Meeting documents

Application Proposal: Outline application for residential development (for up to 25 No. dwellings) with associated vehicular access arrangements, relocation of parking for Norbeth and The Bell Inn. (GR 332383/115392)

The Planning Officer introduced the report and with the aid of slides and photographs summarised the details of the application as set out in the agenda.  He referred to the key considerations which were principle of development, highway safety, visual/residential amenity and planning obligations.  He advised that the refuse vehicle tracking was considered to be acceptable and the Highways Authority were satisfied with a refuse lorry clipping the kerbside as the movement was only once a week.   One of the benefits of the scheme was to bring forward a remaining space to be used as a rural park for community benefit.   He advised that the application was proposing up to 25 dwellings and that the final scheme would be controlled through reserved matters.  The landscape impact was considered acceptable given the established need for housing.  He advised that further correspondence received from Wessex Water stated that the foul flow from 25 properties would be very small.  He updated that since the publication of the agenda a letter had been received in support of the application. He had also received an email from a local resident raising concerns.  The Planning Officer’s recommendation was for approval.

In response to members’ questions, the Planning Officer informed members of the following:

·         No cycle or bus routes out of the village was not an acceptable reason for refusing the application on the grounds of being an unsustainable development;

·         The site was located in a village central location, was close to a school and well related to services and facilities and was therefore considered to be within a sustainable location;

·         The Conservation Officer had not considered the proposal to be harmful;

·         There were no technical grounds to refuse the application.  It was for members to assess whether another 25 houses on top of the 16 agreed on the adjoining site was acceptable;

·         The Area Lead was not aware of any specific appeal cases with regard to cumulative impact.  He reminded members that each case should be considered on its own merits;

·         The proposed entrance would go through the grounds of the house with a small part from the existing pub car park.  Part of the proposal was to relocate some parking to the rear.  Parking for the pub could be subject to negotiation but could not be controlled under planning;

·         The Highway Officer had confirmed that it was not a problem for a refuse lorry to clip the kerb.  He was satisfied with the plans and had undertaken a site visit;

·         A house gable end fronting onto the road was generally considered to be acceptable.  There had been no objections received from the occupiers of the house;

·         The access allowed for two way traffic.

Christine Trueman, Chair of Broadway Parish Council advised that the Parish Council had commissioned a Housing Needs Survey and the results would be available within the next few weeks.  She stated that a further 41 additional houses in Broadway would be a strain on the village infrastructure and cause increased traffic problems.  She also raised concerns over the sewerage system being unable to cope and the issue of foul water flooding.  Reference was made to the issue of highway safety and she commented that the proposed new access road was far too tight and narrow and that a large vehicle would not be able to pass.  The cars parked in front of the Alms Houses meant that there would be even less space to turn.  She requested that the application be deferred for a site visit, and to allow for the outcome of the housing needs survey and drainage issues to be resolved with Wessex Water.

The Committee was addressed by Kathleen Paton, David Patuck, Richard St. Baker, Paul Trueman and David Swain in objection to the application.  Issues raised included the following:

·         Increase in parked cars;

·         Increased traffic movements;

·         Concerns over flooding;

·         No evidence of need for the houses;

·         25 properties was too many;

·         Request for site visit before a decision is made;

·         Sewerage infrastructure not being able to cope;

·         The development would spoil the rural nature of the village;

·         No alternative parking for the residents of the Alms Houses.

The Agent, Shaun Travers advised that the site was situated within a sustainable location with a range of facilities.  He referred to there being no objections from consultees and highlighted the benefits of the scheme including affordable housing, market housing, enhanced facilities for the public house, rural park and potential for an alternative access for the school.  He also highlighted the importance of the access going through the site and not through the Tanyard Estate.

Ward Member, Cllr. Linda Vijeh stated that given the points raised by the local residents she was of the view that the Committee was not in a position to take a decision on the application but was concerned that a decision could be made on the Committee’s behalf if the planning procedure was not followed.  She felt that a site visit would be the preferred option.  She commented that the access to the site was not appropriate and that there were other issues that had not been considered such as the listed buildings status of the Alms Houses and the outcome of the Housing Needs Survey.

The Area Lead reminded members that there were no technical grounds to refuse the application and that the two highway consultants were satisfied with the proposals.  He advised that the applicant could appeal against non-determination if a decision on the application was not made.

At this point in the proceedings, the meeting was adjourned for 2 minutes to allow the Planning Officer and Area Lead to speak with the Applicant’s Agent to negotiate deferral of the application for one month to allow for a site visit.

Upon reconvening, the Planning Officer briefed members on the discussions that had taken place.

Following a detailed discussion, it was proposed and seconded to defer consideration of the application for a site visit, and to consider the access issues and the impact on the Alms Houses.  On being put to the vote the proposal was unanimously carried.  Members requested the Highway Consultant to attend the next Committee meeting.