Agenda item

To consider an application to outline Planning Permission for the erection of 6 dwellings with all matters reserved except access.

Application for Outline Planning Permission for the erection of 6 dwellings with all matters reserved except access.

The Officer’s Report stated that this application had been referred to the Planning Committee as the site was located outside the housing settlement limits so would be a departure from the existing adopted Development Plan. The Officer Recommendation was for approval.

The Report continued that the site was located adjacent to the Main Street (the A39) in Walton, Street and the application sought outline planning consent for 6 dwellings with only the means of access to be determined by this application.

The Divisional Member had requested the application be referred to the Committee. The Parish Council had objected to the application and there had been 3 letters of objection and 1 supporting comment from local residents. The concerns included:

• Development would be outside the development limits and would create urban sprawl
• Impact on the environment
• Highway safety
• Loss of privacy for neighbouring dwellings

In conclusion, the Officer’s Report said that significant weight should be given to the NPPF which encouraged delivery of sustainable development, and the lack of a five-year housing supply in the Somerset East area. The proposal would deliver economic, social and environmental benefits. The Report recognised the impact of living conditions and loss of privacy but said there was sufficient space within the site to accommodate the number of dwellings proposed. Overall, the development was sustainable and the application was therefore recommended for APPROVAL subject to conditions and planning obligations secured in a S106 legal agreement.

The Planning Officer explained the application to the Committee with the aid of a PowerPoint presentation.

The Committee was then addressed by an objector to the application. His comments included:

• The proposed access is already used by 4 dwellings.
• Exit onto the A39 is on a blind bend. There had been 3 car accidents recently.
• A construction site opposite the exit where 9 further dwellings are being built will make it even more dangerous.
• The site is outside the development limits.
• The bat survey referred to was not done for this application but was carried out for a previous application and did not mention presence of bats, which are evident.
• Walton is a small village and has already had 44 new houses in the past year. It has had more than its fair share of new dwellings.

On behalf of Walton Parish Council, a speaker then made the following points:

• The development was outside the development limits of the parish and would spoil the entrance to the village and erode the green area.
• 54 homes had been completed or consented since March 2017 and anything proposed outside the development limits should now be refused.
• The proposal is to use existing access but this is on a dangerous curve in road and would increase the hazard.
• The biodiversity net gain had not been demonstrated.
•  

Councillor Ros Wyke then spoke. She advised that she was the Divisional Member. She opposed the application for reasons of highway safety and the significant amount of traffic already using the road to access the motorway. Also, it was outside the development boundary and it would be a mistake to keep adding more houses outside of the limits. She also had environmental concerns such as the lack of biodiversity net gain.

The final speaker was the applicant’s agent who made the following points:

• Walton is a secondary village. The housing target is a minimum.
• It is a sustainable village and is not in a remote location.
• A pedestrian crossing and pavement link will be built to ensure pedestrian safety.
• Without a 5-year housing supply the presumption is in favour of sustainable development.
• The application should be approved unless significant harm that outweighs the benefits can be demonstrated.
• No harm has been identified by the statutory consultees.

During the discussion which followed, Members had a number of concerns and made a number of comments including the following:

• The road is very busy and dangerous. Many drivers do not abide by the 30mph speed limit and many travel at much higher speeds.
• Access onto this road from this site is dangerous.
• The location is not sustainable.
• It is not right to continue to develop outside the development limits.
• There needs to be consistency in the approval of planning applications outside the development limits.
• There must be a safe way for pedestrians to leave the site. At a minimum a tactile crossing but would prefer a zebra or pelican crossing for pedestrians.
• Turning cars off the main road into the site would cause a tailback.
• The proposed site is currently designated agricultural land.
• Walton has already had 54 new builds since 2017.
• The ecological report was written in 2018 and is only valid for 3 years.
• The application should be refused or deferred to allow an up-to-date ecology report to be completed.
• Extend the 30mph speed limit to cover the village in full.

The Highways Officer advised Members that there had not been a history of accidents along that stretch of road and speeding of vehicles was a matter for the Police to enforce. The number of properties proposed was not extreme and road safety was not a concern for Highways Officers. She added that, technically, an alternative pedestrian crossing could be built including a pedestrian island but this would be at the expense of the applicant. Finally, a right-hand turn lane into the site was not feasible for a development of this size. Any change of speed limit would require a traffic regulation order which may not necessarily be approved.

The Legal Advisor reminded Members that this was an outline application with all matters reserved except for access. Therefore, layout, size of dwellings, materials etc. was not for consideration at this point. Also, to refuse the application for reasons of highway safety may be difficult to defend at appeal as the Highway Authority had not objected. As there was no 5-year housing land supply, Members must apply the ‘tilted balance in their consideration’s i.e., the authority should approve the application unless the harms of the development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. Being outside the development limits would not be sufficient reason for refusal on its own.

The Team Leader – Development Management added that when the ecology report was submitted with the application in 2020, it was in date.  The ecologist had reviewed the application and the proposed conditions were set out in the Report. He advised Members to recognise the County Ecologist’s advice.

At the conclusion of the debate, it was proposed by Councillor Claire Sully and seconded by Councillor Bente Height to refuse the application contrary to the Officer’s Recommendation due to the site being outside the development limits and for reasons of highway safety. Councillor Helen Kay suggested that another reason for refusal was that the development would be unsustainable given the amount of housing already built in Walton. This was accepted by Councillor Sully and Height and incorporated into their motion.

Councillor Edric Hobbs proposed that the application be deferred to allow the applicant to propose improvements to road safety including a safer pedestrian crossing. This was seconded by Councillor Barry Clarke. However, the Legal Advisor explained that Councillor Sully’s substantive motion would need to be voted upon first and, if carried, the application would be refused.

On being put to the vote, the substantive motion to refuse was carried with 8 votes in favour and 4 votes against.

RESOLVED

That planning application 2020/0832/OTS be REFUSED contrary to the Officer’s Recommendation for the following reasons:

1. The development was outside the development limits and was not sustainable considering the amount of new dwellings already built in the village in recent years.
2. For reasons of highway safety including traffic speeds and inadequate pedestrian crossings.