Agenda item

Proposal: The erection of 80 No. dwellings including associated public space and all other associated external works (Reserved Matters application following approval of 13/03483/OUT).

The Planning Officer introduced the application and reminded members that a scheme for 94 dwellings on the same site had been considered by North Committee in January 2018, which members had resolved to refuse. He provided several updates to members including detail regarding a letter between a neighbour and Persimmon Homes. It was also noted that a recent update had been received regarding the width of the highway within the development which would now be 5 metres wide and hence meet required specifications.

The Planning Officer noted that an official response from Highways had yet to be received, however, he was not anticipating their response to be any different to that given for the outline application or the refused 94 dwelling application.

The application was presented in detail to members. The officer noted that the current proposal was in line with the expectation at outline stage and it hopefully addressed many of the previous concerns. He highlighted that the access had already been agreed, and that since the outline approval the addition of a crossing point near the new access was now proposed. It was acknowledged that much correspondence had been received regarding the avenue beech hedge and wishes of the local community for it to be retained.

Two members of Huish Episcopi Parish Council and four members of the public spoke in objection to the application. Their comments included:

·         The detailed proposal lacks imagination and character.

·         The Trial Ground is a unique site directly opposite the historic Old Kelways building. The context with Old Kelways is important and to preserve that context the central hedge avenue, which is a prominent landscape feature, should be retained.

·         The public footpath would not impact the development and the Parish Council were unlikely to support a diversion.

·         The Parish Council have consistently recommended refusal of permission at this site.

·         Concerns about additional traffic, out of date sewerage system, and impact on local schools and the surgery.

·         Feel there is a need for a light controlled crossing, bus stop and additional pavement.

·         Wessex Water need to commit to checking the local drainage system and take responsibility for any subsequent failure.

·         Would like to see some of the planning contributions go towards a much needed village hall.

• Site access needs to be reconsidered. Concerned about impact on neighbouring properties and impact on quality of life of nearby residents.
• There has been little consultation about the type of pedestrian road crossing, its suitability and location.

·         Why is the application being considered by Committee if Highways comments have not been received?

• Many people have signed a petition for the beech hedge avenue to be retained, and reference to biodiversity and local policies.

• Proposal is too close to, and will have an impact on, the nearby listed building, and is contrary to national and local policies regarding protection of heritage assets.
• The access from the site needs to be carefully considered as well as the access into it. There is little mention in reports or on mapping of the properties opposite the site.
• Traffic filter lane has benefits but it is too close to other accesses along the road and will impact the nearby properties. The access proposals are not safe and there must be alternative solutions.

The agent noted this application followed a previously refused application for 94 dwellings. The scheme for 80 dwellings would allow for better traffic flow around the development. Parking proposals had been updated following comments that frontage parking was too dominant. Access had not changed since the outline permission where Highways had raised no objections. He referred to the amenity value of the beech hedge and officer comments in the earlier outline report that noted the hedge was not worthy of retention.

Ward member, Councillor Clare Aparicio Paul, acknowledged that the principle of development was already established, but noted the proposal was clearly not wanted locally in the current format.  She also noted that the number of dwellings would take the area over the housing figures stated in the Local Plan. She commented there had been much engagement regarding the application and many compromises had been made, but some concerns and anomalies remained unresolved, such as the entrance traffic flows and hedge etc. There was a need to be confident that some of the outstanding issues would be addressed such as appropriate access for disabled residents.

During a lengthy discussion varying views were expressed including:

·         Feel road layout within the development is too narrow and will be dangerous. Much tandem parking is proposed so likely to be roadside parking which will make it difficult for emergency vehicles and refuse lorries to manoeuvre.

·         It’s a site opposite a historic building, the houses are small and the materials are inappropriate. More should be done to reflect the Old Kelways building and the local area.

·         Feels like Highways have given most consideration to access into site, and less consideration to traffic leaving the site. Access must be maintained for neighbours.

·         The hedge is important and could be regenerated. Feel additional planting could be done to enhance it and could make it into an interesting amenity space.

·         Not against development but it needs to be right for the area. The developer needs to work with what’s there and not against it.

In response to comments made the Legal Specialist, Planning Officer and Area Lead advised that:

·         If members were minded to refuse the application, it would need to go to Regulation Committee for determination with a recommendation from Area North Committee. If minded to defer the application there would need to be clear reasons for deferral.

·         5.5 metres was not the road width required on roads in developments such as that proposed. For a road to be adopted by County Highways the required width was 5 metres. What is proposed met Highways specifications.

·         The heritage impact had been fully considered and was included in the comments of the Landscape Officer.

·         The hedge had been discussed several times when previous applications had been considered. The Landscape Officer and Tree Officer had not raised objections to it being removed and had noted it was not worthy of retention. The retention of the hedge would impact on the urban design of the proposal, and the loss of the hedge had been deemed acceptable when the outline application had been approved.

·         There had been no objections from statutory consultees.

The Senior Planning Advisor, informed members that as the meeting started he had received a phone call with verbal comments from Highways. He advised that their response confirmed that the principle of the junction had been agreed at outline and the 5 metre width was appropriate in this situation. Car parking could be dealt with by a condition and the adoption process.

It had been initially proposed earlier in discussion to defer the application due to Highway matters and concerns about the access. The Legal Specialist advised that the deferral reasons had now been covered in the update provided by the Senior Planning Advisor. This initial proposal was subsequently withdrawn.

There was a further short discussion, during which officers responded to points of detail including:

·         SSDC had its own Highways consultant, however with major applications such as this, it was important to take advice of SCC Highways.

·         Deferral was usually about going back to get further information or clarity from the applicant or consultees

·         The professional opinion of officers was that receiving verbal comments from consultees was acceptable, but it was also understandable that members may wish to see responses in writing before determining an application.

·         If members were suggesting that they wanted the applicant to consider changing the scheme, the officer advice was that this was not a fair reason to defer.

A proposal was made to refer the application to the Regulation Committee with a recommendation to refuse on the grounds of concerns about highway safety, setting and impact on Old Kelways, unacceptable design and materials, impact on character and appearance, loss of the beech hedge and the detrimental impact regarding access for existing properties opposite the proposed site access.

On being put to the vote, there were 4 votes in favour of refusal, 4 against with 1 abstention. The Chairman used his casting vote in favour of refusing the application, and hence the application to go forward to Regulation Committee for determination.

(Voting: 5 in favour in recommending refusal, 4 against)