Agenda item

Outline application for residential development of up to 24 No. dwellings, access via the existing Fox and Hounds Public House access, provision of orchard, public open space and associated infrastructure.

The Lead Specialist, Development Management, introduced the report in the absence of the case officer.  He advised the application was for outline permission for 24 dwellings with access through the car park of the Fox and Hounds public house.  A late representation had been received from the Chair of Governors of the Charlton Mackrell primary school stating that they were operating below their capacity of 90 pupils and so the school welcomed appropriate developments which attract families to the area.  He noted that an additional condition was proposed to phase works to allow footpath links to existing rights of way.  He advised that:-

·         The site was 2.5ha in size and to the east of Charlton Adam.

·         The Parish Council had made reference to the linear form of development in Charlton Adam however, this had been breached by developments at Withyhayes Road and Neville Close.

·         The field to the north of the site had planning permission for 8 dwellings approved in 2017 – 2019.

·         The site was remote from the conservation area and heritage assets within the village.

·         A previous application in 2016 at the site was refused permission because of vehicle access but this had been changed to access through the public house car park.

·         There was a proposed pedestrian access to a forecourt area to provide a link to the village.

·         The application was for outline permission and so all details relating to layout and design were for later determination.

·         The hedgerow boundaries and trees were conditioned to be protected.

·         There was a visibility splay of 43m either side of the access and the application was supported by the SCC Highway Authority.

·         All policies of the Local Plan were complied with.

·         The lack of a 5 year housing land supply and the lack of technical objections meant that presumption was in favour of the development.

·         35% affordable housing would be provided and contributions would be made towards education and sports/leisure in the area.

·         Flooding and drainage were a concern for Area East Committee and so representatives of Wessex Water were present at the meeting.

·         There had been a significant number of representations received but the weight of objection could not be a reason for refusal.  There must be clear planning reasons to refuse.

·         The reasons for refusal put forward by Area East Committee were addressed in the report and officers from Wessex Water and SCC Highways were present.

In response to questions from Members, the representative from Wessex Water and the Lead Specialist, Development Management advised:-

·         Non-return valves were usually installed in properties lower than the sewerage system or where deemed necessary.

·         There were over 1,200 overflows in the Wessex Water area which were permitted by the Environment Agency to protect properties from sewer flooding.  Details of how often this occurred was published on their website.

·         Wessex Water could not refuse to connect new properties to an existing water and sewage system but would install mitigation measures so any new connection did not make the existing system any worse.

·         Some sewer relining had already been undertaken in Charlton Adam and more would be done in the future.

·         Developers pay an Infrastructure charge to Wessex Water and part of this was used to instigate improvements to the existing system.

·         There was an overflow from the Charlton Adam pumping station into the watercourse adjacent to the site which operated during periods of prolonged wet weather but the sewage entering the watercourse would be very dilute. 

·         An overflow monitoring system was due to be installed at the pumping station.

One of the Ward Members, Councillor Charlie Hull spoke of his opposition to the application.  He said the development was not safe, necessary or deliverable.  There had been rapid housing developments in Somerton and Ilchester but employment opportunities were lacking within a 30 minute drive of Charlton Adam.  The local primary school was anticipated to be at full capacity within 5 years without any additional development.  The 24 houses proposed would be mostly unaffordable for young families and would create dangerous levels of traffic and hazardous emissions.  

The Committee were then addressed by the Chairman of the Parish Council and 5 local residents in opposition to the application.  Their comments included:-

·         The Parish Council had written twice in detail but their concerns were not addressed in the officer’s report, particularly reference to Policy SS2.

·         The development proposed was a suburban cul-de-sac which was at odds with the linear development in the village.

·         The historic gap between Broadway and Charlton Adam should be preserved.

·         The village already had poor sewer capacity.

·         There had always been issues with flooding in the parish but in the last 5 years they had got worse.  Some residents had sewage entering their showers and toilets.

·         In 2014 the overflow from the pumping station was in operation for 6 weeks.

·         Local Plan policies and the NPPF stated that developments should have safe access for all, limit the need to travel and make pedestrian and cycle access a top priority but this village had no public transport and all services were to the west in Somerton.

·         The developers proposal for a safe pedestrian access to the village was disingenuous as it was currently an agricultural access and not a footpath.

·         The only deliverable footpath to the development would be through the public house’s garden and access to the village would be along the roadside by a narrow s bend with no walkway which would be dangerous for pedestrians and road users.

·         There was no evidence the police authority were consulted on the only deliverable footpath access past the public house, which was also an inappropriate route for children and minors.

·         The Supreme Court had ruled that just because a policy is out of date it does not mean it should be ignored.  It was stated in a recent appeal that where an authority was unable to demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply, it was for the decision makers to use their planning judgement to decide the weight given to its housing policies.

·         The SSDC Housing & Employment Land analysis states that the Charltons have seen a growth of 39 dwellings achieved against a growth figure of 21 with a further 16 committed.

The Committee were then addressed by two local residents in support of the application.  Their comments included:-

·         Most of the objections were from people who had only lived in the village for relatively a short time. 

·         The village had good local facilities and needed to grow, otherwise, the applicant would gain permission on appeal. 

·         We are responsible to deliver authentic quality buildings which create a material benefit to the village with gardens, use of natural materials and incorporating energy efficient solutions.

·         A recent development at Keinton Mandeville has had a positive impact on their village shop. 

The Committee were then addressed by the Agent for the applicant.  He noted that Wessex Water had not raised any objection to the application and they were relining and rerouting the sewers in the area.  There were no objections raised by the Highway Authority and there was no history of collisions in the area on their website.  The footpath connections were proposed. The site would deliver affordable housing and the application was supported by the local primary school and two local businesses.  He concluded that the previous reasons for refusal put forward by the Area East Committee had been addressed, there were no technical reasons to refuse it and so he asked the Committee to support the officer’s recommendation to approve. 

One of the Ward Members, Councillor Paul Rowsell, said that there was no history of accidents and local residents had been walking at the side of the road for years.  His only concern were the sewage issues in the area.

The other Ward Member, Councillor Tony Capozzoli, said the public footpaths had been clarified and reiterated the point that local residents were used to walking at the side of the road.  He said land supply was a problem and he proposed the officer’s recommendation to approve the application.

This was seconded by Councillor Andy Soughton.

The Lead Specialist for Development Management and the representative from Wessex Water confirmed that:-

·         the overflow into the watercourse was to the north east, outside the boundary of the development.

·         Wessex Water were a discretionary consultee but they were routinely consulted on relevant developments.  Other water management consultees were the Lead Local Flood Authority and the Environment Agency.

·         It was legitimate to condition drainage of the land and sewage in outline approval conditions which could be linked to the submission of the reserved matters application.

·         Refusing an application for a reason which could be mitigated by a condition would be held against the Council at any subsequent appeal.

·         It was possible that some funding from the development could be used to bring forward sewage improvements.

During discussion, the following points were made:-

·         Other developments had to install attenuation tanks for surface water drainage but raw sewage was allowed to be pumped into a watercourse here.

·         concern at the pedestrian access through the public house garden and also the potential flood area concern.  

·         There were no statement of community engagement from the applicant to support the application.

·         Allowing the development will bring sufficient built form to make the separation between Charlton Adam and Broadway even less.

·         Reasons 1 & 2 of refusal of the 2017 application were still valid as the viability and practicality of the footpath had not changed.

·         Not heard any solutions to the flooding and sewage problems in the area.

·         Imposing a condition to upgrade the pumping station could affect the viability of the scheme and the applicant could appeal that condition. 

Following discussions to impose conditions to cease the discharge of sewage into the nearby watercourse prior to the development commencing, a 15 minute adjournment was taken for officers to discuss this with the applicant’s agent, Wessex Water and legal officers.

On re-convening, the Lead Specialist for Development Management advised that they had discussed a condition which Members and the applicant would find acceptable to approve the application.  The Wessex Water representative had pointed out that foul sewage drainage was an existing problem in the village and any development should only need to mitigate its own impact rather that address the existing problems.  The Wessex Water programme of improvements would continue and a standard condition would suffice and be judged at the appropriate time of the developments progress against the ongoing Wessex Water improvement works.  If the improvement works had not progressed sufficiently when the development needed to connect to the sewage system then a condition to include sufficient on-site storage to offset that impact would be needed.  Therefore, the proposed condition was:-

“Prior to the commencement of the development a scheme of foul sewage drainage shall be submitted to and approved by the LPA all agreed measures to be implemented prior to the first occupation”.

He clarified that the discharge into the ditch was by reason of an existing problem and a condition of the development could not be made to address existing sewage problems in the village.  The development was only required not to make the existing situation any worse.  The developer must not be included in the works of Wessex Water to avoid any transference of obligation.

The Chairman noted that the officer’s recommendation to approve permission hand been proposed and seconded with the additional condition: Prior to the commencement of the development a scheme of foul sewage drainage shall be submitted to and approved by the LPA all agreed measures to be implemented prior to the first occupation.  This was put to the vote and failed by 4 votes in favour and 6 against with no abstentions.

It was then proposed and seconded that the application be refused for the following reasons:

1. The proposal fails to provide adequate foul sewerage drainage which would lead to the discharge of effluent into the eastern ditch which could impact on human health, contrary to Policies EQ2 and EQ7 of the South Somerset Local Plan (2006-2028).
2. The proposed in-depth development by reason of the site's relationship to the existing built form - the spread and dis-aggregated traditional linear character of Charlton Adam - is not commensurate with the scale and character of the settlement, and neither reinforces local distinctiveness or respects local context. As such the proposal is contrary to local plan policy EQ2 and SS2 of the South Somerset Local Plan (2006- 2028).
3. The development fails to provide inclusive, safe and convenient access on foot that addresses the needs of all, contrary to Policy TA5 of the South Somerset Local Plan (2006-2028).

This was put to the vote and was confirmed by 6 votes in favour and 4 against with no abstentions.

It was noted that data on the dilution of the effluent discharged into the watercourse would be helpful.

RESOLVED:

That planning application 18/03298/OUT be refused for the following reasons:

4. The proposal fails to provide adequate foul sewerage drainage which would lead to the discharge of effluent into the eastern ditch which could impact on human health, contrary to Policies EQ2 and EQ7 of the South Somerset Local Plan (2006-2028).
5. The proposed in-depth development by reason of the site's relationship to the existing built form - the spread and dis-aggregated traditional linear character of Charlton Adam - is not commensurate with the scale and character of the settlement, and neither reinforces local distinctiveness or respects local context. As such the proposal is contrary to local plan policy EQ2 and SS2 of the South Somerset Local Plan (2006- 2028).
6. The development fails to provide inclusive, safe and convenient access on foot that addresses the needs of all, contrary to Policy TA5 of the South Somerset Local Plan (2006-2028).

(Voting: 6 in favour, 4 against, 0 abstentions)