Agenda item

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.

RESOLVED

That planning application 2023/1515/OUT be APPROVED in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation subject to securing a substantial increase in the S106 contributions for the Strawberry Line. This be delegated to Officers in consultation with the Chair, Vice-Chair and Divisional Members.

Votes – 6 for, 2 against, 1 abstention

The Officers Report explained the background of this application and the reason it had returned to Planning Committee. Members were reminded that the application was first considered at Planning Committee on 1st October 2024, when it was deferred. It was then refused at Committee on Tuesday 3rd December 2024, for the following 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

Since then, the NPPF was revised on 12 December 2024.  Therefore, in light of the national policy changes and as the decision notice had not been issued at that time, the application had to be reconsidered by the Committee.

During the meeting the Legal Advisor confirmed this position and stated that when a new NPPF is issued which has a material  impact on a resolution made by the Planning Committee and where the decision notice had not yet been issued, the planning application should   be reported back to Members for further consideration.

The Planning Officer explained the application using a PowerPoint presentation, after which the public speakers addressed the Committee.

There were 3 speakers in objection to the proposal. Their comments included:

·       Query why the decision notice following the resolution of the meeting held on 3 December 2024 was not issued before the change in legislation on 12 December 2024.

·       The revised NPPF should not change the outcome of this application. The reasons for objection remain the same:

·       Impact on the landscape; proposal is outside the development limits; there will be a loss of green space; access is too narrow with poor visibility and is dangerous; due to distance to the town centre, people will still need to drive into town; flooding issue still prevalent.

·       The application is not supported by St Cuthbert Out Parish Council, who gave good reasons for recommending refusal with a strong planning balance.

·       There will be a significant increase in traffic on Gypsy Lane.

Mr Ivor Tetley, who spoke in objection to the application, raised a query regarding the process and procedure that was followed to bring the application back to the Planning Committee. He questioned why the decision notice for the application had not been issued in a timely manner following its refusal at the 3 December 2025 meeting, resulting in it being brough back to Committee for re-consideration in light of the changes to the NPPF. He said he felt that the Committee was being asked to reconsider and reverse its decision and queried the procedural rules which would allow this to happen.

In response, the Legal Advisor stated that the Chief Planning Officer was able to bring matters back to the Committee under their delegated powers Part i2 of the Scheme of Delegation for Officers, paragraph 134. He advised that the required full 5, clear working days had been given from the date of the agenda publication.  He said that if the Committee were to decide to refuse the application again and it went to appeal, the Planning Inspector would test the appeal under the new NPPF, therefore it was important for the Committee to also consider it under the rules of the new NPPF. He added that every reason for refusal must be defendable at appeal.

The speaker from St Cuthbert Out Parish Council also queried the delay in issuing the decision notice following the application being resolved to be refused at the December Planning Committee. He pointed out that the new NPPF has enhanced the requirement for “safe and suitable access to the site to be achieved for all users”. He maintained that the access was not safe, or suitable. He also questioned how the hedge line stretching 70m each side of the junction, which would need to be maintained regularly to ensure safe visibility, could be done if the developer did not own or control that hedge line. He urged the Committee to reject the application until the visibility issues were fully resolved.

Councillor Ros Wyke then spoke as the Divisional Member and stated that she supported the Parish Council in their approach and also said that the developer should make a larger contribution to infrastructure via the S106 agreement. She recognised that this development would have traffic implications on the surrounding roads and wondered if Somerset Highways could comment on the issue with Burcott Lane which is narrow and has no passing places.

Finally, on behalf of the applicant, the planning agent addressed the Committee. Her comments included:

·       As a result of the revision of the NPPF, the change in housing supply calculations means that the five-year housing supply in Somerset East has reduced from 3.67 years to 2.2 years. Therefore, the addition of 47 new houses that this scheme would bring is significant and welcome.

·       There are no objections from the statutory consultees over the drainage.

·       There is no impact on highway safety and safe access can be achieved.

·       Previous concerns about land ownership and has been proven and is legal.

·       The landscape and large areas of open space will minimise the visual impact.

·       If there was any landscape harm identified, it would have to significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, which we believe it does not.

The Legal Advisor then reminded Members that the required 5 clear working days was given for agenda to be published. The Committee must consider the application again against the policies in the new NPPF. This is what would be considered by a Planning Inspector at appeal. The reasons for refusal must be strong and the Council could risk losing some of the offered infrastructure funding if the application was refused and went to appeal. He advised that the local planning authority must have evidence to substantiate each and every reason for refusal.

The Planning Officer added that the query over land ownership that had been raised was not a planning matter for the Committee to consider.

Members had a thorough discussion regarding the application and made many comments including the following:

·       Despite worthy objections, there is now less reason to refuse the application.. The Somerset East area only has a land supply of 2 years and therefore the development is needed.

·       The site is not the best location for housing and an increase in S106 funds for active travel would be required as it is currently insufficient. The Planning Officer advised that the Strawberry Line contribution was worked out as a proportionate amount when compared to the David Wilson Homes contribution. This would be finalised through the S106 negotiations, but if more evidence became available to increase the contributions there may be scope to seek an alternative/higher figure. This is something that Committee could delegate to Officers to negotiate, in consultation with the Divisional Members.

·       The access visibility remains a concern despite Highways having approved it. A further survey should be completed. The Highways Officer advised that the consultation had not been via standing advice but that site visits had been made, a full survey carried out and inclines inspected. She was satisfied that there was no highway safety issue with access and it was considered it a betterment to what was already there.

The Team Leader – Development Management reminded Members that access arrangements had been assessed and determined to be acceptable by the professional Highways Officers and their recommendation was for approval. Also, that the reduction in land supply from 3.6 years to 2.2 years would be a material consideration for a Planning Inspector on appeal.

Councillor Barry Clarke proposed that the application be approved  subject to the Highway Authority carrying out a fuller safety assessment. This proposal was not seconded and Councillor Clarke withdrew the proposal.

Councillor Philip Ham said that there were still issues with road safety that he was not happy with, including the dip in the road near to the junction. Also, the lane was narrow with no passing places.  He proposed that the application should be refused due to the landscape impact, highways safety and the overall phosphate situation.  This was seconded by Councillor Susannah Hart.

The Legal Advisor advised that refusal on grounds of highways safety was unlikely to be defendable as there was no technical consultee support for this and so would be likely to fail at appeal. The Team Leader – Development Management reminded Members that the was a mitigation scheme in place for the phosphates and therefore strongly advised against this being a reason for refusal.

In the vote that followed, there were 4 votes in favour of refusal and 5 votes against and therefore the motion to refuse was not carried.

Councillor Rob Reed then proposed to approve the application, subject to securing a substantial increase in the S106 financial contribution for the Strawberry Line, to be delegated to Officers in consultation with the Chair, Vice-Chair and Divisional Members.

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

RESOLVED

That planning application 2023/1515/OUT be APPROVED in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation subject to securing a substantial increase in the S106 contributions for the Strawberry Line. This be delegated to Officers in consultation with the Chair, Vice-Chair and Divisional Members.

Votes – 6 for, 2 against, 1 abstention

Councillor Ros Wyke returned to the meeting.