Agenda item

Erection of 39 No. dwellings and associated works including access, open space, parking, landscaping and drainage infrastructure

The Specialist, Development Management, introduced the report and advised that the application proposed 39 dwellings on a site in the centre of Merriott.  Land to the North already had outline planning permission for 30 dwellings which was a material consideration in the determination of this application.  Part of that application included a gift of land to the Parish Council which was immediately to the North of this application site.  He advised that:-

·         A revised site layout had been received.

·         10 additional car parking spaces were now proposed. 

·         A landscape plan was proposed.

·         Attenuation tanks would be sited underground. 

·         The stream through the site would be culverted.

·         The applicant was Stonewater Housing and 37 of the proposed 39 houses would be affordable.

·         The principle of development on the site had been established as there was an extant outline permission and this was a Full application.

To address the Area West Committee’s reasons for refusal, the Specialist, Development Management advised:-

·         A viability report had been received with the application and because the SCC Education Service had revised their pupil education contribution from 9 to 2 as enrolment at the school roll was falling, the Valuation Office had confirmed the scheme was now fully compliant with all other contributions.

·         The application proposed an additional 9 dwellings above the number already agreed at the site and although 200 new dwellings already had planning permission in Merriott, an additional 9 was not so significant to warrant refusal.

·         Merriott was a rural settlement and Policy SS2 would normally apply but it was considered out of date because of the Council’s lack of a 5 year housing land supply.

·         The optimum number of car parking spaces for the site was 125 and the application proposed 103, however, the Highway Authority had not raised any objections to this.

·         The drainage scheme had been amended to underground attenuation tanks and it was proposed to culvert the stream as a bridge across it was not viable.

·         The Right of Way across the site would need to be diverted and a separate application to SCC would need to be made but their Rights of Way officer had not raised any objections to this. 

·         The site was not part of the County Wildlife site as this was further to the West.

In response to questions from Members, the Specialist, Development Management advised:-

·         The local Flood Authority were satisfied with the proposed attenuation tanks and culverting of the stream.

·         SCC had increased their assessment of the number of children per household but the school roll showed a reduction in pupils.

·         A Housing Needs Assessment had been conducted in the village 2 years previously and it did reveal some demand for housing but there was also a district wide demand.

·         Existing development sites within the village included Church Street, Moorlands and Tail Mill – some were complete and some not yet started.

·         Ringfencing the affordable houses to local area residents was possible as part of the Section 106 Agreement.

·         It was not possible to prevent cars parking in the hammerhead turning area by planning condition.  Double yellow lines could be painted if there was a parking issue.

·         The applicant would be responsible for the maintenance of the attenuation tanks which would discharge into the local water course at an acceptable rate.

The Ward Member, Councillor Paul Maxwell paid tribute to the Specialist, Development Management for his professional service as he was due to take up new employment.  He said the original application had been controversial and it remained so.  It would be more harmful to allow 39 houses, the gradient at the site was steep, there were concerns about parking, loss of green fields and harm to the local ecology.  He referred to the poor public transport links to the village and said to grant permission would oppose the Council’s Environment Strategy and Housing Needs Assessment.  He asked that the Committee refuse permission.

The Committee were then addressed by two members of the Parish Council, the Parish Clerk, a representative of the Merriott Heritage Trust and a local resident in opposition to the application.  Their comments included:-

·           The Parish Council accepted the need for new homes but this was the fourth significant development in a rural settlement.  They request the application be refused so they can work with the developer to achieve a better scheme. 

·           Holywell is a historic route along a sunken footpath and to culvert this stream with 4m high banks where the gradient was 1:12 would create problems for anyone with significant mobility issues.

·           The development only proposed 83% of the optimum number of car parking spaces for the site.  A site a Castle Cary was refused permission with only 90%.

·           There were 7 requests for one bedroom accommodation on the Homefinder Somerset register but no one bedroom properties were proposed in the development.

·           The application did not propose any photovoltaic panels, electric vehicle charging points or ground source heat pumps which was at odds with the Council’s emerging Environment Strategy.

·           The land value assessment was produced with a deficit land value, based upon the actual price paid for the land which is contrary to planning guidance. This assessment cannot be relied upon to justify the viability.

·           The original assessment which secured the outline permission was based upon a bridge to cross the stream.  The current assessment uses the lower cost option of a culvert yet the external costs increased by 57% with no explanation.

·           The original outline assessment included 5 one bed dwellings but the current scheme provides no one bed dwellings.

·           The Merriott Heritage Trust interest is to protect Holwell Lane which leads to the Holy Well which is an ancient thoroughfare.

·           Holwell Lane had been deemed a public highway and if planning permission was granted then a stopping up order would be required from the Secretary of State rather than a Footpath Diversion Order.

·           The Parish Council gave conditional consent to the original outline application with an alternative access which had been disregarded by the developer.  That alternative access was available and should be investigated properly.

·           Shiremoor Brook runs through my property and can reach the top of the bank during high rainfall.  Object to replacing the attenuation ponds with tanks.  There needs to be better treatment of water on the site before permission is given.

The Agent for the applicant advised that 37 of the proposed 39 houses would be affordable and would be a mix of family homes and bungalows.  He noted that none of the statutory consultees had objected and the Development Officer had consistently recommended approval.  He said that a bridge over the stream was not viable and there had been no objection from the SCC Rights of Way Officer to divert the footpath.  He concluded that the scheme would be an asset to the village and asked the Committee to approve the application.

During discussion, the following points were made:-

·         SCC Highway Authority had a parking standard and it should be met.

·         There were no proposals to include solar energy, electric charging points or to orient the houses for maximum solar gain. 

·         The application had not changed significantly from that refused by Area West Committee.

·         The lack of public transport in the village meant cars were essential and the lack of car parking spaces would be a problem.

·         If the public thought there was no development happening in a village then they would not register an interest to live there on Homefinder Somerset.

·         Outline permission for 30 houses had already been agreed.

At the conclusion of the debate, it was proposed and seconded to approve the application with an additional condition requiring electric vehicle charging points at the site.  However, on being put to the vote, this proposal was defeated by 3 votes in favour and 8 against. 

Members then discussed possible reasons to refuse permission and it was agreed to adjourn the meeting for 5 minutes for officers and Members to propose valid reasons for refusal.

When the meeting re-adjourned, the following reasons for refusing permission were proposed:

1. The development has 22 fewer parking spaces than required by the adopted Somerset County Council Parking Strategy which would result in overspill of parking onto the estate road causing an adverse impact to highway safety and causing difficulty for emergency services. This would be contrary to Polices EQ2, TA5 and TA6 of the South Somerset Local Plan (2006-2028).
2. The culverting of the stream impacts adversely upon biodiversity and heritage assets whilst raising watercourse maintenance issues and requiring the diversion of the right of way to a suboptimal alternative contrary to Polices EQ2, EQ3 EQ4 of the South Somerset Local Plan (2006-2028) and Chapters 15 and 16 of the NPPF.
3. The scheme fails to maximise solar gain opportunities and excludes the provision of air source heat pumps and solar panels, contrary to the sustainable construction aims and objectives of Policy EQ1 of the South Somerset Local Plan (2006-2028) and Chapter 14 of the NPPF.
4. The proposal does not include any 1 bed dwellings within the affordable housing mix and therefore fails to address local housing need as identified by application 16/00865/OUT.

The Lead Specialist, Development Management advised that the Local Plan did not contain a substantial policy on solar gain or air source heat and so the reason for refusal gave him some concern.  Also, there was no specific policy requiring 1 bed properties and further consultation may be required to substantiate this reason. 

On being put to the vote, planning permission was refused by 8 votes in favour and 3 against. 

RESOLVED: That planning application 18/01917/FUL be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1. The development has 22 fewer parking spaces than required by the adopted Somerset County Council Parking Strategy which would result in overspill of parking onto the estate road causing an adverse impact to highway safety and causing difficulty for emergency services. This would be contrary to Polices EQ2, TA5 and TA6 of the South Somerset Local Plan (2006-2028).
2. The culverting of the stream impacts adversely upon biodiversity and heritage assets whilst raising watercourse maintenance issues and requiring the diversion of the right of way to a suboptimal alternative contrary to Polices EQ2, EQ3 EQ4 of the South Somerset Local Plan (2006-2028) and Chapters 15 and 16 of the NPPF.
3. The scheme fails to maximise solar gain opportunities and excludes the provision of air source heat pumps and solar panels, contrary to the sustainable construction aims and objectives of Policy EQ1 of the South Somerset Local Plan (2006-2028) and Chapter 14 of the NPPF.
4. The proposal does not include any 1 bed dwellings within the affordable housing mix and therefore fails to address local housing need as identified by application 16/00865/OUT.

(Voting: 8 in favour, 3 against, 0 abstentions)