Agenda item

Application Proposal: Demolition of the existing buildings and the erection of 19 no. dwellings with associated access and parking (outline application)

The Planning Officer presented his report to members with the aid of a PowerPoint presentation. He advised members that the application had been two-starred in line with the scheme of delegation and would be referred to the Regulation Committee should the application be refused.

He informed members that the application was an outline application to consider the access and principle and clarified that all other matters such as design would be considered at the later reserved matters application.

He explained that the application for was 19 dwellings, situated on the north eastern edge of the village. He pointed out that the land was situated lower than surrounding land which meant that the land wasn’t easily viewed from the wider area.  He also drew attention to areas of trees and hedging which could provide screening.

Using the PowerPoint presentation, he showed members an indicative layout and explained that was for illustrative purposes only and that this would not be the agreed layout. He also commented that he had concerns over the layout which was detailed and confirmed that he had passed these concerns to the applicant.

Photographs of the site and existing buildings were shown to member, as well as photographs to show the closest neighbouring property.

The Planning Officer clarified that there were policies which supported new care homes; however there was no polices which mention the retaining of existing care homes. He further clarified that the highways authority had taken into account the existing use in thier decision not to raise an objection to the application.

The Planning Officer advised members that the scheme would include 3 affordable housing units, would be CIL liable and, as an update to the tabled report, that the applicant would also need to make a £110,400 contribution towards primary education.

A local resident spoke in objection to the application. He advised members that Throop Road was a busy road which was used by many businesses and farms which were situated along the road. He explained that many of the residents of the care home did not have cars and that the proposed dwellings would bring a large increase in traffic which could be dangerous. He also raised concern over the sewage pipes and pumps as well additional surface water which would flow downhill to neighbouring properties. He added that the proposal did not create any new jobs and did not bring services or facilities to the village.

The agent addressed the Committee. He explained that the application was an outline application and that all matters other than access would be considered at a later date. He informed members that Templecombe was a large village, with good transport links. He also pointed out that South Somerset D.C did not have a five-year land supply.

He explained to members that the care home had been closed for over a year and confirmed that drainage could be secured by way of a planning condition. He also confirmed that adequate parking would be provided and mentioned that the highways authority had not raised an objection.

In response to a members question, the Planning Officer clarified that only three affordable units were required as the existing floor space needed to be considered and that in line with policy, only 50% of the normal 35% level of affordable housing could be sought. He clarified that this equated three homes plus an additional small financial contribution. He also confirmed that the drainage issues could be covered in a planning condition.

Councillor Hayward Burt, the Ward Member, spoke in objection to the application. He explained to the Committee that 108 new homes had recently been approved in Templecombe and pointed out that the village was a rural settlement. He explained that he had concerns over the capacity of the existing doctor’s surgeries and for road safety, especially as the nearby Thales business would soon be expanding. He explained that the application fails policy SS2 as the scheme does not enhance the services in the village and that additional affordable units should be included within the proposal.

During the discussion, some members commented that the road was not suitable and that it would be useful to have Wessex Water’s view on whether the sewage system would cope. Another member raised concerns over the lack of transport links and the inadequate access to the site. It was suggested that should the application be approved, that a condition should be included to ensure that the sewage pipes and drains could cope with the additional capacity as well as strengthening the surface water condition to prevent flooding.

It was proposed that the application be approved as per the officer report, however this was not seconded.

It was subsequently proposed and seconded that the planning application should be refused as the application failed on policies SS2 and TA5 of the SSDC Local Plan.

On being put to the vote, this was carried 9 votes in support, with 1 against.

RESOLVED:  that members were minded to refuse planning application 18/00650/OUT, which was 2-starred in line with the councils scheme of delegation, and agreed to refer the application to the regulation committee for determination for the following reasons:

(1)          The proposal fails to address the requirements of the Templecombe settlement and would add to pressures on local services. As such it is contrary to policy SS2 of the adopted South Somerset Local Plan.

(2)          The proposal fails to provide pedestrian and cycle access  and would compromise the safety of the local road network .As such it is contrary to policy TA5 (ii) and (iii) of the adopted South Somerset Local Plan including, should the scheme eventually be approved, strengthened conditions on water capacity; sewage management and anti - flooding.

(Voting: 9 in support,1 against)