Agenda item

Application Proposal: Development of 29 dwellings, including affordable housing with associated parking and landscaping

The Planning Officer presented her report to members. She advised that although there were two separate planning applications on the site, both of which appeared on the agenda, she had been treating the applications as one.

She explained that the application had been referred to the November meeting of the Committee, but had been deferred to allow further negotiations in relation to the planning obligations which were payable.

Using a PowerPoint presentation, she provided images to show the existing access and buildings on the site. She also provided plans to show the proposed streetscenes.

She explained that the education contributions requested by SCC, which amounted to approximately £99,000 remains unaltered, however the applicant is now offering a contribution of £30,000 towards education. She advised that the applicant has provided an additional viability report, which has been circulated to members of the committee; however the applicant did not confirm that this could also be circulated to the District Valuer.

Tom Griffiths, the applicant, addressed the Committee. He advised that he had attempted to clarify the evidence base used to calculate the education contributions; however he had not been successful. He explained that the further viability assessment was completed by a local valuer with good local knowledge. He advised that the contributions which were now being proposed were approximately £60,000 higher than the currently consented scheme.

Councillor Mike Lewis, Ward Member, supported the application. He pointed that the applicant was now offered half of the contributions which have been requested. He pointed out that there were local schools with available places.

The Lead Planning Officer advised members that the District Valuer did not agree with these calculations and reminded members of the protocol regarding viability that had been produced to provide consistency across the district. Such a protocol had been produced at district wide members’ request due to high profile viability cases in Yeovil and that process had subsequently been given several substantial assurances by the SW Audit Partnership. He was of the view that members risked being criticised for not following their own process. It would be important to set out clearly why the process was not being followed.

Following the discussion, it was proposed and seconded that the application be approved, contrary to the officer recommendation, subject to conditions.

On being put to the vote, this was carried unanimously.

RESOLVED:  that planning application 17/02045/FUL be approved contrary to the officer recommendation for the following reason;

The lack of a 5-year housing land supply and the presumption in favour of granting planning permission plus taking into account the material consideration of the previous approval leads the committee to determine this is a sustainable development in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework and policies SS1, SS2, SS6, HG3, TA5, TA6, HW1, EQ2, EQ3, EQ4 and EQ7 of the South Somerset Local Plan (Adopted 2015).

Subject to the prior completion of a Section 106 agreement to secure the affordable housing, leisure contributions and education contributions agreed to by the applicant and subject to conditions to secure the following:

1.    Time limit.

2.    Approved plans.

3.    Details of materials.

4.    Internal FFL.

5.    Scheme of landscaping.

6.    Construction Management Plan.

7.    Surface water drainage scheme and a scheme for its future responsibility and maintenance.

8.    Method statement to protect dormice.

9.    No removal of vegetation used by nesting birds between 1st March and 31st August.

10.  Measures for the enhancement of biodiversity.

11.  Construction of access as per approved plans prior to commencement.

12.  Estate roads details.

13.  Prior to occupation dwellings to be served by consolidated road, footpaths and turning.

14.  Secure parking and turning.

15.  Travel plan.

16.  Secure visibility splays.  

17.  Provision of footpath along site frontage prior to occupation of any dwellings.

18.  Scheme of archaeological works.

The addition of an informative to encourage the applicant to minimise onsite lighting where possible in the interests of light pollution.

(Voting: unanimous)