Agenda and draft minutes
Venue: Council Chamber - Council Offices. View directions
Contact: Jo Boucher, Case Services Officer (Support Services) - 01935 462011 Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
To approve the minutes of the previous meeting held on 16th April 2019.
The minutes of the Regulation Committees held on 16th April 2019 copies of which had been circulated, were agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
Apologies for Absence
Apologies for Absence were received from Councillor Colin Winder.
Declarations of Interest
Councillor Neil Bloomfield declared a personal interest in Item 6 19/00064/FUL as he is a member of Martock Parish Council. He also declared a personal and prejudicial interest in Item 8 Planning Application 18/02588/FUL as he is well known to the Agent’s family. He would leave the meeting before consideration of that item.
Public Question Time
There were no questions from members of the public.
Members noted the schedule of planning applications.
Proposal: The erection of 120 homes together with associated infrastructure including access/highway improvements, drainage and attenuation, play area, open space and landscaping
The Lead Specialist – Planning introduced the report and explained that this application had been referred by Area North Committee directly to Regulation Committee without debate.
He then proceeded to give a detailed presentation and with the aid of slides showed the proposed site and plans and updated members on additional representations with regard to the following:
· Petition – to prevent houses
· Infrastructure, services
· Diminish natural light
· Extra traffic
· Residential Amenity
· Risk of crime
· Wildlife impacts
· MPC – Drainage
He also updated members on alterations to conditions including:
· 02 – date
· 03 – detail
· 04- timescale
· 13 – amend to reflect a submitted written scheme of investigation
· Omit 19 and 20 – TP
· New 20- footway linkage
It was also noted an Education Primary School contribution of £50,000.
The Lead Specialist - Planning explained that planning consent has previously been granted on the site for 95 houses and it was now proposed to build 120 houses which were smaller in size than those previously approved. There was an increase in 2 and 3 bedroom properties and more would be affordable. The layout was an improvement on the previous scheme in his opinion.
He also reported that an archaeological investigation of the site had already commenced in accordance with the expired consent. That the inclusion of a travel plan and vehicle electric points would need to be included within a legal agreement and that although Martock Parish Council had reservations regarding the drainage the Environment Agency (EA) were satisfied with the original comments made.
He asked members to carefully consider and give weight to the factors in favour of an approval:
· The presumption in favour of sustainable development
· The lack of a five-year housing land supply
· The site is in a sustainable location with an expired 2013 consent for 95 larger homes
· The scheme meets the 3 dimensions of sustainable development (economic, social, environmental)
· There are no technical objections to the application
· Housing numbers in the settlement hierarchy are a minima and should not be binding
· That members should be minded of the Gladman appeal outcome at Henstridge
· Of the SSDC LP review which will be seeking to allocate more plan for development, especially one with an historic permission
· That low delivery in Martock and South Somerset means more permissions are required, and
· This site, evidenced by the archaeological works, appears to be ready to deliver now
Furthermore the Lead Specialist – Planning advised members that they may disregard the officer’s recommendation so long as it has firm, planning grounds to do so that can be substantiated at appeal. If not a cost award would be likely if:
· A proposal in accordance with the development plan had been prevented or delayed from coming forward
· Members failed to produce evidence or substantiate reasons
· If members made vague, generalised or inaccurate assertions about impact which are unsupported by objective analysis, ... view the full minutes text for item 63.
Proposal: Erection of 10 dwellings and associated works including the formation of 2 No. accesses (outline)
The Senior Planning Advisor introduced the report and explained that this application had been referred by Area West Committee for the reason as set out in the agenda report.
He explained that this was an amended application for 10 dwellings from the original proposed development for 26 dwellings. He referred to permissions already granted within Ashill. He explained the main issue was the impact the proposal had on the setting of the Heritage asset.
The Senior Planning Advisor referred to Policy EQ of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and concluded that, although there may be some minimal impact, overall the scheme mitigated any significant adverse impacts.
In response to questions from Members, the Senior Planning Advisor confirmed that permission for 30 dwellings had already been granted elsewhere in the village and believed this development, if granted, would increase the population by approximately 20%. (This was subsequently disputed and it is agreed that the proposed development if approved would increase the ‘village of Ashill’ by some 46%).
Councillor Linda Vijeh, Ward member addressed the committee and voiced her objection to the application. Her comments included:
· Believed the orchard had been in situ since 1880 and was a distinctive component of the village.
· Although Ashill parish has in excess of over 200 houses the majority are not within the village, (82 existing homes in the village) of the proposed development and therefore this development would have a significant impact.
· Questioned the consistency of officer recommendations. Whilst this was supported another scheme for 3 homes had been recommended for refusal, on the local amenity.
· Site is not in a sustainable location with a lack of local facilities and minimal bus services.
· No affordable housing element and no contribution to local facilities.
· Adverse impact significantly outweighs any benefits.
The committee was then addressed by a representative of Ashill Parish Council. His comments included:
· Insufficient infrastructure with no essential services in the village (no bus service, shops, doctors etc.) therefore site is not located within a sustainable location.
· Scale of proposed development is out of proportion with the current village.
· Unsuitable and inadequate sewerage and drainage system.
· Proposal would have a significant impact on the church and listed buildings.
· Adverse impact significantly outweighs any benefits and fails policy SS2.
· Proposal does not provide any employment benefits or enhance local facilities.
· No identified housing need in the village
· Proposal would have a cumulative impact with other permissions already approved.
· No significant financial contribution to local facilities.
· Proposal not supported by the local community, the parish council or Area West Committee.
Four members of the public then spoke in opposition of the application. Their comments included:
· Proposed gains achieved against the requirements of the five year housing land supply have been overstated.
· Concern on the impact upon wildlife that uses the site.
· The benefits of the scheme have been overstated and the potential harm has not been investigated ... view the full minutes text for item 64.
(Councillor Neil Bloomfield left the room during consideration of this item).
Proposal: The erection of 23 No. dwellings, means of access and associated works.
The Specialist – Development Management introduced the report and explained that this application had been referred by Area West Committee for the reason as set out in the agenda report. It had originally been considered at the Regulation Committee on 16th April 2019, however had been deferred to allow the Area West Committee minutes to be finalised and agreed. He then proceeded to give a detailed presentation and with the aid of slides showed the site, proposed plans and access.
He referred to the key considerations being principle of development, sports and leisure contributions, highway safety/parking standards and visual/residential amenity. He understood the scheme was to be developed as 100% affordable housing and that there was no current policy to seek to protect the land for use to a care home. He also explained the site history and stated that the applicant had taken out a parking survey which had demonstrated there was sufficient on street parking to mitigate the shortfall in parking provision of the scheme. The Highway Authority considered this acceptable.
He also explained a DV assessment had been undertaken and although deemed not a viable scheme for financial contributions, a contribution has been sought and agreed of £28,212.00 for local provision.
In terms of updates he reported that:
· The resolution be updated to include the provision of sport and leisure contribution totalling £28,212.00 for the provision of local equipped play space and youth facilities at plot 5 consisting of £18,278.00 towards provision and a commuted sum of £9,934.00 towards ongoing maintenance. This will include a mechanism for the payment of additional contributions to be paid in the event that any of the 65% of additional affordable units are sold on the open market.
· Condition 2 to be updated with plan numbers.
· Condition 5 and 15 – substitute reference word ‘green’ to ‘pink’
· Condition 12 be amended as the Construction and Environmental Management Plan had now been agreed.
He therefore concluded that after considering all of the responses and advice, as outlined in the agenda report, his proposal was to approve the application subject to the conditions as set out in the agenda report with amendments to conditions 2, 5, 12 and 15 and subject to a section 106 legal agreement to include financial contribution to local play area as previously stated.
In response to questions from Members, the Specialist - Development Management confirmed that the District Valuer’s (DV) report was based on 35% affordable housing being provided consisting of 80% social rent and 20% intermediate and that it is expected that additional affordable provision within the scheme is funded via other sources such as grant funding. The purpose of the report was to deal with the viability of sport and leisure contributions.
The Senior Legal Executive confirmed that although the applicant indicated this site would be a 100% affordable housing development the ... view the full minutes text for item 65.
Date of Next Meeting
The next scheduled meeting of the Regulation Committee will be held on Tuesday 20th August 2019 at 10.00am. However this meeting will only take place if there is business to conduct.
Members noted that the next scheduled meeting of the Regulation Committee will be held on Tuesday 20th August 2019 at 10.00am. However this meeting will only take place if there is business to conduct.