Agenda item

Planning Application: 16/05500/OUT - Land South West of Canal Way, Ilminster.

Meeting of Regulation Committee, Tuesday 21st November 2017 10.00 am (Item 4.)

Minutes:

Application Proposal: Land South West of Canal Way, Ilminster

The Area Lead West presented the application as detailed in the agenda and with the aid of a power point presentation showed the site and proposed plans. He also updated members on the following:

· Over 100 letters of objections had been received reiterating the issues and concerns previously raised regarding the impact the proposal would have on the highways, visual impact and overall infrastructure, landscape, drainage impact on local amenities and overall number of proposed housing.

· One further letter of objection received from Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) objecting to scale, balance of jobs to housing and future housing requirement referring to the local plan review currently being carried out.

· Additional amended plans had been received from the applicant addressing the key issues in response to issues previously raised.

· Following the Area West Committee and the concern regarding the submitted transport assessment the SSDC Highway Consultant has now viewed this assessment and considers it to be acceptable and have no significant adverse impact on the highway network. He also considered the single point access be acceptable along with the access for emergency vehicles.

He noted that there was now no development proposed within the parish of Donyatt and explained the primary site access onto Canal Way, the proposed emergency access and the proposed drainage layout plans of the site.

He explained as this application was for outline planning permission the plans shown were indicative. He noted a number of issues identified in his report from consultees however these would be resolved at future reserved matters stage should the application be approved.

The Area Lead West referred to the key considerations and noted the application is located within the identified direction of growth. He said that the proposed number of dwellings would exceed the current Local Plan figure for the number of housing in Ilminster by approximately 50%. He confirmed there were no objections from statutory consultees including the highways authority following amendments made by the applicant and therefore they now consider the scheme acceptable.

He also noted that the Council is not currently able to demonstrate a 5 year land supply of housing and that Ilminster is classified as one of the districts larger settlements that sits in the 2^nd hierarchy behind Yeovil.

He noted the proposed site is situated in flood zone 1 and that the Environment agency assessed the site and were satisfied it would not be at risk from sea or river flooding. He did however appreciate the issues of surface flooding on the northern part of the site and confirmed this would be where the relevant drainage and attenuation ponds would be located and that no housing would be built in this particular location.

The Policy Planner also explained to members the current assessment and figures regarding the balance of jobs to housing and believed that Ilminster has a high level of self-containment with employment rates higher than the national average.

The Area Lead West considered that the principle of development on this site was acceptable, in a sustainable location and the scheme would make a contribution of 35 % affordable housing plus contributions towards education, play and sport facilities. He therefore concluded that after considering all of the responses and advice, as outlined in the agenda report, he believed the proposal would not have any significant impact that demonstrably outweighs the benefits of the scheme. His proposal was therefore to approve the application subject to the conditions as set out in the agenda report.

In response to questions from members, the Area Lead West, Development Manager and Highways Officer confirmed that:

· A site visit had taken place prior to the committee where the vast majority of members had been able to walk the proposed site location.

· If member’s were to approve this outline application a reserved matters application would still need to be submitted and approved with full details before full permission is granted. Reserved matters would be subject to a new application and sent out for public consultation under the normal procedure.

· Public footpaths run both within and on the boundary of the site and therefore some sections will need to be diverted. The Somerset County Council (SCC) Rights of Way Service Manager has not raised any objection to the scheme.

· Members should consider the current statutory adopted Local Plan; however the Council does not have a current five year land supply and therefore the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states where this is not the case these policies should still hold some regard and therefore members need to consider the weight of these policies when coming to a decision.

· Highways had originally raised an objection to the single access from Canal Way however following further details received from the applicant to mitigate additional measures they now consider the scheme to be acceptable along with the proposed access for emergency vehicles.

· The key priority is to deliver the Council’s 5 year land supply and this site has already been one of the sites identified for achieving this.

· The applicant would need to ensure an approved drainage water scheme to safeguard the discharge for surface water. Also there was the likelihood of the Council setting up a Management Company to take on areas of open space and the management of drainage ponds etc. on this site.

· Detailed pre-application discussions are already being held regarding the proposed new school with the expectation that an application will be submitted in the new year. However the proposed school is not included as part of this application.

· SSDC would liaise with the lead Flood Authority to ensure the sustainable drainage system (SuDs) is fully inspected and maintained.

· The scheme would make a significant financial contribution for the proposed school however SCC are responsible to provide the education for this scheme and the trigger point would depend on existing capacity within the area.

As County Division Member, Councillor Linda Vijeh questioned the voting rights of a member of the Regulation Committee who had declared an interest as a Somerset County Councillor but was also a junior cabinet member. She also believed that as SCC has a financial interest in the scheme there should have been an independent highway report carried out. She referred to the lack of adequate broadband facilities in the area, the issues for local house owners to obtain sufficient insurance due to flooding problems and that SCC state that there is currently no shortage of school places in the area especially at primary school age. She also believed too much emphasis has been made the 5 year land supply as 71 other local authorities do not currently have a five year land supply.

The Senior Legal Executive advised that members who also sit on County Council committees may hold a personal interest; however this is not pecuniary to them personally and therefore can participate in the debate with an open mind.

The Highways Officer confirmed that as the Highway Authority they have a statutory duty to respond to planning application independent of any other business taking place elsewhere within SCC.

Ward member, Councillor Carol Goodall, reiterated the flooding issues and concerns within the area and the insufficient broadband facilities. She raised concern regarding previous unsatisfactory surface water drainage systems currently managed by the developer and the lack of the continued maintenance.

Ward member, Councillor Val Keitch raised concern regarding the access and other highway issues and noted the original objection from the Highway Authority. She said of the current difficulties obtaining a doctor’s appointment at the surgery and the lack of employment opportunities within the town. She believed the number of housing was well above the acceptable figure already allocated and the overall scale of the development. She believed it to be a dormitory village tacked onto the side of the town which would require residents to use cars and would have a significant impact on the road network and its local facilities.

The Highways Officer explained the initial objection made based on shortcomings of the assessment and layout of the development, however the applicant had overcome these concerns and therefore now recommended approval.

The Development Manager appreciated concerns regarding the impact on local amenities such as the doctor’s surgery. He believed there are many reasons why there may be a deficiency in services however much of this was not within the control of the developer. He confirmed consultation had taken place with Clinical Care Commissioning Group who confirmed that there is no evidence to suggest there was an issue in Ilminster.

Mr A Shearman of Ilminster Town Council referred to the South Somerset supplement profile stating flooding and infrastructure could not cope and that the town overall was under served by public transport. He appreciated some development but considered this scheme to be grossly overdevelopment increasing the town by 10% and that the proposal clearly does not have support from the local community.

The Committee were then addressed by 15 members of the public who were objecting to the development. There comments included:

· The development would have a huge adverse impact on the character of the landscape and ancient ridge.

· Proposal is overbearing by its layout, density and height.

· Not enough areas of open space within the proposed scheme.

· Lack of confidence with Persimmon Homes that they will mitigate the concerns regarding existing drainage problems on the site.

· 400 houses is too many for one site in Ilminster.

· Proposal would have a severe impact on the visual amenity of the area and its historic delightful views.

· Ancient site with prehistoric and artefacts being found onsite and considered the Archaeological assessment to be inadequate.

· Road would cut through the cycle path, thus raising safety issues for users.

· Local Plan states that heritage of town is important and to retain its character.

· Impact on wildlife and the disturbance of the Great Crested Newt.

· The networks of cycleways and footpaths will be harmed.

· Local schools already overstretched with no guarantee a new school would be built.

· Number of houses proposed far exceeds the local plan requirement of 496.

· Would have a significant increase on the number of cars and traffic on local roads.

· Only one entrance and exit to the proposed development will create major traffic problems on to Canal Way.

· There was no car park for the recreation ground so Canal Way was already full of parked vehicles.

· Safety concerns regarding sharing the access with the medical centre and new school.

· Will increase the flooding risk of nearby houses as downstream conditions would be exacerbated by this development.

· The site is too far for residents to walk to the town centre therefore increasing the number of cars on the local roads.

· Development would mean a huge amount of traffic traveling through the Adams Meadow housing area.

· Canal Way already used as a rat run for cars and therefore safety concerns for pedestrians.

· Inadequate access for emergency vehicles.

· Already have proposed new homes in the town and surrounding parishes therefore understood that only another 112 was required.

· Appreciate the need for housing but why should Ilminster be dumped on and suffer.

· Concerned at the impact on local amenities such as the Doctors and Dentist surgery and the car parks within the town centre.

· Could have an adverse effect on the social impact of Ilminster as could change the small town forever.

· Questioned Somerset County Council’s relationship with the developer Persimmon Homes and the procurement process carried out.

· Could set a precedent with more applications coming forward should this be approved.

· Large number of housing being approved so early within the adopted Local Plan. This should be a long term benefit and therefore no need to approve all now.

· Should use existing redundant sites first –Horlicks.

· Proposed first phase of 120 houses considered more acceptable.

· Problems with the flooding of ditches with grills permanently blocked, with local residents taking to unblocking these themselves.

Mr B Smith, the agent for the applicant, noted there were no objections from the statutory consultees and therefore considered the development to be acceptable. He acknowledged the drainage concerns but confirmed the drainage system would be maintained and managed by a management company and that the provision of the two zebra crossing points would alleviate any highway concerns. He said they would be happy to work with SCC to bring the proposed school application forward as early as possible and noted the applicants financial contribution of £1.2 million allocated for the school.

In response to a members question the Area Lead West confirmed that this application is for up to 400 dwellings and that is what members have to consider at this time. He explained this could be reduced in the future but that it was for members to consider this application for up to 400 dwellings.

The Senior Legal Executive advised that should a challenge be made to SCC regarding the legal process undertaken for the option of land, this would be a separate issue and does not preclude members from determining the application at this time. The process by which Somerset County Council disposed of the land was not an issue that can be given any weight by the Local Planning Authority. Should such a challenge be made the applicant may then be stopped from developing until the dispute is determined.

During members’ discussion, varying points were raised including the following:

· 400 homes significantly higher than the currently approved figure.

· Prospect of a soulless development.

· Appreciate the need for development but this scheme would have a severe visual impact on the local countryside.

· We have responsibility to build new homes especially with the current number of homeless and young people trying to buy first homes.

· Proposed development is located within the proposed direction growth.

· Ilminster is an excellent vibrant town with high employment opportunities.

· Appreciate the issues raised however believe the conditions imposed would mitigate many of these concerns.

· Should look to adhere to the current Local Plan and its policies and therefore the number of proposed dwellings far exceeds the proposed number for this area.

· Would have preferred a lower number of houses and unfortunate this application cannot be approved with a reduced number of housing.

· Safety concerns regarding the proposed emergency access at Adams Meadow.

· One access is not enough to serve this development – look to relocate a second access further along Canal Way.

· Sought assurance that the proposed drainage scheme would be maintained and managed appropriately by a management company.

· Sought assurance that the proposed buffer zone be significantly wide and exceeds the standard width.

· Should take account of other developments within the district and learn from these problems including flooding and surface water run-off and traffic safety issues.

· Safety concerns regarding sharing the access with the medical centre and new school with all persons using the same access.

· Appreciate the concerns raised, however all statutory consultees consider the proposal to be acceptable and therefore need to adhere to their professional response and advice.

· Mindful of planning appeal costs nonetheless should not be fearful of such due to the proposal significantly exceeding the number of proposed dwellings than the currently approved figure in the Local Plan.

· Noted the objection from the Area West Committee and the local Parish Council.

· Appreciate this was an outline planning permission and that should the application be approved detailed matters including the layout of the scheme will need to be decided at reserve matters application stage.

· Localism – the need to consider and take account of the views of the local people.

In response to members, the Development Manager advised that:

· The adopted Local Plan was there to facilitate growth and that Canal Way had been identified as a suitable location for the direction of growth.

· Confirmed a review of the currently adopted Local Plan was being undertaken, however need to be guided by the Local Plan and planning policies at the present time.

· Confirmed all statutory consultees had been consulted and concluded that having taken into consideration all of the responses and advice, as outlined in the agenda report, believed the proposal would not have any significant impact that demonstrably outweighs the benefits of the scheme.

During a short debate, members discussed and suggested reasons for refusal. These included:

· Harmful to the landscape and detrimental to the local plan.

· Overdevelopment and density of the site.

Following a short adjournment to finalise and agree the full wording of the reasons for refusal, the Development Manager read out two proposed reasons for refusal as follows:

1. The proposed development would by reason of its scale have an adverse impact upon the landscape of the area contrary to the relevant policy of the Local Plan.

2. The proposed development by reason of its scale would have an adverse impact upon the settlement hierarchy contained in the Local plan and would therefore be contrary to the relevant policies.

This was then proposed and subsequently seconded that planning permission be refused, contrary to the officer’s recommendation for the reasons as read out by the Development Control Manager.

On being put to the vote this was taken as 5 votes in favour, 5 against and 1 abstention. The Chairman then provided her casting vote against refusal of the application and therefore this proposal was lost.

It was then proposed and subsequently seconded that permission be granted as per the officer’s recommendation as set out in the agenda report. On being put to the vote this was carried by 6 votes in favour, 5 against and 0 abstentions.

RESOLVED:

That application 16/05500/OUT be approved for the following reason:

01. It is considered that the proposed scheme would provide a sustainable development with good access to a range of services and facilities. It will make an important contribution towards meeting the district's housing needs, including 35% affordable housing, it would provide a safe means of vehicular and pedestrian access, would not adversely harm residential amenity, ecology or the local landscape and would satisfactorily mitigate for surface and foul water drainage. The proposal is in accord with PMT3, SD1, SS1, SS5, SS6, HG3, HG5, TA4, TA5, TA6, HW1, EQ1, EQ2 and EQ4 of the adopted South Somerset Local Plan, the Core Planning Principles and Chapters 6, 7, 8, 10 and 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING:

01. The development hereby permitted shall be begun either before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission, or before the expiration of two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved, whichever is the later.

Reason: To accord with the provisions of Article 4 (Article 5) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2015.

02. Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the Local Planning Authority before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: As required by Section 92(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

03. For each phase of development, approval of the details of the layout, scale, external appearance, internal floor levels of the building(s), the means of access thereto and residential boundary treatments, shall be obtained from the Local Planning Authority before any development is commenced.

Reason: To accord with the provisions of Article 4 (Article 5) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2015.

04. The proposed estate roads, footways, footpaths, tactile paving, cycleways, bus stops/bus lay-bys, verges, junctions, street lighting, sewers, drains, retaining walls, service routes, surface water outfall, vehicle overhang margins, embankments, visibility splays, accesses, carriageway gradients, drive gradients, car, motorcycle and cycle parking, and street furniture shall be constructed and laid out in accordance with details to be approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing before their construction begins. For this purpose, plans and sections, indicating as appropriate, the design, layout, levels, gradients, materials and method of construction shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority.