Agenda item

To consider an application to remove Condition No. 01 (holiday occupancy) of appeal decision of application 20/06/0039 at Plots 19 and 20 Mill Meadow, Parsonage Lane, Kingston St Mary.

RESOLVED:

That planning application 20/23/0020 for the removal of Condition No. 01 (holiday occupancy) of appeal decision of application 20/06/0039 at Plots 19 and 20 Mill Meadow, Parsonage Lane, Kingston St Mary be REFUSED permission for the following reason:

1.      The proposed development is outside any defined settlement limits and therefore falls within open countryside. The site is located in an unsustainable location where future occupiers would be heavily reliant on the private car to access facilities and amenities that are not available within close proximity to the site. The proposed is therefore contrary to policies SP1, SD1 and CP1 of the Taunton Deane Core Strategy and policies A5 and SB1 of the Taunton Deane Site Allocations and Development Management Plan.

(Voting: 6 in favour, 3 against, 0 abstentions)

The Planning Officer introduced the application to the Committee with the assistance of a power point presentation.  She explained this application was similar to the previous application, although this was wholly for the removal of the ‘holiday occupancy’ condition of the appeal decision of a previous application. 

She reiterated that the applicant was willing to agree to the inclusion of a ‘local occupancy’ condition should Members approve to approve the application.  

She referred to the key considerations and that the recommendation was for refusal.

The Solicitor also clarified to Members that the application was wholly to consider the removal of the ‘holiday occupancy’ condition.

Councillor Dixie Darch, the Division Member did not make comment on this application as they were the same comments as per the previous application.   Having earlier declared that she was predetermined, she then moved to the public seating and took no further part in consideration of this item.

The Committee were addressed by a representative of the Kingston St Mary Parish Council.  Some of his comments included:

·       It was never the intention this application was for the purpose of affordable housing.

·       Parish Council was actively looking for an acceptance site for affordable housing.

·       Needs of the local community should be supported.

The Committee were addressed by the agent.  Some of her comments included:

·       Clarified the previous appeal decision and occupancy conditions.

·       Confirmed there was a bus link directly outside the site.

·       Understood that phosphates would not be an issue going forward.

·       There was demand for these cheaper more affordable units which are already built.

·       High levels of biodiversity.

·       Reiterated the applicant was willing to agree to the inclusion of a ‘local occupancy’ condition should members be minded to approve this application.

During discussion, varying points were made by Members including: 

·       Sought clarification regarding what impact phosphates would have should permanent occupancy for 52 weeks per year be approved.

·       Sought clarification regarding tourism occupancy condition and length of use.

·       Voiced confusion around the difference of holiday lets and 2^nd home use.

·       Site was not suitable and in an unsustainable location.

·       Acknowledge restrictions would affect the value of the properties.

·       This application falls outside the local plan and therefore not a suitable approach to solve the local housing problem.

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

·       The impact of phosphate mitigation should the units be given over to permanent residential homes.

·       The local connection criteria and cascade effect.

At the conclusion of the debate, it was proposed by Councillor Sarah Wakefield and seconded by Councillor Gwil Wren to refuse the application as per the Planning Officer’s recommendation.  On being put to the vote the proposal was carried by 6 votes in favour, 3 against and 0 abstentions. 

RESOLVED:

That planning application 20/23/0020 for the removal of Condition No. 01 (holiday occupancy) of appeal decision of application 20/06/0039 at Plots 19 and 20 Mill Meadow, Parsonage Lane, Kingston St Mary be REFUSED permission for the following reason:

1.      The proposed development is outside any defined settlement limits and therefore falls within open countryside. The site is located in an unsustainable location where future occupiers would be heavily reliant on the private car to access facilities and amenities that are not available within close proximity to the site. The proposed is therefore contrary to policies SP1, SD1 and CP1 of the Taunton Deane Core Strategy and policies A5 and SB1 of the Taunton Deane Site Allocations and Development Management Plan.

(Voting: 6 in favour, 3 against, 0 abstentions)