Agenda item

The Planning Officer presented his report to members, with the aid of a PowerPoint presentation. He provided images to show the application site and the proposed plans.

He informed members that the application was for outline planning permission for three two-storey dwellings, with appearance and landscaping to be considered as reserved matters at a later date.

He advised members that he considered South Barrow to be broadly sustainable as there were two basic services in the village, which were a church and a recreation ground and he considered the modest development to be acceptable.

He advised that the SCC Highways had not raised an objection. He advised members that the SSDC Landscape Officer did consider that there would be adverse impact on the visual amenity but that the landscape case against the development was not heavily weighed.

He clarified that a footpath ran through the application site, which would be subject to an application to SCC to divert the footpath.

Mr M Giles and Mrs S Elliot spoke in objection to the application. Their comments included;

·         The recreation ground is only on loan from a local farmer.

·         There is not a shop, pub, medical centre, or school in the village. The nearest pub is 2 miles away.

·         South Barrow is not a sustainable location.

·         Application does not comply with policy SS2 of the SSDC Local Plan.

·         There has been no engagement with local residents.

·         There have been houses approved in South Barrow and approval has been given for many homes in Sparkford. There is no identified housing need for South Barrow. 

·         Would result in a substantial loss of privacy to the neighbouring house.

Mr P Dance, the planning agent, addressed the Committee. He informed members that there will be an opportunity to provide a landscaping scheme at the reserved matters stage and that the site is well screened. He further advised that there is a clear housing need and that there is a lack of housing supply. He pointed out that Sparkford and the nearest pub was only 1 mile away.

Councillor Henry Hobhouse, Ward Member, explained that he understands the residents’ concerns and suggested that there were sites in South Barrow which would be more suitable for development.

Councillor Nick Weeks, Chairman and also Ward Member, explained that policy SS2 cannot be relied on in this case. He further commented that is was disappointing that there was not a representative from the Parish Council at the meeting.

During the discussion, overlooking and the adjoining fence were discussed. The Planning Officer confirmed that there were no windows on the gable end elevation which on the property which would adjoin the boundary of the existing property. The Planning Officer suggested that a planning condition could also be added to restrict positions of windows.

Following the discussion it was proposed and seconded that the application be refused, contrary to the recommendation of the case officer as the site was in an unsustainable location and would have an adverse impact upon the landscape, being contrary to policies SS1, SD1, SS2 and EQ2 of the SSDC Local Plan.

On being put to the vote, this was carried 6 in support, 3 against with 1 abstention.

RESOLVED:  that planning application 17/02511/OUT be refused, contrary to the planning officer recommendation for the following reason;

01.       The proposal would represent new residential development in an unsustainable location, for which an overriding essential need has not been justified. The application site is remote from local services and as such will increase the need for journeys to be made by private vehicles. This identified harm is not outweighed by the contribution of the proposal towards the supply of housing in the district or by any other benefit arising from the scheme. The proposed development therefore constitutes unsustainable development that is contrary to policies SD1, SS1 and SS2 of the South Somerset Local Plan (2006-2028) and to the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework.

02.       The proposal for residential development in this countryside location on the periphery of the village would consolidate the current dilute edge of settlement character and would therefore not accord with local settlement and landscape character, contrary to policy EQ2 of the South Somerset Local Plan.

(Voting: 6 in support, 3 against and 1 abstention)