Agenda item

To consider an application for the erection of 10 No. dwellings including access, drainage infrastructure, and landscaping.

Resolved:

That planning application 3/21/22/084 be GRANTED permission subject to the conditions listed in the Agenda report with an amendment to Condition 4 to change the word ‘occupation’ to ‘construction’ and the completion of a Section 106 agreement.

The amended Condition 4 to read:

4. Prior to construction of the building(s), works for the disposal of sewage and surface water drainage shall be provided on the site to serve the development, hereby permitted, in accordance with details that shall previously have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The works shall thereafter be retained and maintained in that form. 

(Voting: 7 in favour, 2 against, 0 abstentions)

The Planning Officer introduced the application to the Committee and with the aid of a power point presentation, he provided the following comments including:

·         Internal roads to be constructed to adoptable standards.

·         Diversion of the public footpath currently running through the site.

·         Vehicle tracking and visibility splays within the site are acceptable to allow for forward visibility and allow refuse, emergency vehicles etc. to enter, turn and exit the site.

·         Proposal to allow the 40mph speed limit zone to be moved further south with a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) being made to allow this to take place before construction of the access takes place.

He referred to the key consideration and said the site was well related to good footpath links and the local bus stop with opportunities to walk to local facilities in a safe manner.  He considered the density to be quite low and with no objections from the Highways Authority with only a modest increase in traffic associated with 10 dwellings.  The proposed dwellings were to be set well away for the east side boundary of acceptable height and therefore consider no adverse effect on nearby properties.  The site was situated within flood zone 1 and that an acceptable surface water drainage strategy had now been submitted and agreed.  Biodiversity mitigation proposals were also deemed acceptable.    The recommendation was therefore to approve the application.  

The agent then addressed the committee. Some of her comments included:

·         The proposal was of a modest scheme of 10 dwellings and policy compliant.

·         Was in an appropriate location with good access to local services.

·         Flood risk assessment had been undertaken and a surface water drainage strategy submitted.  These has been agreed and deemed acceptable by the Environment Agency and LLFA.

During Members discussion comments were made including:

·         Concerns raised regarding the surface water run-off and the impermeability of the site.

·         Felt the nearby Porlock Road was dangerous and not safe for pedestrian use or access and that local connectivity was much needed.

·         Believed the proposed access to the town via the nearby cul de sac was also not suitable.

·         Voiced disappointment that the scheme did not provide much needed affordable housing.

·         This was agricultural land and had not been identified in the local plan.

The Planning Officer and Solicitor responded on points of detail and technical questions raised by Members including:

·         Clarified the location and explained the management of the proposed attenuation ponds and surface water drainage.

·         Explained the guidance around the development of land not previously identified within the local plan.

·         Could not enforce the development to build more homes on the site to allow for affordable housing.  Officers were however content with the mix of proposed homes.

Acknowledged the concerns regarding foul drainage but explained the process and intention to pump offsite.

With agreement from the Chair the agent then clarified to the Committee the reason for the reduction of dwellings on the site was in response to public consultation.

Councillor Gwil Wren proposed an amendment to Condition 4 to change the word ‘occupation’ to ‘construction’ to ensure the adequate provision of drainage infrastructure from the beginning of site construction.

It was then proposed by Councillor Steven Pugsley that the Planning Officer’s recommendation together with the proposed amendment to Condition 4 be accepted and this was seconded by Councillor Gwil Wren.  On being put to the vote the proposal was carried by 7 in favour, 2 against and 0 abstentions.

Resolved:

That planning application 3/21/22/084 on land East of Porlock Road, Minehead be GRANTED permission subject to the conditions listed in the Agenda report with an amendment to Condition 4 to change the word ‘occupation’ to ‘construction’ and the completion of a Section 106 agreement, for the following reason:

The proposals for 10 detached dwellings and associated infrastructure on land east of Porlock Road, Minehead accords with Policies SC1 and SD1 of the West Somerset Local Plan by virtue of being in close proximity of the built area of the town, providing good accessibility to the town and not putting undue pressure on local roads. It's important landscape and ecology features can be retained and enhanced, the design of dwellings is in keeping with the locality and amenity of the area can be protected. With suitable conditions and planning obligations securing community, and transport benefits, on balance the proposals are sustainable development that can be supported and approved.

(Voting: 7 in favour, 2 against, 0 abstentions)

(Councillor Norman Cavill, having earlier declared an interest, left the meeting at this point).