Agenda item
Planning Application 2023/1515/OUT - Land at 353038 145483 Gypsy Lane, Wells, Somerset
To consider an outline application with all matters reserved except for access, up to 47no. dwellings (including affordable housing), open space, ecological mitigation, and supporting infrastructure.
Decision:
Resolved to refuse Outline Planning Permission for the following summarised reasons:
· Highway concerns regarding the safety and visibility of the proposed junction with the site from the B3139
· Landscape impact
· Managing flood risk
· Failing to maximise the use of sustainable transport as a result of an insufficient contribution towards active travel, in particular towards the Strawberry Line which would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the scheme.
For: 4
Against: 3
Abstain: 1
Minutes:
The Planning Officer updated the Committee explaining that the application was to consider an outline application with all matters reserved except for access, for up to 47no. dwellings (including affordable housing), open space, ecological mitigation, and supporting infrastructure.
The Planning Officer confirmed that this application was heard at the Planning East Committee meeting on 1st October 2024 and was deferred for clarification that the means of access as proposed could be provided without requiring land owned by a third party, other than the Highway Authority.
Members were provided with further information on the trigger points associated with the S106 Agreement. It was confirmed that the travel plan would be secured in the S106 Agreement and that a financial contribution towards the Strawberry Line would also be included (£11,000 to be paid prior to 50% occupation of the open market dwellings).
The Planning Officer then went on to present his report by way of a PowerPoint presentation highlighting:
· The access drawing had been revised and the applicant had provided clarification about the proposed access arrangements, which the Highways Officer confirmed was an improvement on the current existing situation and was within the extent of the public highway.
· Comments had been received from the Highway Authority regarding the requirement for a full travel plan and contributions towards active travel.
· Comments had been received from the Housing Enabling Team since the October meeting confirming that the affordable housing tenure split should be altered to remove the requirement for First Homes, resulting in 80% social rent and 20% shared ownership.
· Two letters of objection has been received since the October committee, with the following points raised:
Ø There were concerns that the development could lead to the unchecked urban sprawl outside Wells, increased traffic and pollution due to the site’s distance from Wells and a dangerous exit on to Elm Place.
Ø The development would extend beyond the edge of Wells negatively impacting the rural landscape and the character of the area.
The Legal Advisor advised Members that, as this was a deferred application, they should only vote on the application if they had been present at the first meeting. However, all Committee Members were entitled to take part in the debate.
Steve Morfey, a resident in Gypsy Lane, then spoke in objection to the Application highlighting the access arrangements and the reliance on the local Highway Authority to resolve the dangerous road junction off of Elm Close into Gypsy Lane and the fact that 147 new houses would increase traffic congestion and safety remained a major concern.
Another resident, Mr Brian Underwood, also spoke in objection highlighting the negative impact on the landscape and the increase in traffic congestion.
St Cuthbert’s Out Parish Councillor Jim Reeves then spoke in objection also highlighting access arrangements concerns and visibility splays. He suggested an alternative access to the development.
The Division Member for Mendip West, Councillor Ros Wyke, then spoke highlighting that tractors and trailer drivers were also to be considered in traffic issues and farm traffic had not been mentioned before. She also said that the landscape issue concerns were not only from the City of Wells looking out but also from the Glastonbury side of the city. She pointed out that the Planning East area does not have Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL), which the other areas of Somerset have adopted and that there was no real contribution to the wider community by this development in the S106 Agreement other than education and NHS.A meaningful contribution towards the community was lacking.
Alex Bullock, the agent for the application then spoke and stated that, after the deferral from the October meeting, it was confirmed that they applicant had never proposed the access on land other than their own and that of the adopted highway. He confirmed that such matters formed part of their normal considerations before they committed to spend fees required on a robust application such as this one. He stated that on behalf of the applicant they were comfortable with the S106 trigger points proposed. He further stated that the benefits of the development were significant and far outweighed any harm identified.
Councillor Hobbs left the meeting after the presentation and speakers, but before the vote.
After debate surrounding alternative access, greater contribution towards community facilities and confirmation that there would be 40% affordable housing made available, Councillor Martin Dimmery proposed to approve the application in accordance with the Officer Recommendation which was seconded by Councillor Martin Lovell. On being put to the vote the proposal was lost with 2 votes in favour, 4 against and 2 abstentions. Councillor Denton left the meeting.
Councillor Philip Ham then proposed to refuse Outline Planning Permission for the below reasons. This was seconded by Councillor Susannah Hart.
- Highway concerns regarding the safety and visibility of the proposed junction with the site from the B3139
- Landscape impact
- Managing flood risk
- Failing to maximise the use of sustainable transport as a result of an insufficient contribution towards active travel, in particular towards the Strawberry Line which would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the scheme
On being put to the vote the proposal was carried with 4 votes in favour, 3 against and 1 abstention.
RESOLVED
Members resolved to REFUSE permission for the following summarised reasons:
· Highway concerns regarding the safety and visibility of the proposed junction with the site from the B3139
· Landscape impact
· Managing flood risk
· Failing to maximise the use of sustainable transport as a result of an insufficient contribution towards active travel, in particular towards the Strawberry Line which would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the scheme.
For: 4
Against: 3
Abstain: 1
Supporting documents:
-
DM01 2023_1515.OUT, item 235.
PDF 161 KB
-
DM01 2023_1515_OUT, item 235.
PDF 441 KB
-
DM01 2023_1515_OUT APPENDIX - OCTOBER COMMITTEE REPORT, item 235.
PDF 246 KB