         Don’t like the 2½ storey element. If not acceptable before it shouldn’t be now.

·         Need to consider what will be acceptable. Materials, design and density are important. Should be deferred for a different layout.

·         Still have concerns about drainage and density.

·         Question if the development reflects the local area, as this will be totally different to the neighbouring Hills Orchard and Coat Road dwellings.

·         Outline permission already granted for up to 95 houses so density not really relevant. Unlikely to get less houses and more space on this site.

·         Don’t feel we can ask the developer to do any more. Substantial affordable housing is to be built from profits of the market housing.

·         Not compulsory to build 95 houses.

In response to comments made, the Area Lead reminded members that when the previous application had been refused in December that the number of dwellings was not an issue. He noted that the neighbouring Hills Orchard estate had little, if any, hamstone, and there was a need to consider context of the site location not just the historical core of the village. He noted he was struggling to see how we could say the height of the 2½ storey dwellings is so objectionable to neighbouring two storey dwellings.

The Development Manager advised members that if they were minded to defer the application there needed to be clear and specific reasons why. He also noted that the Area North Committee would determine this application not the parish council, and he was not convinced that the applicant and parish council would come to a full mutual agreement regarding the design of the development.

It was proposed and seconded to defer the application to further negotiate with David Wilson Homes on the grounds that the 2½ storey element is unacceptable, and the proposed design of the houses is out of character with the area. Some members expressed a wish to see some use of local materials. On being put to the vote the proposal was lost, 4 in favour, 7 against.

An alternative proposal was put forward and seconded to accept the officer recommendation, and on being put to the vote, was carried 7 in favour, 3 against.

(Voting: 7 in favour, 3 against)