Agenda item

To consider an outline application for up to 100 dwellings with associated works including access, public open space and landscaping.

RESOLVED:

 

That planning application 21/01035/OUT for up to 100 dwellings with associated works including access, public open space and landscaping at Land OS 6925, Coat Road, Martock, Somerset be APPROVED, subject to the prior completion of a section 106 planning obligation, the imposition of conditions as per the officer recommendation as detailed in the agenda report and two additional conditions to require that an application is made for a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) and to incorporate the Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) within the construction phase.

 

(voting: 6 in favour, 2 against, 3 abstentions)

 

The Planning Officer presented the application as detailed in the agenda report, and with the aid of a Powerpoint presentation highlighted key elements of the proposal including:

·         Site and location plan.

·         An indicative layout with proposed development to the east of the site, and with open space and planting to the west.

·         The phosphates solution included a package treatment plant and phosphates credits which had been purchased from the scheme agreed by the Council.

·         Discharge of the water course will require separate agreement with the Environment Agency and Internal Drainage Board.

·         Proposed access to site and proposed works to connect off road path into Martock.

·         Martock Neighbourhood Plan acknowledges site acceptable for development.

·         Reference to housing figures in the Local Plan – acknowledgement that Martock already above the number in the Plan, however the figures in the Local Plan were not a maximum.

·         Identified the Stapleton and Coat green gap.

·         The key considerations were the principle of development and highway safety.

·         Highways were content with the proposal subject to Section 106 obligations and conditions.

 

He confirmed the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) had not objected to the proposal and introduced the Officer from the LLFA who provided members with a detailed explanation of the discharge rates and consideration given to this application.  She confirmed the site was outside most of the surface water flooding area and suggested a detailed drainage condition be included to secure these measures are in place.

 

The application was recommended for approval subject to planning obligations and conditions as set out in the agenda report.

 

Five members of the public addressed the committee in objection to the application. Some images had been submitted which were included in the officer presentation, and some of their points raised included:

·         Concern regarding the proposed drainage within the site due to the flow and discharge of surface water from other catchment areas.

·         Recent flooding made Coat Road and other roads within Martock impassable and with no new detailed information being provided to solve the flooding and safe access issues which remain a concern.  The application should be deferred until these matters have been dealt with.

·         The green gap between Coat and Martock is a high landscape sensitivity area which should be protected and that the proposed development will significantly impact this area.

·         Who will be responsible for the tree planting and green gap?

·         Originally identified for 55 houses and not 100 as now proposed.

·         This is a case of cramming houses into a small gap.

·         This will significantly increase the need for travel and congestion to the local surrounding road network.

·         Local facilities such as the local doctor’s surgery and schools cannot cope.

·         This proposal should be considered after the 2028 once the true impact on the other developments are built out.

·         Concern regarding the package treatment proposals and safety concerns around the outflow of sewage with no supporting documentation evident.

 

The Engineering consultant for the applicant, then addressed the committee as a supporter of the application, some of his points raised included:

·         Application site is located within the lowest flood zone risk area.

·         Proposal addresses the water quality and contributes to amenity and biodiversity and is fully compliant to the necessary technical assessments required.

·         Acknowledged flash flooding can occur within the areas around Martock. However, this location will provide safe access to and from the site and noted that flash flooding is not unique to Martock and should not influence the acceptability of new development.

·         Proposed drainage scheme will be a significant betterment than what discharges currently and will contribute to the downstream catchments.

 

A spokesperson for Martock Parish Council addressed the committee in objection to the application. Some of his points raised included:

·         Martock neighbourhood plan shows there is sufficient housing land supply until 2036.

·         Site had originally been identified for up to 55 dwellings.

·         Application will significantly impact the character of the green gap between Martock and Coat.

·         This development would significantly exceed the local plan allocated housing target by nearly double the intended figure.

·         Lack of employment opportunities.

·         Application would significantly increase the traffic exacerbating the issues at the nearby junction.

·         Application does not meet the parish needs with lack of community consultation undertaken.

·         Insufficient phosphate mitigation.

 

Division member, Councillor John Bailey, wished it noted that the Parish Council were not wholly against future housing, but that the increase in dwellings from 55 to 100 homes is unacceptable given it is within half the original identified area.  He said there had been a lack of communication from the developer with the Parish Council and felt there was insufficient phosphate mitigation.  He raised concern regarding flooding within the site given the recent issues within the local area and that this should be considered.

 

In response to points of detail and technical questions raised by the public speakers, the Planning Officer and LLFA Officer clarified that:

·         The proposed development does not encroach into the green gap and that tree planting does not require planning permission.

·         Highways had re confirmed they had raised no objections to scheme.

·         Woodland would potentially help the surface water flow and that the discharge rates are in agreement with the drainage board.

·         Phosphate Treatment Plant (PTP) was not in the remit of the LLFA.

·         It was recognised that Martock had taken further development than set out in the Local Plan, however the figures in the Local Plan are minimum figures not maximum.

·         Clarified this was an outline application and the only aspect for approval was the access into the site.  All other matters such as the layout and drainage works would be at reserved matters stage.

 

In response to questions from members the Planning officer, LLFA Officer and Lead Specialist also provided the following:

·         Gave a detailed explanation around the information supplied and assessment regarding surface water levels within the development boundary.

·         Noted concern regarding the speed limit within the access boundary of the site, however confirmed that the Highways authority consider the scheme acceptable, and any safety concerns would have been considered.

·         Explained the rights of the neighbourhood plan with the direction of growth and green gap being recognised and with the aid of a map the areas allocated within the development plan.

·         Explained the application process of a Traffic Regulation Order regarding the speed limits. It was confirmed that the applicant would be applying for a TRO as part of this application and would be happy to include this as part of the conditions.

·         Explained in detail the proposed package treatment plant management and the companies who provide it.

·         Explained in detail the discharge rates and how they are calculated.

·         Confirmed density of application was similar to other schemes nearby.

 

During members discussion some comments included:

·         Struggling to find sufficient planning reasons to refuse this application.

·         Remain concern about the surface water flooding and whether the proposed mitigation measures would be sufficient to prevent further flooding.

·         Concerns that areas of the site are liable to flood with evidence to prove this.

·         Sought clarification regarding the speed limit and request that the 30mph speed limit be extended beyond the site entrance to ensure safer pedestrian access into the village.

 

Following concerns raised the Lead Specialist explained how the surface water flow is managed and ultimately deliver betterment on the site.  The LLFA Officer also explained the construction drainage management plan and what measures would be put in place to prevent further flooding.

 

Following a further discussion, it was then proposed by the Chair and seconded by Councillor Oliver Patrick to approve the application as per the officer recommendation and as detailed in the agenda report with two additional conditions to 1. require that an application is made for a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) and 2. to incorporate the Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) within the construction phase.

 

On being put to the vote, this was carried by 6 votes in favour, 2 against and 3 abstentions.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That planning application 21/01035/OUT for up to 100 dwellings with associated works including access, public open space and landscaping at Land OS 6925, Coat Road, Martock, Somerset be APPROVED, subject to the prior completion of a section 106 planning obligation, the imposition of conditions as per the officer recommendation as detailed in the agenda report and two additional conditions to require that an application is made for a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) and to incorporate the Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) within the construction phase.

 

(voting: 6 in favour, 2 against, 3 abstentions)