Agenda item

To consider an application for outline planning permission for the erection of up to 180 dwellings with all matters reserved except for access

That planning application 2022/0614/OUT be REFUSED contrary to the Officer’s recommendation. Following the members discussion it was decided that the cumulative impact of the application proposals in conjunction with the recently approved development in the locality adjacent to the application site would result in overdevelopment of the area and an unsustainable pattern of growth and furthermore given the poor access to services, facilities and employment opportunities for future occupiers the application scheme would result in travel patterns that rely on car travel. There would also be a loss of open countryside and good agricultural land and it was contrary to the wishes of the Parish Councils. The harms identified significantly and demonstrably outweighed the benefits.

Votes – 6 for, 2 against, 1 abstention

The Officer’s Report stated that this application was a “major” development which was recommended for approval. However, Kilmersdon Parish Council had made objections therefore it was to be determined by the Planning Committee.

The Officer’s Report continued that the application was for outline planning permission for up to 180 new dwellings. The site is outside the settlement limits of the Mendip local plan area and adjacent to the settlement of Midsomer Norton in the BANES Council area. As the site was not allocated for development, and was outside the development limits, the application represented a departure from the development plan. In accordance with legislative requirements, it had been advertised as such. The Report went on to say that the application can be determined as an unallocated site under the tilted balance.

Kilmersdon and Westfield Parish Councils had both objected to the scheme, as has BANES Council. Somerset Council Waste Services had some concerns but all other consultees who responded had no objections subject to conditions and obligations. There had been 32 letters of objection from local residents.

The Officer’s Report provided in depth consideration of the application and concluded that the adverse impacts identified were not considered to significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. In accordance with para 11d of the NPPF, the application was therefore recommended for APPROVAL, subject to a number of conditions and planning obligations secured by legal agreement(s).

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

There were two speakers in objection to the application. Their comments included:

• The nearest facilities in Westfield will become overstretched.
• Homeless families in Westfield will not benefit from the affordable housing.
• Concerns about the increased traffic on the A367.
• It is not a sustainable location with most new residents commuting to Bath or Bristol.
• It is an area of great biodiversity.
• It represents suburban sprawl and is out of rural context for Somerset.
• The site is not allocated for development. It is outside the development limits in open countryside.
• Approval of this scheme would set a dangerous precedent for development in open countryside.
• It would represent total unsustainable overkill that would only bring short term financial gain.   
• Local services and infrastructure are already at breaking point.

The next speaker was from Kilmersdon Parish Council. She made the following comments:

• Kilmersdon has been identified as a secondary village by the LPP and is in a partial conservation area with listed buildings and surrounded by open countryside.
• The village school is oversubscribed and cannot be further expanded.
• This development would double the size of the parish and would have a significant harmful impact on the countryside and the intrinsic character of the village.

A councillor from the neighbouring BANES Council then spoke. Comments made included the following:

• During the judicial review this site was one of 5 sites removed from the Mendip Local Plan by the judge and is no longer to be considered to be a suitable site for part of the 505 homes in the Local Plan.
• It will be unsustainable. The GP surgery, 2 miles away is already oversubscribed and most residents are not able to access a GP appointment except for emergencies.
• Primary schools are full and some secondary school pupils already face a daily 22-mile commute to school.
• Council Tax from this development will be paid to Somerset Council and BANES Council will not receive any financial contribution to support infrastructure.

The final public speaker represented the applicant, Persimmon Homes. He said:

• The site was one of 3 adjacent to Midsomer Norton that Mendip DC had identified as suitable for development. The judicial review did not relate to the suitability of the site, but to the site identification process that had been applied by MDC.
• Some of the proposed 54 affordable homes will include those for social rent.
• The proposal is a high-quality scheme that will include large areas of green open spaces, a formal central square and children's play area.
• It will be a no gas scheme and will have air source heat pumps, solar panels and electric car charging points.
• There is existing capacity in the network to support all this.
• A funding package of £700k to spend on local infrastructure has been agreed.

The Divisional Members, Councillors Edric Hobbs and Tony Robbins both left the meeting after making a brief contribution saying that 180 homes on this site was far too many and would make the site extremely congested. Some of the funds agreed from the developer should go to the neighbouring Council. They also noted the inability of the road network to cope with all the additional houses in the area and it did not fit in with the local context. They then left the room.

In the discussion which followed Members made the following comments:

• Queries whether the National Grid could cope with the extra capacity needed for the Air Source Heat Pumps.
• It is not clear whether the grade of the agricultural land is 3 or 3A. This should be clarified before a decision is made.
• Concern about what provision is being made in Midsomer Norton to maintain industry and provide jobs.
• What phosphate mitigation has been proposed?
• The scheme is a step too far. The parish of Kilmersdon would be doubled in size.
• Would like to see the children’s play areas much larger.
• Not comfortable approving an application that a neighbouring Council strongly objects to.

In response to queries raised, Planning and Highways Officers advised as follows:

• The application is not in accordance with the development plan and therefore it will have to be considered as a departure. Members will need to consider the impacts of the scheme and whether they are significant and demonstrable and outweigh the benefits. The significant and demonstrable harms would need to be clearly identified.
• The site is not in the Phosphate zone therefore mitigation is not required.
• There are S106 funds being sought for health care and bus provision which the LPA and healthcare trust believe will be sufficient to overcome the existing problems.
• The commuting is not severe and not regarded as an issue.
• The concept plan is indicative and Members are not being asked to approve that, only the number of dwellings and access.

At this point in the debate, Councillor Martin Lovell proposed to approve the application in accordance with the Officer’s Recommendation. There were 2 votes in favour, 6 against and 1 abstention so this motion was not carried.

There was further debate in which there was discussion of possibly deferring the application and the Planning Officer’s gave advice on reasons for refusal, should that be proposed. After consideration, Councillor Philip Ham proposed that the application be refused as 180 more houses with the locality would represent over development, lack of nearby services, facilities and job opportunities that would be easily accessible, loss of good agricultural land, development in open countryside and contrary to the wishes of the Parish Council and neighbouring District Council. The harms identified significantly and demonstrably outweighed the benefits of additional housing supply and affordable housing.  This proposal was seconded by Councillor Michael Dunk.

On being put to the vote the proposal was carried with 6 votes for, 2 against and 1 abstention.

RESOLVED

That planning application 2022/0614/OUT be REFUSED contrary to the Officer’s recommendation. Following the members discussion it was decided that the cumulative impact of the application proposals in conjunction with the recently approved development in the locality adjacent to the application site would result in overdevelopment of the area and an unsustainable pattern of growth and furthermore given the poor access to services, facilities and employment opportunities for future occupiers the application scheme would result in travel patterns that rely on car travel. There would also be a loss of open countryside and good agricultural land and it was contrary to the wishes of the Parish Councils. The harms identified significantly and demonstrably outweighed the benefits.

Votes – 6 for, 2 against, 1 abstention