Agenda item

Planning Application 19/00064/FUL - Land OS 0002 South Of Coat Road Martock TA12 6DF

Minutes:

Proposal: The erection of 120 homes together with associated infrastructure including access/highway improvements, drainage and attenuation, play area, open space and landscaping

 

The Lead Specialist – Planning introduced the report and explained that this application had been referred by Area North Committee directly to Regulation Committee without debate. 

 

He then proceeded to give a detailed presentation and with the aid of slides showed the proposed site and plans and updated members on additional representations with regard to the following:

·         Petition – to prevent houses

·         Infrastructure, services

·         Diminish natural light

·         Extra traffic

·         Residential Amenity

·         Risk of crime

·         Pollution

·         Wildlife impacts

·         MPC – Drainage

 

He also updated members on alterations to conditions including:

·         02 – date

·         03 – detail

·         04- timescale

·         13 – amend to reflect a submitted written scheme of investigation

·         Omit 19 and 20 – TP

·         New 20- footway linkage

 

It was also noted an Education Primary School contribution of £50,000.

 

The Lead Specialist - Planning explained that planning consent has previously been granted on the site for 95 houses and it was now proposed to build 120 houses which were smaller in size than those previously approved.  There was an increase in 2 and 3 bedroom properties and more would be affordable.  The layout was an improvement on the previous scheme in his opinion.

 

He also reported that an archaeological investigation of the site had already commenced in accordance with the expired consent.  That the inclusion of a travel plan and vehicle electric points would need to be included within a legal agreement and that although Martock Parish Council had reservations regarding the drainage the Environment Agency (EA) were satisfied with the original comments made.

 

He asked members to carefully consider and give weight to the factors in favour of an approval:

·         The presumption in favour of sustainable development

·         The lack of a five-year housing land supply

·         The site is in a sustainable location with an expired 2013 consent for 95 larger homes

·         The scheme meets the 3 dimensions of sustainable development (economic, social, environmental)

·         There are no technical objections to the application

·         Housing numbers in the settlement hierarchy are a minima and should not be binding

·         That members should be minded of the Gladman appeal outcome at Henstridge

·         Of the SSDC LP review which will be seeking to allocate more plan for development, especially one with an historic permission

·         That low delivery in Martock and South Somerset means more permissions are required, and

·         This site, evidenced by the archaeological works, appears to be ready to deliver now

 

Furthermore the Lead Specialist – Planning advised members that they may disregard the officer’s recommendation so long as it has firm, planning grounds to do so that can be substantiated at appeal.  If not a cost award would be likely if:

·         A proposal in accordance with the development plan had been prevented or delayed from coming forward

·         Members failed to produce evidence or substantiate reasons

·         If members made vague, generalised or inaccurate assertions about impact which are unsupported by objective analysis, and/or

·         Members fail to apply the policies of the development plan and NPPF.

 

He therefore concluded that after considering all of the responses and advice, as outlined in the agenda report, his proposal was to approve the application subject to the conditions as set out in the agenda report with amendments to conditions 2, 3, 4, 13, 19 and 20.

 

In response to questions from Members, the Lead Specialist - Planning advised:

 

·         Improvements to the path at Hills Lane would be made under this proposal, however this is purely to make the path more usable and not to facilitate the use of cars.

·         No comparison has been made under this scheme against the previous approved scheme regarding the size of the proposed houses.

·         Unsure of the number of garages omitted from this scheme from that of the previous scheme but that SCC have not raised any issues with regard to parking levels on the site.

·         Understand that the Martock Neighbourhood plan is still in an informative stage and cannot be given significant weight.

·         Believe the linear design of the scheme allows many properties to face south giving opportunity for solar panels to be installed.

 

Councillor Louise Clarke, Ward member voiced her objection of the application and felt that from the number of local residents attending the meeting today it gave a clear indication of the significant opposition to this scheme.

 

The committee was then addressed by two representatives of Martock Parish Council. Their comments included:

 

·         If approved this application would take the total number of new dwellings to 42% over the housing target as set out in the Local Plan.

·         Barratt Homes have had their chance and could become feeding frenzy for developers in the area, therefore should refuse this application and let planning inspector decide.

·         Detrimental impact on Martock Surgery which is already under considerable pressure and that SSDC have a duty of care for the health and well-being of the local community.

 

A representative of Ash Parish Council also addressed the committee.  He believed there would be an inevitable increase in traffic on the surrounding roads and villages and with a high percentage of out-commute will have a huge impact on the already congested roads within Martock, Ash and other surrounding villages.

 

Eight members of the public then spoke in opposition of the application.  Their comments included:

 

·         History of flooding in the area and concerned the impact the scheme will have on the surrounding area. 

·         Believe the EA require accurate data before a firm decision can be made on the drainage of this scheme.

·         Detrimental impact on Martock Surgery which is already under considerable pressure and that this development will only exacerbate the current situation and impact on the existing healthcare population.

·         The village infrastructure is not equipped to deal with the increased number of houses and traffic.

·         Local school already oversubscribed.

·         The scheme provides no employment benefit to the village leading to increased levels of out-commuting.

·         Concerns on the increased traffic flow within Martock where congestion is already an issue and therefore safety concerns for local cyclists and pedestrians.

·         Huge local opposition to the development and need to take into account local knowledge.

·         The proposed development is a contravention of planning guidance regarding the distances of the proposed dwellings to that of the existing adjacent properties.

·         The proposed parking provision is below the levels required by the Somerset County Council Parking Strategy.

·         Concern regarding the increase in traffic especially for pedestrian crossing along North Street particularly where school children cross to go to school.

·         Martock already ahead of its target to meet housing needs and therefore over supply with no demand.

·         Proposal would inevitably increase traffic and therefore goes against Environmental Policies trying to reduce pollution.

·         The site is of great benefit of local wildlife and ecology, which will be adversely impacted.

 

The Agent then addressed the committee.  His comments included:

 

·         Good sustainable location with no technical reasons why this application should not be supported.

·         Confirmed the developer wished to commence construction as soon as possible should planning permission be granted.

·         Clarified the reduction of the Education contribution in agreement with SCC.

·         Although a reduction in garages this was mitigated by an increase in parking spaces within the development.

·         Appreciate current issues regarding the doctor’s surgery, however this is not a related planning consideration.

·         This site will allow children to walk to the local school.

·         Affordable housing is a key priority for local residents. This scheme will supply 35% affordable housing.

 

Councillor Neil Bloomfield, Ward member voiced his opposition of the application. His comments included:

 

·         Martock is not equipped to deal with more housing with local services already overloaded.

·         Consideration should be given to why the previously approved scheme for 95 homes was never carried out.

·         Development would have huge impact on the already congested roads of Martock.

·         Site is ‘bolted’ on to the side of village with insufficient access.

·         This would have a 5% population increase on this one development.

·         Would increase levels of out-commuting.

·         Need to look after existing local resident needs before further development is granted. This development will only exacerbate the current issues regarding local facilities such as the doctor’s surgery.

·         Martock already beyond the minimum housing target and this development would put it over 40% higher.

 

During members’ discussion, several comments were made including:

 

·         Appreciate the concerns of the local residents and Parish Council, however cannot see any clear reasons to refuse the application on planning policy grounds.

·         Detrimental impact on Martock Surgery which is already under considerable pressure and that this development will only exacerbate the current situation

·         Need to listen to the concerns of the local residents.

·         Need to consider the Environmental Policies that SSDC are supporting.

·         Proposal would have a significant impact on the local doctor’s surgery and current already congested road network.

·         The scheme provides no employment benefit to the village leading to increased levels of out-commuting.

·         Acknowledge previously approved scheme of 95 dwellings and on balance this proposal is too many.

·         Concern regarding the proposed parking provision which is below the levels required by the Somerset County Council Parking Strategy.

·         Concern regarding the path at Hills Lane and its possible future use for access.

 

Following a short discussion, it was then proposed and subsequently seconded to approve the application as per the officer’s recommendation, subject to the conditions as set out in the agenda report with amendments to conditions 2, 3, 4, 13, 19 and 20 as previously stated.  On being put to the vote this was lost by 6 votes in favour, 7 against, 0 abstentions.

 

During a short debate, members discussed and suggested reasons for refusal. These included:

 

·         Development would take it 42% over the indicative local plan figure and therefore contrary to policy SS1.

·         Martock has a Net- out commuting figure of 60%, this development would increase this whilst not providing any employment opportunities. 

·         Development has 39 fewer parking spaces then previous scheme.

·         Development would make Martock larger than some nearby market towns with the local school and doctor’s surgery already unable to serve the needs of the population.

·         Only a proportion of housing are correctly aligned to maximise the solar gain.

 

In response to the suggested reasons, the Lead Specialist – Planning reminded members of the points raised in the initial presentation that favoured supporting this application, whilst also advising members that the reasons now being put forward were not considered sufficiently strong or evidenced, making an appeal likely and difficult to defend. 

 

Following a short adjournment to help the Ward member finalise his proposed reasons for refusal, to enable the vote, the Lead Specialist - Planning read out the proposed reasons for refusal as follows:

 

1.       The proposal for 120 dwellings would take the level of growth for Martock to 326 dwellings over the plan period. This would represent a scale of growth which is 42% over the indicative target for this Rural Centre as set out in Policy SS5 of the South Somerset Local Plan (2006-2028). As such, the development would be a significant increase over that envisaged in Policy SS5 and would be contrary to the intended growth strategy and settlement strategy and therefore contrary to Policies SD1, SS1 and SS5 of the South Somerset Local Plan (2006-2028).

2.       Martock has a net out-commuting figure of 60%; this development would increase commuting whilst not providing employment opportunities, thus promoting an unsustainable settlement pattern where homes and jobs should be co-located contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework.

3.       Only 75% of the homes are correctly aligned to maximise solar gain contrary to sustainable construction aims and objectives contained with Policy EQ1 of the South Somerset Local Plan (2006-2028) and the National Planning Policy Framework.

4.       The development has 39 fewer parking spaces than required by the Somerset Parking Strategy contrary to Policy EQ1 of the South Somerset Local Plan (2006-2028).

 

This was then proposed and subsequently seconded that planning permission be refused, contrary to the officer’s recommendation for the reasons as read out by the Lead Specialist - Planning. 

 

On being put to the vote this was carried by 7 votes in favour, 6 against and 0 abstentions. 

 

 

RESOLVED:

 

That planning application 19/00064/FUL be refused for the following reasons:

 

5.       The proposal for 120 dwellings would take the level of growth for Martock to 326 dwellings over the plan period. This would represent a scale of growth which is 42% over the indicative target for this Rural Centre as set out in Policy SS5 of the South Somerset Local Plan (2006-2028). As such, the development would be a significant increase over that envisaged in Policy SS5 and would be contrary to the intended growth strategy and settlement strategy and therefore contrary to Policies SD1, SS1 and SS5 of the South Somerset Local Plan (2006-2028).

6.       Martock has a net out-commuting figure of 60%; this development would increase commuting whilst not providing employment opportunities, thus promoting an unsustainable settlement pattern where homes and jobs should be co-located contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework.

7.       Only 75% of the homes are correctly aligned to maximise solar gain contrary to sustainable construction aims and objectives contained with Policy EQ1 of the South Somerset Local Plan (2006-2028) and the National Planning Policy Framework.

8.       The development has 39 fewer parking spaces than required by the Somerset Parking Strategy contrary to Policy EQ1 of the South Somerset Local Plan (2006-2028).

 

(voting: 7 in favour, 6 against, 0 abstentions)

Supporting documents: