Agenda item

Planning Applications

Meeting of Area South Committee, Wednesday 2nd July 2014 2.00 pm (Item 22.)

Minutes:

14/01266/OUT – Residential development, new vehicular access and associated works Land Adjacent Broadacres East Coker – Avalon Estates Ltd

(Having earlier declared a Personal & Prejudicial Interest Councillor Peter Gubbins left the room during consideration of this item. Councillor Tim Carroll deputised as Vice-Chairman for this item).

The Planning Officer presented the application as detailed in the agenda and with the aid of a power point presentation showed the site and proposed plans. He reported that at the Area South Committee on 4^th June 2014 members resolved to defer the application for a members site visit. This took place on 19^th June 2014.

He explained that further representation had now been received from a number of residents within the area also raising their concerns, these included the following:

· Loss of Grade 1 Agricultural Land

· Previous applications have already been refused on site

· Highway safety issues along Long Furlong Lane and with the access and egress to the site

He also updated members that comments had been received from the Somerset Waste Partnership who were satisfied overall with the proposal and accepted that the access would accommodate the standard collection vehicles, although they raised slight concern regarding the overhanging of the proposed walkways.

The Planning Officer concluded that as this application had been deferred from last month’s committee and as he had no further updates, his recommendation was to approve the application subject to the conditions as set out in the agenda report.

In response to questions, members were informed that:

· Past applications on this site were determined by previous planning policy and that for the purpose of determining this application the current planning policies should therefore be considered.

· An application of this size did not warrant consultation from the Environment Agency (EA) and referred to the detailed comments made by the council’s Engineer as set out on page 10 of the agenda report

· Surface water run-off will be discharged to either a soakaway or a local watercourse. No reason to believe that either of these options would be problematic.

· Overhangs of the margins and walkways are an accepted facet of swept path analysis when considering large vehicles who use an estate road infrequently

· The accompanying Transport Statement has been fully considered and its conclusions are acceptable to the Highway Authority.

Stan Shayler from East Coker Parish Council then addressed the committee. He explained to members that the Parish Council was now in the process of producing a Neighbourhood Plan and that the proposed development did not fit the housing requirement. He said the district council were now satisfied that they had a 5 year land supply and that this was an inappropriate site for development which was outside the development limit and may enable further development to the south.

He said the entrance and egress was a danger point with traffic emerging onto a single lane track and this would only exacerbate the existing traffic flow problems. He concluded that a section of Long Furlong Lane was closed to traffic for several weeks due to flooding and that the proposed development would further exacerbate the flooding issues in the area.

Members of the public then addressed the committee. Several comments were made in objection to the application, which included the following:

· Proposal was outside the development area and East Coker Parish is already proposed to take a large amount of development.

· Why more development especially as the Council are satisfied they have a 5 year land supply.

· Referred to Paragraph 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) where application must be in accordance with development plan unless key consideration are satisfied.

· Concerns over the safety issues along Long Furlong Lane and proposed access to the site including safety hazard for pedestrians and horse riders.

· Although only an outline application concerns raised over the house design and high density of the site.

· Loss of Grade 1 agricultural land where this land is invaluable for the agricultural rural economy.

· Significant impact on the traffic flow of the area with only a small section of the road to be improved.

· Set precedent for future developments in the area.

· Need to safeguard the rural surrounding of the village.

Matt Frost, the Agent also addressed the committee. He said a thorough assessment was undertaken on the site and that a modest proposal of up to 20 dwellings was sufficient including 7 affordable new homes which would go toward the desired requirement of 11. He reported no objections had been received from the council’s Engineers and that the Traffic Assessment had been fully considered and its conclusions acceptable to the Highways Authority. The area of land was 2 acres in size and therefore did not have a huge impact on the loss of Grade 1 land. He reported the proposal passes the significant test in the NPPF where presumption is in favour of sustainable development.

Councillor Cathy Bakewell, Ward member appreciated the need for housing in the village which also provided good local facilities. However, she raised concern regarding the loss of Grade 1 Agricultural land which was currently in production and that the site was outside the development limit. She understood that previous applications had been refused nevertheless planning policy had since moved on and that this application should be determined under new policies. She also raised her concerns regarding flooding in the area which she believed would continue year on year and the highway safety issues along Long Furlong Lane together with the access and egress of the proposed site. She was unconvinced the widening of the road was sufficient and recognised the need to protect children walking to and from the local school. She also noted the Section 106 contributions were quite high and believed they could be unviable and therefore due to these reasons would not support the application.

Councillor Gina Seaton, Ward member agreed with the comments already made by the other Ward member and raised her concern regarding the Highway safety issues of the proposed access and egress to the site. She reported that the roads around the area were only ‘lanes’ and that any increase in traffic would cause potential danger to local residents. She referred to the ‘Peripheral Landscape Study’ which classed the site as having a ‘moderate capacity to accommodate built development’ and consideration should be given to the historic assets of the area where the key views of the countryside should be taken into account. She concluded that she would not support the application.

In response the Area Lead Officer (South) referred to the council’s Landscape Architect comments as set out in the agenda report and that these took account of the specific site and proposal in question rather than the wider landscape issues that accommodating a strategic site would raise.

He also pointed out the comments received from the Highway Authority and advised that whilst no objection was raised members would need to consider and make up their own minds regarding the highway safety issues of the proposal.

Members then discussed the application at length and comments in support of the application were expressed including:

· Appreciate the principles for sustainable development are defined by the NPPF and therefore this site can be considered acceptable.

· SSDC Engineers consider the Surface water run-off will be discharged to either a soakaway or a local watercourse to be acceptable.

· Landscape Architect considered the proposal would not create a significant landscape impact.

· 7 dwellings would be affordable housing which would go toward the desired requirement of 11.

· Previous applications had been refused however planning policy had since moved on.

Members’ comments in objection to the application were also expressed including the following:

· Concerns regarding the Highways Authority’s comments by taking the information at face value without local consideration.

· Concerns over the safety issues along Long Furlong Lane and proposed access and egress to the site due to the width of the proposed highway.

· Outside of development limit.

· Loss of Grade 1 agricultural land which is invaluable for the agricultural rural economy.

· Impact of the local landscape and loss of key historic views.

· Increased flooding in Broadacres and Long Furlong Lane.

· Traffic concerns regarding the proposed increase of traffic from the development.

· ST3 overridden by paragraphs 54 and 55 of the NPPF whereby the Local Planning Authority should be responsive to local circumstances including the emerging Local Plan and Neighbourhood Plan.

During a short debate, members, led by Councillor Tim Carroll discussed and suggested four reasons for refusal:

· Highway safety concerns.

· Visual impact detrimental to the area.

· No consideration of emerging Local Plan and Neighbourhood Plan and the proposal does not consider local circumstances.

· Incremental loss of grade 1 agricultural land.

In response to a member to include a fifth reason for refusal, the Area Lead Officer (South) explained that an application of this size did not warrant consultation from the EA and that this area was not considered an area of flooding risk.

Following a short discussion, it was then proposed and subsequently seconded that planning permission be refused, contrary to the officer’s recommendation for the following reasons as read out by the Planning Officer:

The principle of development in this location is unacceptable because:

· The access arrangements to and from Skinners Hill Farm due to carriageway width, alignment and forward visibility would be detrimental to highway safety.

· The proposal is beyond the established built limits of North Coker which would be detrimental to the open countryside.

· The proposal is not responsive to the emerging Local Plan and emerging neighbourhood plan in particular to this locality and does not consider local circumstances.

· It leads to the incremental loss of Grade I (the best and most versatile) agricultural land.

As such the proposal is contrary to the NPPF in particular Paragraphs 54 and 112 and Policies ST3, ST5 and EC3 of the South Somerset Local Plan.

RESOLVED:

That application 14/01266/OUT be refused for the following reasons: