Meeting documents

Proposal: The erection of 94 No. dwellings including associated public space and all other associated external works.

Prior to presenting the application, the Planning Officer informed members that he had been recently contacted by the National Planning Casework Unit regarding a request to call in the application for determination by the Secretary of State. He noted this would only apply if the application was approved by members. He updated members that:

·         some further letters of objection had been received raising concerns about the beech hedge and matters already covered in the report.

·         Persimmon had confirmed they would provide a new pedestrian crossing rather than a refuge at Field Road.

The Planning Officer presented the application as detailed in the agenda, and referred briefly to the previously approved outline application. He explained the new full proposal in detail including diversion of the public footpath, and noted that highway access arrangements were as previously approved at outline.

Members were reminded that the principle of development for 80 houses and removal of the beech hedge had already been determined as acceptable. The officer also explained the affordable housing requirements (type and mix) detailed by SSDC Strategic Housing compared to the proposal that the applicant was putting forward in this application. Local concerns about sewerage were acknowledged and Wessex Water had indicated they would connect the development and advised that they would be undertaking a strategic review in the next 12 months.

Ms C Naden, Mrs R Till and Mr C Miller, each addressed members in objection to the application. Some of their points included:

·         256 people had signed a letter requesting that the beech hedge avenue be retained, and reference to biodiversity and local policies.

·         Concerns about site access and impact on adjacent properties which will impact on quality of life.

·         There has been no consultation about the type of pedestrian road crossing and its suitability.

·         Access should be by a new access directly from the roundabout.

·         Proposal is too close to, and will have an impact on, nearby listed building, and is contrary to national and local policies regarding protection of heritage assets.

Mr J Wilton, agent, read a statement and highlighted merits of the scheme including:

·         94 homes in Langport and compliance level of affordable housing.

·         Local play area to be provided

·         Surface water drainage will be dealt with by underground tanks

·         Most consultees accept the scheme which will have significant financial contributions.

Ward member, Councillor Clare Aparicio Paul, noted the community had strong views regarding the application. She acknowledged the site did lend itself to development, but on balance any proposal needed to be right. The increased number of dwellings proposed had caused great community angst, and in her opinion she felt it was over development and a step too far. She was supportive having development on the site but not as proposed in this application.

During discussion officers responded to points of detail, and comments raised by members included:

·         Concern at the increase in housing, density and 2½ storey element – feel 94 dwellings is too many.

·         If housing needed, question why site has not been built out after 3 years since the previous outline application was approved.

·         Feel some of hedge could be retained, but acknowledge it was discussed and agreed previously.

·         Need a design with character and to fit in with local area. Don’t feel this proposal is appropriate to the area.

·         This is too much for this site, and there are already problems with sewerage in the area.

·         Strange that there is an increase in the number of dwellings proposed but no increase in the amount of affordable housing.

·         This proposal would be over development and the design is un-inspired and could be improved.

At the end of discussion it was proposed to refuse the application due to overdevelopment and unacceptable impact. On hearing comments made during discussion, the Planning Officer suggested the wording for the reason for refusal, and this was agreed by members. On being put to the vote, the proposal to refuse the application was carried unanimously.

(Voting: Unanimous in favour in refusal.)