Agenda item

Application Proposal: Outline application for residential development of up to 150 dwellings, public open space, landscaping and associated works with access from Lang Road.

The Specialist – Development Management introduced the report and updated members that:

·         A further Transportation update had been received from the agent.

·         A presentation and video had been received from Crewkerne Town Council as a result of further survey work undertaken by local residents and would be shown to the committee at the appropriate time.

He then proceeded to give a detailed presentation and with the aid of slides showed the site and proposed plans.  He noted there were a number of issues to consider with this outline application but explained the main issue is the highways impact of the development.  

He referred to the key considerations being principle of development; Highway Safety; Landscape impact and Residential amenity.  He believed this was a sustainable site on the edge of Crewkerne, a preferred option in the emerging local plan and with the Council not having a 5 year housing land supply consider this to be an acceptable proposal. He also noted a landscape assessment had been undertaken, the site was within a low flood risk zone and there had been no objections regarding ecology subject to appropriate mitigation.  He also explained the layout and relationship to the existing houses would be considered at the reserve matters stage.

The Specialist - Development Management then proceeded to explain the key consideration with regard to highways.  He referred to the agenda report and explained the highway authority had originally objected to the scheme for the three reasons as set out in the agenda report and clarified that the Area West Committee had also resolved to recommend refusal for two of the same reasons.

He proceeded to explain the process of the updated additional traffic survey that had been undertaken and made comparison to the survey carried out by local residents.  He noted that the Highway Authority had withdrawn their objections and although access and additional traffic on Cathole Bridge Road were the main issues for local residents, the application could only be refused on highway safety or serious traffic impact in the area. 

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 advised:

·         Network Rail had been consulted, however no response has been received.

·         Public consultation would be undertaken at reserve matters stage.

·         Cathole Bridge Road would remain a public highway.

·         All relevant roads and junctions were included in the traffic survey.  The survey had been accepted by the Highway Authority.

·         Understand the highway authority apply relevant data and use this as a base line figure when considering what traffic the scheme would generate and the impact in the area.

A member of the committee also highlighted that Cathole Bridge Road had a 7.5 ton limit.

Councillor Robin Pailthorpe, SSDC Ward member addressed the committee and spoke in objection to the application. His comments included:

·         Believed the amount of traffic using Cathole Bridge Road was already too great and there was no way to widen it. 

·         The road is in constant use 24 hours a day and you cannot get from one end to the other without stopping several times with vehicles having to reverse many times.

·         Crewkerne has no bypass and therefore Cathole Bridge Road is used as such.

·         Road network in and around Crewkerne is inadequate and this proposal would represent a significant traffic increase on the surrounding network that would have a severe highway safety concern.

·         Concern that South West trains have not commented on the application.

A video was then played for the committee showing the traffic problems that are encountered in this area.

The Committee were then addressed by representatives of the Town Council and four members of the public in opposition to the application.  Their comments included:

·         This application would represent a significant increase in traffic in the area which is already at capacity.

·         Currently an inadequate highway network and the lack of any associated improvements to local infrastructure.

·         Acknowledge the Highway Authority had withdrawn their original objection but referred to their comment that this scheme could have a severe highway concern.

·         The town is already at breaking point and cannot cope with any additional increase in traffic with severe congestion already.

·         The key site development should be brought forward first before any other development.

·         Concern regarding the railway crossing on Cathole Bridge Road which would cause increased traffic backing up.

·         Disappointed a Highways representative was not in attendance to answer any concerns raised.

·         There was no satisfactory means to widen the highway.

·         The road is in constant use 24 hours a day and you cannot get from one end to the other without stopping several times with vehicles having to reverse many time.

·         Concern regarding the safety of school children using the road to get to the nearby school.

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

·         Crewkerne is not equipped to deal with the increased number of houses and traffic.

·         Proposed junction for the development is located on a blind bend.

The Agent for the applicant said the Area West Committee’s reasons for refusal were based on historic consultation response from the Highways Authority.  She said that the more recent traffic survey undertaken had been considered and accepted by the Highway Authority, and with the proposed improvements to mitigate any concerns, noted that the Highways Authority had confirmed that it was now unreasonable to object on highway grounds.  She said the scheme would provide much needed new homes in a sustainable location. 

During members’ discussion, several comments were made including:

·         The Highway Authority were not taking responsibility and that members were asked to balance the need the housing and highway safety.

·         There was minimal room for road improvements as the road dropped away on one side and the other bounded an existing estate.

·         Would have an impact on current residential amenity.

·         This development would have a huge increase in the traffic in and around Crewkerne which already has a lack of infrastructure.

·         There is no employment proposed and no transport links.

·         The road is a single track lane which is already wholly overloaded.

·         This scheme would represent a significant traffic increase on the surrounding road network that would have a severe highway safety concern.

·         The site is on great benefit to local wildlife and ecology.

·         The traffic survey was not sufficient to make a full assessment on the application.

·         Appreciate the highway concerns, however a balanced judgement needs to be made given the Highways Authority had withdrawn their objection.

During a further discussion, members debated the three reason for refusal as recommended by the Area West Committee.

In response the Senior Planning Lawyer advised that should members be minded to refuse the application for the three reasons stated by Area West Committee, she felt that reason No. 3 would undermine the first two reasons for refusal; that is to say if there is not sufficient information submitted to allow the LPA to make a full assessment of the impact of the proposal, it could not reach the conclusions it did in points 1 and 2.

At the request of members and for clarification the Specialist – Development Management then read out the three reasons for refusal as set out in the agenda report as follows:

1.         Cathole Bridge Road by reason of its restricted width is considered unsuitable to serve as a means of access to the proposed development. The proposal is therefore contrary to Section 9 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and Policy TA5 of the South Somerset Local Plan (2015).

2.         The proposal is contrary to Section 9 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and Policy TA5 of the South Somerset Local Plan (2015) since the increased introduction of conflicting traffic movements onto Cathole Bridge Road, such as would be generated by the proposed development, would be prejudicial to highway safety.

3.         The submitted traffic survey is not sufficient for the Local Planning Authority to make a full assessment of the traffic impact of this proposal.

Following a short discussion, it was then proposed and subsequently seconded to refuse the application, for the first two reasons as resolved by the Area West Committee and re read out as follows:

1.         Cathole Bridge Road by reason of its restricted width is considered unsuitable to serve as a means of access to the proposed development. The proposal is therefore contrary to Section 9 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and Policy TA5 of the South Somerset Local Plan (2015).

2.         The proposal is contrary to Section 9 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and Policy TA5 of the South Somerset Local Plan (2015) since the increased introduction of conflicting traffic movements onto Cathole Bridge Road, such as would be generated by the proposed development, would be prejudicial to highway safety.

 On being put to the vote this was carried by 8 votes in favour, 2 against, 1 abstentions.

RESOLVED:

That planning application 18/01737/OUT be refused for the following reasons:

1.         Cathole Bridge Road by reason of its restricted width is considered unsuitable to serve as a means of access to the proposed development. The proposal is therefore contrary to Section 9 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and Policy TA5 of the South Somerset Local Plan (2015).

2.         The proposal is contrary to Section 9 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and Policy TA5 of the South Somerset Local Plan (2015) since the increased introduction of conflicting traffic movements onto Cathole Bridge Road, such as would be generated by the proposed development, would be prejudicial to highway safety.

(voting: 8 in favour, 2 against, 1 abstention)