Agenda item

Proposal: Outline planning application for the erection of 10 No. bungalows (incorporating details of access) and associated works including drainage infrastructure and highway works.

The Planning Officer introduced the application and advised members of some typos in the report – these being: on page 58 there was reference to ‘Martock Leat’ which should have read ‘Mertoch Leat’, and on page 67 the plan reference number needed to be updated.

He then presented the application as detailed in the agenda and reminded members of the site, the neighbouring development now built, and highlighted the appeal decision for the previous application on this site which was appended to the report for reference. He briefly compared the current application to the previous one, noting that many matters had now been dealt with by the Inspector including principle of development, drainage and parking etc. The only key consideration remaining was the ecology issues, and the Planning Officer made reference to the Inspector’s decision on the matter.

The Planning Officer noted that ecology surveys had now been undertaken, and the SSDC Ecologist considered that matters had been addressed to remedy the Inspector’s concerns. The badger sett had been accurately identified and it was proposed to move the sett to the south west corner of the site. Issues and concerns regarding reptiles, water voles and bats had also been addressed with adequate mitigation measures.

Mr L Jeram-Croft, Mr A Clegg and Mr P Spens-Black each addressed members in objection to the proposal, and their comments included:

·         Residents of the neighbouring new development at Long Orchard Way were already worried about flooding. They were concerned about the surface water not going anywhere, especially along the sections which were gravelled, and there were concerns regarding the capacity of the brook along the edge of the development. Many houses on the development were still not sold and one reason may be partly due to concerns about flooding. Not sure any consultees have been to the development to see the effect of rain on the site.

·         Don’t agree that the biodiversity issues have been resolved. The site is in part of the village where several water courses converge and water voles, kingfishers and occasionally otters may be seen. Acknowledge a badger corridor is proposed but it needs to be wider to encourage as much biodiversity as possible. The brook flooded, and flow was now partly restricted by a culvert constructed at the Long Orchard Way development.

·         Understand that the area needs affordable housing, but these are large dwellings that are proposed. Believe should always look at brownfield and infill sites before considering greenfield sites.

Mr S Travers, agent, commented there were clear steers on issues from the Inspector’s decision. He made reference to the appeal decision and comments made by the Inspector, and noted that the character and appearance had been deemed acceptable. Ecology work had been completed and issues mitigated. He acknowledged concerns had been raised by objectors about loss of a greenfield site and drainage, but noted for the previous application the Inspector had said it was low intensity and no evidence that the drainage proposed was not adequate. He hoped that members could see from reading the Inspector’s report that concerns had been allayed.

Prior to opening discussion to members, the Chairman reminded members of the paragraph at the start of the report regarding referral of the application to Regulation Committee.

Ward member, Councillor Neil Bloomfield, referred to the appeal decision regarding the previous application, and noted different Inspectors would have different opinions. He raised a number of concerns including that initially it was an application for 23 houses which then reduced to 12, and now being asked to consider 10 bungalows, a number which was just below the threshold for affordable housing and financial contributions. He acknowledged the status of the 5 year land supply, and noted bungalows were needed in Martock, but not large bungalows such as these. It was 1 and 2 bed properties that were needed, and so the proposal would not help to address local housing need in the area. He also made reference to other appeal decisions in Martock where the Inspector had noted that if the housing figure in the Local Plan continued to be exceeded at the current rate, there was a risk of skewing the settlement strategy.

The ward member noted that since the adjacent Long Orchard Way development had been built out, the neighbouring recreation field and rugby pitches had suffered from increased waterlogging. The Parish Council had now commissioned an Agronomist report, which would include looking at underground water patterns. He was worried about the impact of the proposed development, as the site was even nearer to the recreation ground, and expressed concern about the potential risk to the recreation ground.

Ward member, Councillor Graham Middleton, commented he also had concerns about drainage He had spent time with some of the residents of the new Long Orchard Way development discussing their concerns about drainage. Some gardens were very soft and clearly not draining well. He acknowledged tanks had been installed, but in his opinion the site was waterlogged. He felt the brook along the boundary of the Long Orchard Way development would flood and residents considered the banks to the brook to be insufficient. It was therefore difficult to see how a proposal on the other side of the brook wouldn’t be affected in the same way as the adjacent, already built out development. He did not support the application.

During discussion, some of the comments raised by members included:

·         Difficult to move badgers effectively as they often go where they want to go, and they will likely cause damage to any nearby gardens.

·         This isn’t the right place for more housing.

·         Feel the application should go to Regulation Committee for determination.

·         There are concerns around flooding, drainage and moving of the badgers.

·         The parish Agronomist report was not relevant as it was not for the application site.

In response to some of the comments raised the Area Lead and Planning Officer clarified that:

·         if members were minded that the application be refused and be referred on to Regulation Committee there needed to be valid planning reasons for referring to the Regulation Committee.

·         Re-siting the badgers, as proposed, was in accordance with the ‘industry standard’ for moving badger setts.

·         On hearing the comments made, the application could go to Regulation Committee with a recommendation of refusal based upon flooding and drainage concerns.

At this point in the proceedings, the meeting was adjourned for a few minutes in order to bring in advice from the Legal Specialist and Area Lead North/West.  Upon reconvening, the Legal Specialist informed members and public of the issues discussed during the adjournment. As members were minded to refuse the application, she confirmed the procedure to be followed and that the application needed to go to Regulation Committee for determination, and the grounds for recommending refusal would need to be provided and voted upon.

It was proposed and seconded to recommend refusal of the application on the grounds of flooding.

A second proposal was also put forward to defer the application, in order to allow the parish agronomist report to come forward, as it may give more information regarding the flooding issue.

During a further brief debate, there was discussion about the agronomist report as referred to by ward member. It was suggested that the Regulation Committee should have sight of the report and the ecology report for information when the application is considered.

A vote was taken on the first proposal to recommend refusal of the application on the grounds of flooding concerns. On being put to the vote this was carried 9 in favour, 1 against with 2 abstentions.

(Voting: 9 in favour, 1 against, 2 abstentions)