Agenda item

To consider an application for the construction of 49 dwellings and formation of vehicular access,

RESOLVED:

That planning application 23/01649/FUL for the construction of 49 dwellings and formation of vehicular access at Land North of Broadway Hill, Broadway Hill, Horton, Ilminster be APPROVED, subject to the prior completion of a section 106 planning obligation and the imposition of conditions as per the officer recommendation as detailed in the agenda report.

(Voting: 4 in favour, 4 against, 1 abstention – the Chair then exercised his casting vote in favour of approving the application)

The Planning Officer presented the application as detailed in the agenda report. She noted this was the resubmission of a previous application that was refused and she briefly reminded members of why the previous application had been refused. The current application before members for consideration proposed some changes to the layout to address previous concerns raised, and a number of further amendments had also been made. With the aid of a Powerpoint presentation she highlighted key elements of the proposal including:

·       The amended layout including three areas of public open space.

·       Key considerations:

o   Housing supply

o   Local character and landscape impact

o   Impact on amenity of adjacent properties

o   Highways and parking

o   Scale and access to services

o   Phosphate mitigation

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

The applicant addressed the committee, and some of the points he made included:

·       Some issues raised at the previous application had now been addressed.

·       Reference to the latest housing land supply figure following recent appeals elsewhere.

·       Proposed scheme was well designed, sensitive to context of the local area, and deliverable as per the NPPF.

·       Horton was a sustainable location.

·       There would be a net gain in biodiversity and other significant benefits.

The Planning Officer responded to questions and points of detail raised by members, including:

·       Progress of an appeal lodged for the original application and clarification that it did not impact upon the consideration of the amended scheme. There was no requirement to await the appeal outcome before determining the application now before members.

·       The current application needed to be considered on its own merits.

·       Somerset Ecology Services had now confirmed they had no further comments following a walkover survey.

·       Explanation of why facilities at Horton and Broadway had been considered together.

·       Explanation of population figures used by policy.

·       Detail about the requirements included in the archaeology condition (no.10).

·       The LPA consider this to be a sustainable location and so no change in that respect from the original application.

·       A request for an education contribution had been submitted. Which school any children would attend was not a matter for this committee.

·       Drainage had been discussed at length with the LLFA and they were content it could be adequately dealt with. The relevant condition had been slightly reworded since the last application.

On hearing comments made, at the request of the Chair, the Specialist (Legal) provided advice about determination of the application. She noted that members could defer the application in order to receive more information, however, she advised against deferral to await the appeal decision of the originally submitted application.

During discussion mixed opinions were expressed and members sought advice and clarification from the Planning Officer. Some of the points raised included:

·       Need to consider this application in isolation.

·       One of the reasons for refusal last time had now been addressed.

·       If the S106 obligation can be agreed see no reason to refuse.

·       There is a need for housing.

·       Can see no housing need has been put forward by either parish.

·       Feel application will change the area but seeing little reason to refuse.

·       Surprised no one from the parish has asked to speak.

·       Little public transport and Ilminster soon to lose its only bank.

·       Feel previous refusal reasons 1 and 2 still stand. Redesigning the layout doesn’t negate those reasons.

·       This a rural settlement in the Local Plan and should be treated as such. Barely a sustainable location.

·       Haven’t heard anything which overcomes the objections of the previous application.

·       Have a duty to consider the application in accordance with the Local Plan. The reasons for refusal last time has led to amendments and improvements in the layout.

·       Concerned about sustainability. Access to services is difficult and reliant on use of a car.

·       Have some concerns about the principle of development,

It was initially proposed by Councillor Sue Osborne and seconded by Councillor Martin Wale to refuse the application for reasons 1 and 2 of the original application, however on being put to the vote this was lost. The voting was 4 in favour, 4 against with 1 abstention – the Chairman then exercised his casting vote against refusal of the application).

The Chair then proposed, seconded by Councillor Steve Ashton, to approve the application subject to a Section 106 planning obligation and imposition of conditions, as per the officer recommendation detailed in the agenda report. On being put to the vote there were 4 votes in favour, 4 against with 1 abstention. The Chairman then exercised his casting vote in favour of approving the application.

RESOLVED:

That planning application 23/01649/FUL for the construction of 49 dwellings and formation of vehicular access at Land North of Broadway Hill, Broadway Hill, Horton, Ilminster be APPROVED, subject to the prior completion of a section 106 planning obligation and the imposition of conditions as per the officer recommendation as detailed in the agenda report.

(Voting: 4 in favour, 4 against, 1 abstention – the Chair then exercised his casting vote in favour of approving the application)