Agenda item

18/01602/FUL** - Former BMI Site, Cumnock Road, Ansford

Minutes:

Application Proposal: Demolition of existing buildings, conversion of and alterations to listed buildings to form 11 no. dwellings, the erection of 70 no. dwellings (total 81 no. dwellings) and associated works, including access and off-site highway works, parking, landscaping, open space, footpath links and drainage infrastructure

 

The Specialist Officer – Planning, presented his report to members. He explained to members that the application had been deferred by members at the previous month’s area committee meeting.

 

He clarified the details of the planning application and using a PowerPoint presentation, he provided members with images of the site and plans to show the proposed layouts of the site. He also pointed out the access to the site and the listed buildings around the site.

 

He reminded members that the application had been deferred to allow the applicant to address their concerns to;

 

·         Reduce density of houses within the site

·         Allow highway adoption

·         Increase levels of car parking

·         To seek protection of more trees

·         To established specific boundary treatments with Beechfield House

·         To provide clarity over the highway infrastructure on Cumnock Road.

 

He explained to members that the application has been brought back to committee for consideration in its same form and referred to a letter from the agent which explained the reasons why they have had been unable to amend the scheme. He also added that there are 171 car parking spaces proposed within the development. The parking strategy suggested that the optimum level of parking for a development of this size would be between 190 – 207, and agreed that the development fell 19 spaces short of the lower end optimum figures, however pointed out that the site was close to the town centre and advised that the highways department had not raised an objection.

 

The Specialist Officer – Planning, advised that the Tree Officer felt that the planting scheme provided as part of the application, was of high quality and included a high number of quality species and suggested that these new tress should be protected by a TPO.

 

He also explained that a condition could be added to an approval to ensure that the boundary treatment with Beechfield House removes any overlooking issues.

 

In response to members concerns over the proposed signalised junction, the Specialist Officer – Planning, provided members with a clear plan to show the layout of the proposed junction. He added that the Somerset County Council Development Control Liaison Officer was present, should members have any further questions.

 

The Specialist Officer – Highways, referred to Appendix A of the report and advised members that should the roads not be adopted, a maintenance bond would be put into place.

 

A representative from the Town Council addressed the Committee. She explained to members that the minimum of 374 homes recommended in the Local Plan for Ansford and Castle Cary had been grossly exceeded. Over 650 dwellings had been approved for Ansford and Castle Cary, which will increase population in the town by over a third. She felt that more needed to be done to protect the town’s image, traffic problems and quality of life for its residents. She added that the developer had not engaged with the Town Council and felt that more could be done to provide additional parking within the site, footpaths and adopted roads. She added that it would be shameful to allow this application in its present form.

 

Members of the public addressed the Committee. Their comments included;

 

·         Concerns over the gateway from the BMI site, which was close to the road at the north-east boundary of the site. This should be replaced with a wall.

·         There were other proposals for additional housing in the area. Concern was raised that these had not been considered when designing the proposed junction.

·         Concern was raised over drainage within the site.

·         The site was a lot higher than some adjoining homes, therefore the site was very visible.

·         There had been a history of non-compliance with planning on the site.

·         Boundary treatments should be implemented before construction begins on site.

·         The wall is listed and the existing wall height should be maintained.

·         Trees on the southern boundary are patchy and won’t provide enough screening. An in-keeping Cary stone wall, 12 foot in height, should be constructed.

·         There was a tunnel to the site, which needed to be blocked up by a wall.

 

The agent addressed the Committee. He explained to Members that it had not been possible to amend the application as the current scheme had taken a long time to develop and had been subject to many amendments. His comments included;

 

·         There were no statutory objections to the application.

·         The amendments which had been suggested would require a new planning application which would hugely delay the project.

·         Amendments to the highway to allow the roads to be adopted could give rise to other objections, such as conservation concerns.

·         The current housing numbers and proposed density is supported by the SSDC Housing Development Officer, a reduction in density would reduce numbers and may not support current affordable housing need.

·         The adoption of estate roads is not a planning consideration and would be addressed under the Highways Act. However, the aim of the applicants is to get the roads adopted if possible.

·         The Local Plan and the Neighbourhood Plan refers to a potential for 80 dwellings on this site.

·         The applicant is happy for a condition to be added to ensure a suitable boundary treatment is provided on the southern boundary.

·         This has been a difficult site to develop, however this scheme is both viable and deliverable.

 

Councillor Kevin Messenger, Ward Member, addressed the Committee. He referred to the site layout plan and felt that the number of car parking spaces on site was inadequate, adding that there will be lots of cars parked on the roads. This gave him safety concerns for future occupiers. He also had concern over the roads and felt that they should be adopted by SCC. He added that the developer had shown little respect for the Council and was disappointed that no amendments had been made.

 

He proposed that the application should be refused.

 

The Chairman, also Ward Member for Castle Cary agreed with the comments made by Councillor Messenger. He added that more visitor parking and less houses would be favourable. He was concerned that the applicant would appeal a decision to refuse the application.

 

During the discussion, some members commented that it was disappointing that the application would be referred to the Regulation Committee. Others also agreed that cars parking on the roads was a safety concern and that the roads should be adopted.

 

The proposal to refuse the application was seconded. However, no vote was taken at this time and the discussion continued.

 

In response to a question from a member, the Lead Specialist Officer – Planning introduced the SCC Highway Planning Liaison Officer to clarify any questions over the proposed signalled junction and issues over drainage.

 

The SCC Highway Planning Liaison Officer explained that the layout of the signalised junction had been fully assessed and had been subject to safety audits and agreed as being acceptable. A complete design process and further technical checks would be carried out should the application be approved.

 

In relation to the roads being adopted, he explained that there were many policies which needed to be met. However, should a bond be in place, the roads could be adopted at a later stage should residents request this. He added that the developer has agreed to ensure that the roads will be maintained should they not be adopted and had no concern over the quality proposed. He clarified that the authority had no power to enforce that roads should be adopted.

 

In respect of parking spaces, he informed members that the parking standards had been considered and found that the parking spaces were in accordance. He pointed out that the development was in close proximity to the town centre and had no specific concerns over emergency access. 

 

It was proposed that the application should be deferred to allow the developer to amend the application for the same reasons as the application was deferred at the previous meeting. This was seconded. However, no vote was taken at the time.

 

It was suggested by another member that a deferral could result in an appeal by the applicant. He therefore suggested that a refusal and referral to Regulation Committee would be a better option as this would allow conditions to be added to include a stone wall on the southern boundary and to ensure that an appropriate boundary treatment to replace the old trees. He also suggested that a bond in relation to the highway should be conditioned. He felt that the adoption of the road was more important than meeting the number of homes proposed.

 

The Lead Specialist – Planning, explained that the developer has provided his reasons for being unwilling to amend the scheme and felt that a deferral of the application would not achieve any further amendments to the proposal.

 

The proposer of the first proposal, which was to refuse the application, was withdrawn.

 

The Senior Planning Lawyer advised members that the applicant has not shown a willingness to amend the application and the applicant had a right to have the matter determined. She pointed out that if members considered that the officer recommendation could not be accepted, the matter should be referred to the Regulation Committee. She pointed out that there would be a risk to the Council that the applicant would appeal should the application be deferred.

 

The agent addressed the Committee to explain that without the consent of the client, he would be unable to advise on his clients intentions should the application be deferred. However, he felt that further amendments would not be welcomed and suggested that an appeal could be submitted.

 

In response to a question from a member, the Lead Specialist – Planning confirmed that it would not be possible to approve the application subject to conditions to overcome the issues raised at the previous meeting which were listed as the reasons for deferral. The density of the scheme could not be achieved through a condition. However, he suggested that conditions to ensure that the boundary treatments were suitable and that a wall was constructed would be achievable.

 

It was subsequently proposed that the application be approved subject to conditions to ensure that;

 

·         the gateway is removed and replaced with a stone wall.

·         that the trees which are in poor condition be replaced with planting, or with a stone wall that is at a height appropriate to the land that it there. New planting should be protected by a Tree Preservation Order.

·         that a bond is put in place by the agent to ensure that the road is maintained in perpetuity.

·         additional car parking spaces for visitors are provided.

 

In response to a question from a member, the Lead Specialist – Planning confirmed that conditions could be added to ensure that a new stone wall to prevent access to the High Street and a boundary wall between Beechfield House and the site could be added. He confirmed that an informative note could be added to ensure that new planting should be protected by a TPO. However, he advised that it would not be possible to condition a bond to ensure that the road is maintained in perpetuity as this would be subject to other legislation and would be unable to condition the requirement for additional car parking spaces.

 

No vote was taken on this proposal.

 

A vote was taken on the proposal to defer the application to allow the application to be amended by the applicant to address the Committee concerns over;

 

-       Highway adoption

-       To increase levels of car parking to include visitor parking

-       To reduce the density of the development

-       To establish the specific boundary treatments with Beechfield House

-       To seek to retain more protected trees currently proposed to be felled

-       Clarity regarding the new highway infrastructure on Cumnock Road.

 

On being put to the vote, this was not carried and the proposal failed. There were 3 votes in support, 9 against, with 1 abstention.

 

It was proposed and seconded that Area East Committee were minded to refuse the application and referred the application to the Regulation Committee as the officer’s recommendation to approve could not be accepted by the Committee for the following reasons;

 

-       The density within the site was considered to be too high.

-       The parking levels within the site were inadequate. This included the number of visitor parking spaces.

-       The estate roads as designed could not be adopted by SCC Highways.

-       An insufficient number of protected trees would be retained.

 

On being put to the vote, this was carried 8 votes in support and 4 against with 0 abstentions.

 

Members wished for the Regulation Committee to consider the following conditions, should they be minded to approve the planning application.

 

-       The existing gateway which provides access to the Town Centre at the north-east boundary of the site, be replaced with a stone wall

-       The existing boundary to Beechfield House be replaced with a stone wall.

 

And an informative note to request that any newly planted trees, should be protected by a Tree Preservation Order.

 

RESOLVED:  that planning application 18/01602/FUL** be REFERRED to the Regulation Committee with a recommendation from Area East Committee that the application be refused for the following reasons;         

-       The density within the site was considered to be too high.

-       The parking levels within the site were inadequate. This included the number of visitor parking spaces.

-       The estate roads as designed could not be adopted by SCC Highways.

-       An insufficient number of protected trees would be retained.

 

Members wished for the Regulation Committee to consider the following conditions, should they be minded to approve the planning application.

 

-       The existing gateway which provides access to the Town Centre at the north-east boundary of the site, be replaced with a stone wall

-       The existing boundary to Beechfield House be replaced with a stone wall.

 

and an informative note to request that any newly planted trees, should be protected by a Tree Preservation Order.

 

(voting: 8 votes in support, 4 against and 0 abstentions)

Supporting documents: