Agenda item

To consider a hybrid (full and outline) application. Full application for the erection of 26 No. dwellings and formation of access, associated open space, landscaping and parking. Outline application with some matters reserved for 4 No. self build plots.

Resolved:

That application 50/20/00054 be refused permission for the following reasons:

It was considered that the proposal would have an adverse impact on the street scene and the setting of the area, given that the transitional nature of the site.

It was also considered that there would be an adverse impact on the character of Wedmore.

There was further concerns expressed due to the raised nature of the land impacting on the impact of the area.

It was considered that the application was contrary to Policies D2 and D26.

Refusal reasons to include the impact on policies to the Wedmore Neighbourhood Plan to be delegated to the Service Director and in conjunction with the Chair of the committee and the proposer of the resolution.

Councillor Matt Martin left the room before consideration of this application as he had declared himself to be pre-determined.

The planning officer introduced the application to the committee with the assistance of a power point presentation. She confirmed that members of the committee had undertaken a site visit the previous week due to the lag in time for the application to be considered. The proposal was a hybrid application with the full application for the erection of 26 dwellings with the formation of access, open space, landscaping and parking and an outline application for 4 self build plots. The application had been deferred from the committee in July 2023 to consider various issues and the agent provided additional information relating to materials to be used, planting plan, pedestrian links from the site to the surrounding area and changes to the properties at the front of the site with chimneys added, therefore the application was re-advertised in August 2023.

The committee were addressed by 5 residents in opposition to the application and their comments included:

·       Land needed to be protected for wildlife and open land, and compliance with Biodiversity Net Gain

·       No community or Parish Council support

·       Combe Batch is not suitable for pedestrians and access has poor visibility and on the brow of a hill

·       Flood and drainage issues

·       This site was not put forward in the Neighbourhood Plan for development as other sites more suitable

·       No further need for Affordable Housing in Wedmore

·       Wedmore is not a sustainable place to live

·       Prominent site into the village and would have an adverse impact on the village and surrounding area, land undulates

·       Design did not meet the local character

·       No safe access to the village or pavements in the area

·       Damage to an ancient hedge and ecology will be affected

A letter was read out from an ex-Sedgemoor District Councillor and a representative from the Parish Council also spoke who reiterated the above points especially not meeting the local infrastructure policies.

The committee then heard from the planning agent for the application who stated that the proposal would be a betterment to Wedmore, Housing Needs Assessment proves affordable housing needed and for smaller houses. A new pavement will be provided and it was considered that there would be low visual impact on the surrounding area and that the listed buildings would not be impacted. The properties would be sustainable and the 4 self-build properties element reflected the local self-build list. There were appropriate conditions proposed.

Officers responded to matters arising from comments made and clarified the following:

Ø  That the Biodiversity Net Gain legislation only came into force on Monday 12 February 2024 and will apply to major applications received after this date.

Ø  The application complies with the Housing Needs Assessment which was compiled independently from the Council although the Affordable Housing Manager agreed the findings; however Members were reminded that the assessment was always a snapshot in time

Ø  Drainage and flood risk were conditioned and agreed by the Lead Local Flood Authority

Ø  Combe Lane amendments will be added to the Heads of Terms if the application is approved.

Ø  Heritage statement reflected in design of development.

Ø  The hedge is proposed to be translocated, however if this fails, then this was covered by landscaping conditions.

Ø  The Highways Officer confirmed that works to highways would be subject to legal agreements as would drainage to the roads to be adopted through a S38 agreement.

Ø  Visibility splays and junctions agreed as this was for a 30mph speed limit, street furniture and lighting would also be agreed prior to the occupation of any properties.

Ø  The Heritage statement reflected the design features of the surrounding and proposed development.

During discussion, varying views were expressed by Members, including land levels of the site, impact on character of the area and visibility issues with the highway access to the site.

At the conclusion of the debate, the proposal to recommend approval with the additional heads of term for the contribution was put to the vote by Councillor Pearce and seconded by Councillor Smedley, however the vote was lost by 2 in favour, 4 votes against and 4 abstentions.

It was subsequently proposed by Councillor Filmer and seconded by Councillor Grimes to recommend refusal of the application for the following reasons: Due to the adverse impact on the street scene, character and setting of the area and particularly the transitional nature of the entrance to the village and in terms of design the impact on its character. 

On being put to the vote, the proposal was carried by 7 in favour, 2 votes against and 1 abstention.

Resolved:

That application 50/20/00054 be refused permission for the following reasons:

It was considered that the proposal would have an adverse impact on the street scene , character and setting of the area and particularly the transitional nature of the entrance to the village and in terms of design the impact on its character. 

It was considered that the application was contrary to Policies D2 and D26.

Refusal reasons to be delegated to the Service Director and in conjunction with the Chair of the committee and the proposer of the resolution.

(For 7, Against 2, Abstention 1)