Agenda item

Proposal: Outline application for the erection of 6 dwellings.

The Specialist (Development Management) presented the application as detailed in the agenda, and highlighted that access via the junction of Stoodham with Silver Street was a contentious issue locally due to safety concerns. He highlighted the key considerations for the application and noted it was accepted by the Local Planning Authority and SCC Highways that the Stoodham / Silver Street junction was asub-standard junction.

It was acknowledged that the applicant had suggested some highway improvements along Silver Street, however SCC Highways had responded saying that the improvements were not required. The Highways opinion was that the proposed improvements would not significantly improve the safety of the junction, and the predicted amount of additional traffic movements did not necessitate junction improvements. It was noted that the first 25 metres or so of road going into Stoodham was narrow and the applicant was proposing to widen other sections further along the road nearer the application site. The Specialist explained that if members were minded to approve the application that condition 2 should be amended to remove reference to improvements to the junction.

The Specialist updated members that a petition had been received since publication of the agenda. He also verbally corrected an incomplete sentence showing in the agenda report.

Two members of South Petherton Parish Council and two members of the public spoke in objection to the proposal. Some of their comments included:

·         A large number of people had attended the Parish Council meeting when the application was discussed.

·         There doesn’t seem to be much reference to the South Petherton Neighbourhood Plan which indicates this site for no development. It has weight and should not be ignored

·         Access is via a dangerous junction. Pedestrian safety has been overlooked.

·         This isn’t infill development. This application will set a precedent and it will be difficult to refuse more housing further into the field.

·         South Petherton is already over the housing figures stated in the Local Plan.

·         More houses are being built but the local facilities are being lost such as the bank.

·         A petition has been submitted with signatures of around 70 people.

·         A traffic count had been done during the morning commute. At this time visibility from Stoodham onto Silver Street was often impaired by parked vehicles.

·         The start of Stoodham is narrow and single lane. Cars entering the road sometimes have to reverse back out onto Silver Street to let vehicles pass. There is no pavement along the first section of Stoodham.

·         Visitors to the proposed properties will add to the vehicle movements and their parked cars will further hinder access along the road.

·         An application similar to this was turned down in the 1970s partly due to highway safety.

·         Archaeological reports suggest there may be settlement remains of interest at Stoodham,

·         The SSDC Landscape Plan refers to the site as being very visible and the fields being of high sensitivity. Building here will cause demonstrable harm.
 

The applicant’s Highways Adviser and Agent then addressed members. Their comments included:

·         Acknowledge junction isn’t to core standard. SCC Highways have stated they would prefer the junction to remain unchanged.

·         Site is in a sustainable location.

·         Traffic movements had been recorded for a morning and late afternoon commute which had indicated approximately one car movement per two houses.

·         Only one traffic incident had been recorded over a number of years and that had involved a driver under the influence.

·         The proposal is a small scale development that will result in less than a 1% increase in the population of South Petherton, and won’t impact on the local infrastructure.

·         No objections from Highways. The junction already serves 82 dwellings. Impact would need to be severe to warrant a refusal of the application.

Ward member, Councillor Adam Dance, raised a number of concerns about the proposal including:

·         Administration process – some nearby residents who had made objections had not received a letter notifying them of the meeting. The time of this meeting had meant many people could not attend.

·         Aware of several accidents the junction, and only a child was clipped by a passing vehicle. It’s difficult to get lorries into Stoodham.

·         Infant school is already at capacity

·         It was 10 years ago that houses had been built at Stoodham, not recently, as stated in the officer report.

·         Vehicles are frequently parked in the ‘keep clear’ zone marked on Silver Street. Silver Street is often congested especially when two large vehicles meet.

·         Acknowledge single storey dwellings are needed in South Petherton, but the site is located a long walk away for the elderly to reach local facilities.

·         The Neighbourhood Plan should not be ignored. Parishioners know best about their local area.

Fellow ward member, Councillor Crispin Raikes, also made several comments including:

·         Not the houses as such that are a concern but the location.

·         The junction is very dangerous. There was strange wording in the officer report – it’s acknowledge the junction is sub-standard, but as people have to drive slowly it makes the junction acceptable.

·         When exiting Stoodham onto Silver Street there is poor visibility.

·         Huge fear of local residents is if this proposal is the start of further development.

·         In reality likely to be far more traffic movements than indicated in the report.

·         Struggle to understand the logic that the proposal will have no impact.

·         Condition 9 refers to the visibility splays required for the proposed dwellings, and yet nothing like the same visibility requirements can be achieved at the Stoodham / Silver Street junction.

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

·         One of the public speakers referred to landscape harm. The document referred to says this site is in an area of high landscape sensitivity. Shouldn’t consider the site if it’s against our own landscape assessment.

·         Shouldn’t have a dangerous junction and justify it by saying it’s only an additional 6 houses.

·         If this was a whole new development the access road would need to be nearer 5 metres wide not 3.7 metres.

·         Feel there will probably be more vehicle movements than stated, and may be not all traffic movements have been taken into account.

·         This doesn’t seem to be an appropriate or suitable location. If approved there must be an archaeological survey.

·         South Petherton’s Neighbourhood Plan is very recent.

·         Where is the tipping point for small developments on top of other small developments?

·         Site is a very odd shape for development.

·         It’s an actively farmed field, why build here?

·         Neighbourhood Plans don’t over-rule policy but are a consideration.

·         Cannot take into account people’s driving ability.

·         Agree junction unsatisfactory but Highways say it is acceptable

The Senior Planning Adviser responded to points of detail raised during discussion, including:

·         Each report for an application took into account planning policies and local objections etc.

·         Officers were aware of delicate strategic issues across the district.

·         Many applications were finely balance, and this application was such an example.

·         In landscape terms there was limited opportunity to build at the location. From a long view the field would still be seen, and the recommendation for the application was a balance of judgement.

·         Valid comments about tipping points have been made.

·         The traffic and highway safety issues were delicate and complicated. Balance in the officer report is that the impact of a further 6 houses would not be significant.

·         Understand the objection on grounds of highways safety.

·         Archaeology had been consulted and had raised no objection - but their response had been omitted from the report in error.

·         Regarding the administration process – unfortunately mistakes could happen, for which officers apologised. It was confirmed that people who had submitted representations should receive a letter informing them of the committee meeting.

·         Neighbourhood Plans were important and need to be taken into account when considering applications.

·         Site is in a sustainable location due its distance to local facilities,

At the conclusion of debate it was proposed and seconded to refuse the application, on the grounds of highway safety at the Stoodham / Silver Street junction, and landscape harm. In response, the Specialist (Development Management), suggested the wording for the reasons for refusal, which were agreed by members. On being put to the vote the proposal was carried 6 votes in favour to refuse the application, 3 against and 2 abstentions.

(Voting: 6 In favour, 3 against, 2 abstentions)