Agenda item

Erection of 37 no. dwellings (Use Class C3) and a cafe/work hub (Use Class E) with associated access, parking and landscaping (resubmission of 2020/2674/FUL).

That planning application  2021/2413/FUL be APPROVED in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation with amendments to revise Conditions 4 (Surface Water Drainage) and 16 (Construction Management Plan) and additional Condition 17 regarding access visibility, Condition 18 regarding construction of the access, Condition 19 regarding visibility at the pedestrian access, Condition 20 regarding cycle and storage parking and Condition 21 regarding the lighting scheme for the protection of bats.

Votes – 5 in favour, 3 against and 2 abstentions

Erection of 37 no. dwellings (Use Class C3) and a cafe/work hub (Use Class E) with associated access, parking and landscaping (resubmission of 2020/2674/FUL).

The Officer’s Report stated that this application proposed a new residential development (major application) outside of settlement limits. The officer recommendation was for approval and, therefore, the application was referred to Planning Committee as a departure from the local plan.

The Report continued that the 11.8-hectare site was land in agricultural use (grade 3b, not best and most versatile) and consisted of a field located on the north-eastern side of the village of Butleigh. The village was identified as a primary village and therefore included a development boundary. The site was outside this boundary and separated from the village by a hall and recreation field. Also noted within the Officer’s Report were the following points:

• The proposed development would deliver 37 homes, of which 11 would be affordable.
• It would also deliver 205sqm of café and work hub units and an uplift in biodiversity.
• The site was located in “open countryside” for the purposes of the spatial strategy, an area where development is to be strictly controlled.
• The Council was unable to demonstrate a five-year supply of housing site in the Somerset East area with a shortfall of 1,201 homes against the requirement of 3,414.
• Highways, phosphates, odour and flood risk issues had been addressed through the planning application process.
• There are both benefits and harms to this application, which had been weighed up.

In conclusion, the Planning Officer stated that the overall benefits arising from the proposed development were considered to be significant. This is largely due to the contribution to the overall supply of housing, including both market and affordable housing and accounting for the shortfall in supply that currently exists in the Somerset East area. The benefits from the provision of a large amount of public open space was also considered to be significant. The high-quality design & materials and the economic development and biodiversity benefits have also been factored in.

Overall, the harms arising from the proposed development were considered to be moderate. The ‘tilted balance’ was engaged which meant that the application should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. This is despite the fact that the proposed development does not accord with the local plan.

In conclusion, the Officers considered that the adverse impacts were not considered to significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. Therefore, the recommendation was that planning permission should be granted.

The Planning Officer explained the application to the Committee with the aid of a PowerPoint presentation. He then gave a verbal update on 4 further planning conditions that were to be added into those in the report pack.

The Committee was then addressed by an objector to the application. She made the following comments:

• The tilted balance is subjective and Members should make their own decision on this.
• The housing numbers within the village have already been met and there are 4 more applications currently outstanding.
• The development is not an organic extension of the village. The edge is clearly defined and this will cause a split within the village.
• 37 more houses would be disproportionate growth.

A representative of Butleigh Parish Council was the next to speak. His comments included:

• The Parish Council opposes the development.
• There are existing planning applications for 32 houses in Sub Road which already takes the number of new homes built in Butleigh well over the amount allocated.
• There is surface water flooding at the site.
• Flooding is an issue for Butleigh residents and some have been flooded 3 times already this winter.
• At peak school hours there are large numbers of vehicles entering the village causing large backups and making the High Street very difficult to negotiate.

The final speaker was a representative of the applicant. He noted the following:

• The scheme would provide much needed housing for the district including 11 affordable homes.
• It is a well-designed and high-quality scheme which will be constructed from local stone with excellent insulation, air source heat pumps and EV charging points.
• The provision of a café will promote walking and foster a good sense of community.
• There will be native hedgerows, trees, flora and fauna.
• The development will safeguard the future of the local school.
• The developers are  committed to the S106 contributions.
• All consultees were satisfied and raised no objections.

In the discussion which followed the Legal Advisor began by reminding Members about the tilted balance situation, where due to a lack of housing land supply the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) makes it clear that applications should be approved unless the adverse impacts significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the proposal. Members then made a number of comments including the following:

• Concerns with the capacity of the sewage system. The pumping station is already at capacity. The local rivers are not in good condition and concerns about sewage overflows. Lack of a response from Wessex Water makes it difficult for the Committee to make a decision.
• The roads into the village are single track. There are few pavements, street lights or public transport. How is it sustainable?
• Concerns with the impact of the warmer, wetter climate and increased flood risk.
• There has been a lot of public objection to the scheme and the Parish Council does not support it.
• There are outstanding planning applications for 32 houses in the village. This seems an unnecessary development.
• Concerns about potential sewage odour.
• Pleased that the proposal includes solar panels, air source heat pumps etc.
• Development in Butleigh seems disproportionately high.
• How will the trees be maintained?
• There should be more single storey homes.
• Concern about the effect of the lighting facing the agricultural land on the local bat population.
• Will a café on site be viable? Concern it may end up a disused building.

In response to queries raised, the Planning Officers advised the following:

• Although the development is outside the settlement boundary, the village has been identified as a primary settlement and therefore is in a sustainable location.
• Planning Officers do not consider that the additional houses would represent disproportionate growth to the village.
• Wessex Water have not objected due to concerns regarding the sewage. There were initial concerns regarding odour, but following discussions between the applicant and sniff tests, Wessex Water agreed that the modelling supplied by the applicant was correct and would not cause an odour problem.
• No flooding concerns from the Internal Drainage Board.
• Maintenance of the planted trees will be controlled by the S106 agreement and any trees that fail within an agreed time will be replaced.
• An additional condition will be applied to protect the bats.
• The use of the space allocated to the café and workspace will be controlled by the S106 legal agreement.
• Without objections from the statutory consultees, it will be difficult to refuse the application on these grounds.
• Sewage overspills are not a planning consideration. If the developer is granted planning permission, they have the right to connect to the sewage system.

At the conclusion of the debate, it was proposed by Councillor Claire Sully to refuse the application, contrary to the Officer’s recommendation for reasons of disproportionate growth, loss of agricultural land and the lack of information on the capacity of the sewage system. This was seconded by Councillor Philip Ham. 

On being put to the vote, the proposal received 3 votes in favour, 3 votes against and 4 abstentions. The Chair had the casting vote in which he voted against refusal and the motion was therefore lost.

It was then proposed by Councillor Edric Hobbs and seconded by Councillor Bente Height to approve the application in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation with the revised and additional conditions.

On being put to the vote the proposal was carried with 5 votes in favour, 3 against and 2 abstentions.

RESOLVED

That planning application  2021/2413/FUL be APPROVED in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation with amendments to revise Conditions 4 (Surface Water Drainage) and 16 (Construction Management Plan) and additional Condition 17 regarding access visibility, Condition 18 regarding construction of the access, Condition 19 regarding visibility at the pedestrian access, Condition 20 regarding cycle and storage parking and Condition 21 regarding the lighting scheme for the protection of bats.

Votes – 5 in favour, 3 against and 2 abstentions