Agenda item

To consider an application for the erection of 74 dwellings, 1no.children with disabilities home, including means of access, drainage, landscaping and associated works.

RESOLVED

That planning application 2023/0867/FUL be REFUSED contrary to the Officer’s recommendation for the following reasons:

The site is located outside of the housing development limit and is therefore contrary to the settlement strategy, as outlined in Policies CP1 (Mendip Spatial Strategy), CP2 (Supporting the Provision of New Housing) and CP4 (Sustaining Rural Communities) of the Mendip District Local Plan Part I. As the Council cannot currently demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply, the presumption in favour of sustainable development applies, as outlined in the National Planning Policy Framework. Although the site is adjacent to the settlement of Frome, the harms of the proposal would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. Harms include the principle of the proposal and being contrary to Policy  DP1 (Local Identity and Distinctiveness), Policy DP4 (Mendip’s Landscapes) and Part 1 of Policy DP16 (Open Space and Green Infrastructure) of the Mendip District Local Plan Part I. As such, the proposal is not considered to constitute sustainable development and is contrary to Policies CP1, CP2, CP4, DP1, DP4 and Part 1 of DP16 of the Mendip District Local Plan Part I and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Votes – 6 for, 3 against, 2 abstentions

The Officer’s Report stated that this application had been referred to the Planning Committee as the site was owned by Somerset Council. Also, the recommendation of the Planning Officer for approval was contrary to that of Frome Town Council, which did not support the application. It was also classified as a major application.

The Officer’s Report continued that the application was for the erection of 74 dwellings, a disabled children’s home and associated development (including access, public open space, community orchard and publicly accessible footpaths and connections to the nearby public right of way network). The application site was an undeveloped site on the edge of Frome.

The proposed amount of affordable housing was 22%, which was less than the policy requirement of 30%, however, this is permissible by the local plan if viability constraints can be demonstrated. The Report also noted that the site was within the Greenspace SPD as an Asset of Community Value. Although material planning considerations, they do not preclude development on the site in principle.

There had been approximately 265 letters of objection from the local community for reasons including:

·       Principle of development – outside settlement limits, rural encroachment, the site should be considered as public open space

·       Design – density too high, not reflective of local area

·       Loss of valued green space

·       The site is an Asset of Community Value and should be protected from development

·       Ecology - loss of biodiversity

·       Services - strain on healthcare services

Frome Town Council objected to the scheme but there were no objections from the statutory consultees subject to conditions and mitigation. The Town Council objections included the following:

·       Insufficient affordable housing

·       Poor design – awkward, car-centric layout

·       Contrary to various policies

·       Proposed layout fails to retain enough of the existing green space

·       Harm by way of overlooking and overshadowing

·       The Viability Assessment and Biodiversity Net Gain Assessment have not been transparent and should be independently assessed.

After a very thorough and detailed assessment of the proposal and the issues raised by the public and consultees, the Officer’s Report concluded that overall, material planning considerations outweighed any conflict with the development plan. The adverse impacts identified were not considered to significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. In accordance with para 11 d of the NPPF, the application was therefore recommended for approval, subject to securing the recommended Section 106 planning obligations and the recommended planning conditions and informatives as set out in the report.

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

There were 5 speakers in objection to the proposal including a representative from CPRE (Campaign to Protect Rural England), People for Packsaddle (PFP) and a Planning Lawyer from Khift Ltd. The objector’s comments included:

·       Packsaddle fields have been used by Frome residents for over 50 years and has been recognised as an Asset of Community Value. The planning officer hasn’t given much weight to this fact.

·       The scheme lacks public open space and does not respect residential amenity.

·       There are serious concerns with overlooking.

·       The affordable housing should not be segregated within the development and the amount proposed does not comply with planning regulations.

·       If planning permission is granted it will have profound harm on the community as it is in daily use by the community. It promotes well-being and improves mental health.

·       The area is teaming with wildlife and is important foraging for bats. No confidence in the bat mitigation plan.

·       The site is outside the development boundary on a greenfield site which would not be acceptable anywhere else.

·       There are no solar panels or heat pumps proposed.

·       The harms of this unsustainable development significantly outweigh the benefits.

·       Policy DP16 of the adopted Mendip Local Plan relates to Open Space and Green Infrastructure. The site has been used by the public for over 50 years. A persons right to access the land is the relevant legal test, not whether it is legally used.

·       DP16 applies to this site and a Planning Inspector would agree. The non-compliant provision of affordable housing and Policy DP16 make this application unlawful.

The next speaker was from Frome Town Council. She said that the Council does not believe the benefits of the scheme outweigh the harms. There would be a loss of valuable green space and the site has been listed as an Asset of Community Value. There is insufficient affordable housing proposed and although Frome Town Council has declared a housing crisis, what is required are 1 and 2 bed houses, not 3 and 4 bed houses.  She also said that the application fails to meet the requirements of biodiversity and would cause harm to the landscape and neighbours’ amenity. She also queried the S106 education contribution an whether a children’s home was actually needed, rather first and middle schools.

Councillors Adam Boyden and Dawn Denton as division Members then spoke. They re-iterated a lot of the points already made and noted that there had been over 265 objections to the scheme and not one supporter. They recommended that the Committee refuse the application due to being outside the development limit, contrary to the spatial strategy, the adverse impact on the character of the area and full and continued use of the site by the public for recreation and wellbeing.

The final speaker was a representative of the applicant, housing association LiveWest. His comments included the following:

·       They were committed to address affordable housing in the area and the scheme would provide 16 such homes.

·       The 74 homes proposed would contribute to the Council's 5-year housing land supply.

·       No statutory consultees have objected.

·       Concerns regarding drainage have been noted and the proposal includes suitable attenuation measures to ensure there is no flooding.

·       The site will be 36% green space with 175 new trees, a community orchard and meadow grassland.

·       The scheme represents sustainable development as per the NPPF and the S106 contributions are all acceptable.

After a long and thorough discussion in which Members echoed and expanded on many of the points raised by the public speakers, Councillor Martin Dimery proposed to refuse the application, contrary to the Officer’s recommendation. This was seconded by Councillor Claire Sully. The reasons for refusal were due to the site being outside the housing development limit. Also, the harms of the proposal would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. The harms included the effects on the local identity and distinctiveness of the Mendip landscape, the effect on the open space and green infrastructure and the proposal would not constitute sustainable development.

On being put to the vote, the proposal was carried with 6 votes in favour, 3 votes against and 2 abstentions.

RESOLVED

That planning application 2023/0867/FUL be REFUSED contrary to the Officer’s recommendation for the following reasons:

The site is located outside of the housing development limit and is therefore contrary to the settlement strategy, as outlined in Policies CP1 (Mendip Spatial Strategy), CP2 (Supporting the Provision of New Housing) and CP4 (Sustaining Rural Communities) of the Mendip District Local Plan Part I. As the Council cannot currently demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply, the presumption in favour of sustainable development applies, as outlined in the National Planning Policy Framework. Although the site is adjacent to the settlement of Frome, the harms of the proposal would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. Harms include the principle of the proposal and being contrary to Policy  DP1 (Local Identity and Distinctiveness), Policy DP4 (Mendip’s Landscapes) and Part 1 of Policy DP16 (Open Space and Green Infrastructure) of the Mendip District Local Plan Part I. As such, the proposal is not considered to constitute sustainable development and is contrary to Policies CP1, CP2, CP4, DP1, DP4 and Part 1 of DP16 of the Mendip District Local Plan Part I and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Votes – 6 for, 3 against, 2 abstentions