Agenda item

Planning Application 17/04870/OUT - Land OS 6730, Henley, Langport.

Meeting of Area North Committee, Wednesday 25th April 2018 2.00 pm (Item 159.)

Minutes:

Proposal: Outline application for alterations to existing accesses and erection of 2 No. dwellings (Revised Application).

The Planning Officer introduced the application and informed members that since the agenda had been published five additional letters had been received in support of affordable housing in the parish.

He presented the application as detailed in the agenda report, and indicated the location of a listed building and working agricultural buildings in relation to the application site. He also informed members that it was proposed to remove the hedge along the roadside boundary and refurbish some existing railings. It was noted a Housing Needs Survey had been completed in the parish and verified by Strategic Housing, but this site was not considered sustainable and it was remote from central village facilities.

The Planning Officer explained that the proposal was suggested to be low cost market housing and not affordable housing provided by a Registered Social Landlord, or as indicated in the Housing Needs Survey. It was considered there would be some impact on the listed building nearby, and with agricultural buildings housing livestock neighbouring the site potential residential occupiers were likely to be subject to associated agricultural noise and smells.

Objectors, Mr I Marshall and Mr A Lloyd made several comments including:

· Proposal would not sit comfortably in the area and will significantly change the character and visual impact

· Applicant may apply for further housing at a later stage

· Limited village facilities and public transport

· If approved, will be unable to store hay in the agricultural barns due to fire risk

· Housing in that location could impact on the farming livelihood

· There are more suitable sites elsewhere and the Parish Council want the housing in High Ham village.

· No guarantee the proposal will be affordable housing.

Mr J Godfrey spoke in support of the application, as at last someone wanted to do something about providing affordable housing in the area. He felt things had to change, and if done properly, the proposal would not be a problem.

Applicant, Mr B Bartlett, noted almost two years had passed to try and build two affordable homes. The site was available immediately and did not require negotiation. He referred to central government promoting the building of affordable homes.

Ward member, Councillor Gerard Tucker, referred to the parish having recently undertaken a Housing Needs Survey and detailed the housing type need identified. He acknowledged the applicant was incredibly well-meaning and was offering the site with little personal gain. He referred to several responses of consultees in the officer report and noted that comments of local consultees seemed to contradict some responses of the national consultees which was confusing. Reference was made to an approved scheme a few years ago at nearby Henley Farm and he struggled to see the difference between that application and this one. He felt if members were minded to approve the application there should be conditions for no extensions and that a Registered Social Landlord be involved with the allocation of the homes.

During a short discussion members raised several comments including:

· Acknowledge local affordable housing need

· Very concerned about loss of hedge which will dramatically change the scene

· Concern about proximity to the neighbouring working farm and buildings housing livestock. If any nuisance complaints were to be raised by potential residential occupiers, it may have an impact on the farm.

· Commend landowner for what he is trying to do but this is not a suitable location.

· The proposal is not affordable housing in the normal sense

At the conclusion of debate it was proposed to refuse the application, as per the officer recommendation, and on being put to the vote this was carried 8 votes in favour, 0 against, with 1 abstention.

RESOLVED:

That planning application 17/04870/OUT be REFUSED, as per the officer recommendation, for the following reasons:

Reasons:

01. The proposal would represent new residential development in open countryside, for which an overriding essential need has not been appropriately justified. The application site is also remote from local services and therefore constitutes unsustainable development that is contrary to policies SD1 and SS1 of the South Somerset Local Plan (2006-2028) and to the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework.

02. The proposed development by reason of its siting within open countryside, and associated proposed hedgerow removal works, represents an incongruous form of development that would erode local character and distinctiveness, in addition to causing less than significant harm to the significant impact on the character, appearance and the rural context of the locality. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies EQ2 and EQ3 of the South Somerset Local Plan (2006-28) and provisions of chapters 7, 11, 12 and the core planning principles of the National Planning Policy Framework.

03. The proposed dwelling is unacceptable by reason of its siting in close proximity to an adjoining agricultural building. This relationship has the potential to cause unacceptable harm to the residential amenities of the future occupiers of the proposed dwelling by way of noise and odour generation as a result of the possible use of the adjoining building for the accommodation of livestock. As such it is contrary to policy EQ2 of the South Somerset Local Plan (2006-2028) and the provisions of the core planning principles of the National Planning Policy Framework.

NOTES:

01. In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the NPPF the council, as local planning authority, takes a positive and proactive approach to development proposals focused on solutions. The council works with applicants/agents in a positive and proactive manner by;

• offering a pre-application advice service, and

• as appropriate updating applications/agents of any issues that may arise in the processing of their application and where possible suggesting solutions

In this case, there were no minor or obvious solutions that could be applied during the course of the application to overcome the reasons for refusal.

02. Please be advised that any subsequent approval of this application by appeal will attract a liability payment under the Community Infrastructure Levy. CIL is a mandatory financial charge on development and you will be notified of the amount of CIL being charged on this development in a CIL Liability Notice.

In the event of an approval at appeal, you would be required to complete and return Form 1 Assumption of Liability as soon as possible after the grant of permission and to avoid additional financial penalties it is important that you notify us of the date you plan to commence development before any work takes place. Please complete and return Form 6 Commencement Notice.

(Voting: 8 in favour of refusing the application, 0 against, 1 abstention)

Supporting documents: