Agenda item

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 – Development Management introduced the report and explained that this application had been referred by Area East Committee with a recommendation for refusal for the following four reasons: 

1.    Scheme too dense.

2.    Lack of on site parking.

3.    Internal estate being unadoptable.

4.    Insufficient number of protected trees being retained.

He then proceeded to give a detailed presentation and with the aid of slides showed the proposed site and plans.  He pointed out the access to the site and listed buildings around the site. 

He referred to the key considerations being principle of development; impact on listed buildings; local character; residential amenity; trees; highways and with the aid of slides gave attention to all these issues.

The Specialist – Development Management 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 these trees be protected by a TPO.

He explained that the parking numbers do fall below the optimum guidance of the parking strategy being between190 – 207, and agreed that the development fell 19 spaces short of this optimum figure, however pointed out this site was close to the town centre and that the highways authority had raised no objection.

He acknowledged the issue of the estate roads being adopted but advised this was not a material consideration and was between the highway authority and the developer to agree.  He noted however that if the road is un-adopted the agent has agreed to a Section 106 agreement which would require a management company to maintain the estate road and could be subject to an Advance Payment Code (APC) which would require the development to provide a bond or payment to the highway authority to bring to an adoptable standard.

He also explained the request from the Area East Committee that should members be minded to approve the application that conditions be included for the following:

·         Condition the specific boundary treatments with Beechfield House.

·         Secure a stone wall in the north eastern corner of the development to prevent pedestrian access to Upper High Street.

·         Adding an informative note stating the Council will instigate a Tree Preservation Order to protect all new trees planted; to replace those protected trees on the site which will be felled.

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.

In response to questions from Members, the Specialist – Development Management and Lead Specialist – Planning advised:

·         No TPO trees had been removed.

·         Understand that Castle Cary has exceeded the minimum housing growth target by 78%, however the current Local plan figures are now considered out of date and limited weight should be given.

·         Believe that pedestrians from the site would use the access provided to the town centre and not walk around the site.

·         Referred to the Tree Officer comments and gave details of the trees and shrubs to be used in what was a carefully designed landscape scheme with the future benefits in mind.

·         Believe this was an excellent proposed landscape scheme and use of best practice as a move forward for climate education.  The trees selected will require less maintenance although some will be required and maintained by a management company.

·         Acknowledged the development would exceed the housing delivery target for Castle Cary and referring to recent planning appeals it is looked at as to whether the proposal would significantly and demonstrably harm and outweigh any benefits of the scheme

·         Reiterated that if the road is un-adopted the agent has agreed to a Section 106 agreement which would require a management company to maintain the estate road along and could be subject to an Advance Payment Code (APC) which would require the development to provide a bond or payment to the highway authority to bring to an adoptable standard.

Councillor Mike Lewis, SCC Ward member was concerned that should members be minded to refuse this application the conditions currently imposed could be lost at appeal.  He felt the parking provision on the site was inadequate which would have safety concerns for future occupiers adding to parked cars in what was already a difficult area of Castle Cary for parking.

In response the Specialist – Development Management advised that it would be down to the Planning inspector to decide what is reasonable and therefore a possibility that conditions could be struck.

A representative from Ansford Parish Council addressed the committee.  He raised concern regarding the adoptable road standards and road safety concerns due to the sole access to the site.  He believed there to be insufficient car parking spaces provided on site especially for visitors consequently increasing the parking within the site and on the surrounding roads and believed this was a fundamental design flaw in the proposed scheme.

Members of the public addressed the committee.  Their comments included:

·         Acknowledge the site is ideal for development but not at any price.

·         Permission for 650 houses already approved in Castle Cary twice as many as recommended in the Local Plan.

·         Virtually no reference made to the Neighbourhood plan that has been final for 6 months.

·         Scheme too dense.

·         Concern regarding non adoptable roads.

·         No climate change issues taken into account.

·         Lack of consultation with local residents.

·         Concern regarding specific boundary treatments with Beechfield house.

·         Concern regarding the lack of parking provision proposed on site with the likelihood of residents and visitors parking on surrounding roads causing severe congestion in the area.

·         Highway safety concerns owing to huge increase in traffic in Castle Cary due to number of new developments in the area.

·         Insufficient open space.

·         Cramped development.

·         Should refuse application until a suitable plan can be agreed by all parties.

·         Need to ensure satisfactory drainage system within the scheme and ensure its management and maintenance.

·         Proposal will increase traffic congestion within the town that is already very busy.

The agent addressed the Committee. He explained to members that the scheme needed to be viable and accords with the local plan with a reduced number of 81 dwellings. 

His comments included:

·         83% optimum parking target proposed.

·         Adoption of roads is not a material consideration, nonetheless the developer will endeavour to make roads to adoptable standard however provisions are in place to mitigate issues raised.

·         Highway junction has already been agreed.

·         Renewable energy solutions have been included in some housing design.

·         The applicant is happy for the Area East Committee requested conditions to be included.

·         There were no statutory objections of the application.

In conclusion he believed the scheme to be of appropriate density, using brownfield land in a sustainable location providing much needed housing and secures preservation of important listed buildings.

Councillor Henry Hobhouse, Ward member believed the parking was a fundamental issue. The lack of sufficient parking proposed on site will invite residents and visitors to use the public right of way and park on surrounding roads causing severe congestion in the area.  He also raised concern regarding the current water tank situated onsite, demolition of the pump house and current trees located within Cary Place.  He said that 160 affordable houses were already approved for Castle Cary with a further 200 houses approved at the station site.  He felt there wasn’t the need for 11 more affordable houses, but 11 fewer houses on the site and more parking.  He appreciated the need to develop this site however does not believe this current proposal to be a suitable scheme.

Councillor Kevin Messenger believed this to be the last strategic site with many other developments already approved in and around Castle Cary.  He said the roads are already gridlocked, that the site was overdeveloped and densely populated.  He said the unadoptable road was not acceptable which could de value these properties in the future and he did not want to kill the high street by grid locking the town.

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 and the parking can be mitigated by variation.

·         Believe it is a good use of the site.

·         The lack of on-site parking fails to meet the SCC Parking Strategy.

·         The density of the development is too great.

·         This proposal would significantly be in excess of the housing delivery target for Castle Cary to over 78%.

·         The lack of sufficient parking proposed on site will invite residents and visitors to park on surrounding roads causing severe congestion in the area. 

·         Should be a reduction in the number of houses and include more parking provision on site.

·         Inadequate onsite parking provision.

·         Disappointed the developer had not addressed the concerns raised.

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. On being put to the vote this was lost by 2 votes in favour, 10 against, 0 abstentions.

During a short debate, members discussed and suggested reasons for refusal as per the reasons stated by the Area East Committee. These included:

1.    The density of the development is considered too great.

2.    The lack of on-site parking failing to meet the SCC parking Strategy.

3.    The fact the highway as designed within the development cannot be adopted.

4.    An insufficient number of protected trees are to be retained.

In response to the suggested reasons, the Lead Specialist – Planning reminded members of the points raised and that the issue of the unadoptable road and insufficient number of protected trees was not a defendable reason in his opinion. He also requested further embellishment regarding the density of the site and lack of car parking provision to ensure that the reasons now being put forward were considered sufficiently strong or evidenced. 

Following a short adjournment to allow officers and Ward members to substantiate reasons for refusal, to enable the vote, the Specialist – Development Management read out the proposed reasons for refusal as follows:

1.       The development of 81 dwellings would be significantly in excess of the housing delivery target for Castle Cary and Ansford, resulting in harm to the Settlement Hierarchy and Policy SS1 which significantly and demonstrably outweighs the benefits of the scheme, contrary to policies SD1, SS1, and SS5 of the South Somerset Local Plan (2006-2028) and the provisions of the NPPF.

2.       The density of the development is considered overly cramped which impacts on the ability of the scheme to provide sufficient car parking. The development has 30 fewer parking spaces than required by the Somerset Parking Strategy contrary to Policies EQ2, EQ3 and TA6 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 Specialist – Development Management. 

On being put to the vote this was carried by 10 votes in favour, 2 against and 0 abstentions. 

RESOLVED:

That planning application 18/01602/FUL be refused for the following reasons:

1.       The development of 81 dwellings would be significantly in excess of the housing delivery target for Castle Cary and Ansford, resulting in harm to the Settlement Hierarchy and Policy SS1 which significantly and demonstrably outweighs the benefits of the scheme, contrary to policies SD1, SS1, and SS5 of the South Somerset Local Plan (2006-2028) and the provisions of the NPPF.

2.       The density of the development is considered overly cramped which impacts on the ability of the scheme to provide sufficient car parking. The development has 30 fewer parking spaces than required by the Somerset Parking Strategy contrary to Policies EQ2, EQ3 and TA6 the South Somerset Local Plan (2006-2028).

(voting: 10 in favour, 2 against, 0 abstentions)