Agenda item

Application Proposal: Outline planning application for up to 130 dwellings with public open space, landscaping, suitable drainage system (SuDS) and vehicular access point from Woodhayes Way.

The Area Lead Planner (East) presented his report to members. He explained that the application was an outline application and that all matters except access would be reserved for the reserved matters application.

With the aid of a PowerPoint presentation he provided images of the site which also showed the adjoining access and proposed access point along the A357. Plans which identified the site location and indicative layout were also shown.

He advised that there had been no objections from the Highways Team, the Lead Local Flood Agency, the SSDC Ecologist or the SSDC Landscape Officer. He did however advise that there had been significant concerns from neighbours. He acknowledged that the application was for more dwellings than the Local Plan requirement for rural settlements.

He advised that the applicant had agreed to the contributions which had been requested and that the application would be CIL liable. He informed members that the site was close to employment opportunities and in the absence of a five year housing land supply; he recommended that the application be approved. 

Mr M Player, representing the Parish Council, spoke in objection to the application. He advised that the applicant carried out a public consultation event at the village hall and that large numbers of the members of public that attended were in objection to the application. He disagreed that the application would provide any benefits to the village and felt that the disadvantages outweighed the advantages. He pointed out that North Dorset D.C had objected to the application and raised concern over the access and the highway and pointed out that there were areas along this busy road which did not have pavements.

Ms Z Godden, also representing the Parish Council, spoke in objection to the application. She pointed out that weight should be given to the Henstridge Design Plan Statement and Parish Plan and that the plan should not be disregarded. She advised that the application does not provide any community services or employment and that the majority of the residents are not in favour of the application.

Mr H Bentley-Marchant, also representing the Parish Council, spoke in objection to the application. He was disappointed that the PC had been asked to consider this application. He felt that a large number of the local residents disagreed that the application would provide significant benefits. He suggested that the settlement hierarchy should be considered and that this was overdevelopment for Henstridge as housing targets had already been exceeded. 

Liz Payne, representing the CPRE, spoke in objection to the application. She drew members’ attention to the comments made by the Planning Policy Planner which were detailed in the report. She highlighted that the amount of houses was not commensurate with the rural settlement tier as detailed in the Local Plan. She felt that this application under minded the Local Plan and pointed out that the housing target for Henstridge had already been exceeded.

Mr D Sekers, Mr P Dimishky, Mr A Simpson, Mr R Roden, and Mrs D Petherary representing the A357 Group spoke in objection to the planning application. Their comments included;

·         Approval of this application would be damaging to the Local Plan and that the hierarchy of development tiers should be considered.

·         It was contrary to the Local Plan.

·         Concerns over the access and highway safety.

·         Cars park along the road where the access was proposed. Residents that live on the A357 have nowhere else to park.

·         There are areas along the stretch of road with no footpaths. The back lane routes were dangerous with blind bends.

·         It was not safe for pedestrians to walk to the school or to the public house; which were facilities highlighted in the report.

·         There is nowhere safe for the school bus to park and HGV’s get stuck along the road.

·         The cumulative effect of up to 800 homes approved along the A357 should be considered.  

·         A similar application in Martock was refused and dismissed at appeal as it was inconsistent with the Local Plan. This application was for much less homes and Martock is a larger town.

·         The extra traffic would bring harm to the village. Concerns over traffic and pedestrian safety.

Mr R Holme, Dr A Gaymer, Mrs H Howlett, Mrs, J Bates, Mrs D Coates, Mr A Smkziav, Mr C Savage spoke in objection to the application. Their comments included;

·         The increased population will affect the water supplies, streams and infiltration of water. The spring on the edge of the development site has a reduced water level.

·         Concern over the medical provision. The local doctor at the surgery in Stalbridge is close to retirement age. There is a chance that the surgery could close which will mean that 4000 patients will need to move to an alternative practice, which will stretch their resources.

·         Planning permission for 20 houses has already been approved for 20 homes in Henstridge. There is potential for 250 new homes in Henstridge, which is a 30% increase of the existing number of homes.

·         The water table is extremely high and with many underground streams, flooding is a concern.

·         This will have a negative effect on the school as the additional pupils will just be squeezed in.

·         There isn’t a dentist or doctor’s surgery in the village. The school is filled to capacity and the bus service has been removed.

·         There is no part time work available.

·         It is not safe for local children to walk to school or to the shop. The owners of these homes will have to drive to a supermarket.

·         School buses cannot stop safely on this stretch of road.

·         Quality of life of residents will deteriorate. 

·         There has been flooding further down the stream and additional homes will exasperate the problem.

Megan Pashley, the agent, addressed the Committee. She advised that there was a national shortage of homes and that there is massive pressure in the UK to create new homes. She also advised members that there was no technical reason for the application to be refused.

Councillor Hayward Burt, Ward Member, spoke in objection to the application. He explained to members that he was concerned about the cumulative effect of other dwellings which could be built in the area. He referred to the SSDC Streetscene Services comments in the officer report. He explained that if it had been calculated that 130 homes could be mean an increase of 290 residents, then the additional homes close by which had been approved could result in an additional 1382 people in total.

He further added that he felt that that the lack of a five year housing supply was not an overriding factor and that the additional dwellings would breach policy SS1. He added that Henstridge was a rural settlement.

He advised members that all of the villages services, such as shop, school and church, were north of the site, on a road which was dangerous and had limited pavements.

He also added that the additional number of residents would be an unreasonable pressure on the health infrastructure.

Councillor William Wallace, also Ward Member, spoke in objection to the application and agreed with the comments made by Councillor Hayward Burt. He highlighted the appeal in Martock, which was dismissed by PINS for fewer houses, in a larger town with more services. He advised that Henstridge was a rural settlement and should be treated as a rural settlement.

In response to a members question, the Service Manager, Highways Development Management SCC, confirmed that the additional dwellings which had been approved nearby had been considered when an assessment of the site had been carried out. She confirmed that this included 4 other developments which totalled 530 dwellings.

During the discussion, members commented that there were few jobs available in Henstridge and that the application would result in overdevelopment of a rural village.

It was proposed and seconded that the application be refused, contrary to the officer recommendation as the settlement hierarchy should not be ignored and that the application was overdevelopment for the village, the application failed to provide a safe and suitable access and that sufficient information relating to flooding had not been provided.

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

RESOLVED:  that planning application 17/03029/OUT be refused, contrary to the officer recommendation, for the following reasons:

1.            Henstridge is defined as a rural settlement; it is considered the scale of development proposed by this application and cumulatively with other approved/proposed developments in the area would undermine the settlement hierarchy set out in Policies SS1 and SS5 of the South Somerset Local Plan (2015). Furthermore the development would be contrary to the provisions of Policy SS2 of the South Somerset Local Plan (2015) in that it does not provide employment opportunities create or enhance community facilities or meet identified housing need in Henstridge, and its scale is not commensurate to the settlement. These impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh any benefits of the scheme.

2.            The development is contrary to Policy TA5 of the South Somerset Local Plan (2015) as it fails to secure safe and convenient access, on foot, cycle and by public and private transport that addresses the needs of all, to key local facilities and services.

3.            The Local Planning Authority is not satisfied that sufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate that the development will not bring rise to flooding locally and downstream contrary to the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework.

(Voting: unanimous)