Agenda item

Application Proposal: Outline application for mixed development comprising residential development of up to 295 dwellings, provision of a floodlit full size football pitch, unlit full size training pitch and community sports pitch with associated multi use clubhouse, spectator facilities and vehicular parking area; hub for local neighbourhood facilities and other community uses, public open space, landscaping, drainage and other facilities; associated vehicular and pedestrian accesses, land regrading, associated infrastructure and engineering works.

The Agency Planner updated the report and advised that Condition 1 required an amendment to make reference to the outline status of the application.  He also proposed amendments to Conditions 29 and 30 to include an implementation and retention clause.  The S106 agreement also required an amendment to include the management of public open space.  He advised that 21 letters of objection had been received since the last Committee meeting in relation to the proposal not confirming to the Chard Regeneration Strategy, no employment, no capacity at local school, harmful to the landscape, roads have no capacity for further cars, detrimental impact on wildlife, flooding and drainage issues, impact on Cuttiford’s Door, loss of amenity land and loss of agricultural land.  A further letter of representation had also been submitted regarding quality of due diligence checks on the applicant’s submitted information, lack of clear demonstration of checks and approval process of reports, inaccurate representations of the objections from the public, incomplete analysis of construction impact on surroundings and errors in the traffic survey and access statement.  The comments of the Lead Officer in response to the points raised were noted by members.

With the aid of a powerpoint presentation, the Agency Planner gave a detailed presentation outlining the following:

·         The application site and surrounding area.

·         The access was for detailed consideration.

·         Key considerations were outline application – access for consideration, principle of development, highways, landscape, ecology, flooding, Chard Town Football Club.

·         Indicative plans of the site and artist’s impression of the scheme.

·         Location of the football pitches, proposed stadium, community hub, open space, village green, planting/woodland area and residential development area. 

·         Summary of the Appeal Inspectors Decision on the previous application which was dismissed at appeal and its relevance.

·         Various photographs were shown around the site including the junction leading into the site, views across the playspace, top of the access road looking across the site, existing access road and parking restrictions proposed.

·         Plan showing existing access road and parking restrictions.

·         Acceptable landscape setting.  The proposed layout included a 30 metre buffer with a tree belt to reduce the landscape impact.

·         Proposed emergency access points and bus stops.

·         Ecology measures proposed.

·         The site was at low risk of flooding and surface water could be controlled.

·         Drainage was acceptable subject to conditions.

·         Location of the proposed pedestrian island, signalling lights and zebra crossing to encourage walking from the site into town.

·         The Council did not have a 5 year housing land supply therefore policy states that policies that restrain housing delivery are not up to date and therefore sustainable development should be granted permission unless adverse impacts outweigh the benefits. 

·         The Highway Authority considered the application to be acceptable subject to further work being undertaken on the Travel Plan.

·         The development would create employment through the construction phases and community use.

The Agency Planner concluded that the application was recommended for approval subject to conditions and the prior completion of a Section 106 planning obligation.

In response to members’ questions, the Agency Planner and Lead Specialist - Planning confirmed the following:

·         Accessing the site for construction was set out in the Construction Management Plan which would prevent trucks going through the residential area.

·         It was a criminal offence to break the 7 ½ tonne limit.

·         The emergency access would be controlled by a keypad or combination lock that would prevent non-emergency use.

·         A haul road was a temporary road in place whilst contraction was taking place.

·         A condition would be in place to stop the developer changing the emergency access to normal traffic use.

·         The application did not propose a crossing to the play area.

·         Exact details of car parking spaces were not confirmed as this was an outline application and would form part of the reserved matters application.

·         The applicant’s submitted Transport Assessment stated that it was not anticipated that the Football Club would generate a material number of weekday peak hour trips and was therefore not seen as being a significant issue.

·         The Inspector gave the Council time and respected the fact that the Council was soon to be approving a Local Plan and was setting out a vision for developing the CEDA area.  It was recognised by the Inspector that failure to deliver a CEDA site would be picked up by the Council’s monitoring and should that situation arise the Council should take appropriate remedial action.

·         If the application were to go to appeal, it would be recognised that the CEDA plan had faltered.

·         The layout compared to the appeal scheme was slightly different with more open space and greenery on the periphery.

·         The last report undertaken to monitor the Council’s position with regard to the 5 year housing land supply was completed in August which showed that the Council had a supply of 4.5 years.  Commencements on site were included but not permissions granted so there was often a time lag.

·         It was for members to judge in the knowledge of the Inspectors decision, whether they wished to argue the same issues raised in 2014.

·         Legal advice was that any Environmental Impact Assessment based on cumulative impact could not be insisted upon.

·         The applicant had conformed to the policy compliant figure for affordable housing.

·         The Blackdown Hills AONB had not been consulted on the application.

·         The applicant had agreed to make a financial contribution towards the improvements at the Victoria Avenue/Furnham Road junction.

·         There were no changes proposed to the Convent Link junction.

·         One of the fields on the site was allocated in the Local Plan.

A representative from Somerset County Council Highway Authority informed the Committee of the following:

·         The junction layout, design and construction at Furnham Road/Victoria Avenue would be agreed with the Highway Authority to ensure that the timings on the signal heads would make the junction far more efficient in order to mitigate against any increase in traffic.

·         During the design of the scheme, the two junctions would be linked so all the timings work together.

·         The Convent Link junctions do have heavy traffic through them at times but the levels of trips through it were not considered severe and therefore it wasn’t warranted to make any improvements.

·         Cumulative effect studies could not be required as part of the Transport Assessments.

·         The Transport Assessments presented by the applicant included growth factors and also made allowance for the adjacent site but did not include other applications for both employment and residential land that had taken place over the recent months.

·         The Highway Authority assessed the figures presented by the applicant and looked at the impact on all the junctions.  Questions were raised when the scheme was first looked at over traffic impact but since that time the appeal inspector had concluded that there was no problem.  It was difficult to raise and sustain objections on Local Plan sites and sites that were considered sustainable. 

The Committee was addressed by a representative from Combe St Nicholas Parish Council in objection to the application.  Comments raised related to the following:

·         The development was outside of the Chard boundary.

·         It would have the effect of just under a 50% increase in the number of houses in Combe St Nicolas Parish.

·         The proposal would join the small hamlet of Cuttiford’s Door to Chard.

·         All the infrastructure should be in place before any approval is given – the current infrastructure was unsuitable and most schools were full.

·         Concerns over light pollution and sound from the football club having an adverse effect on the residents of Cuttiford’s Door.

·         Cuttiford’s Door Road along the northern boundary of the site was in bad condition and would get worse.

·         Concerns over road water run-off.

·         The new footpath access onto Cuttiford’s Door Road was potentially dangerous and would encourage parking along the lane near to the pitches with no provision for pedestrians.

·         Concerns about the siting of bus stops along Crimchard by the site – placing them on or near the bend would be dangerous.

·         If approved a condition needs to be in place to ensure no connecting link road be allowed between this site and the Barrett Homes site.  Extra vehicles along Crimchard Road would be dangerous at the narrow point and cause more vehicles to use the unclassified road through Wadeford and Combe St Nicholas.  Construction traffic would also increase the dangers along these roads.

·         The situation of dormice should not be disregarded.

The Committee was then addressed by eight people in objection to the application.  Concerns raised related to the following:

·         Concerns over a future connection between this site and the Barrett Homes site.

·         Sport England had not supported a new football club in this location due to it being in a floodzone.

·         More traffic in and through Combe St Nicholas and local roads do not have the capacity to absorb extra traffic.

·         Lack of infrastructure.

·         Most parts of the roads in Wadeford and Combe St Nicholas were single file with no footpaths for long stretches.

·         Cuttiford’s Door into Wadeford and Combe St Nicholas is already used as a cut through and rat run and there is no traffic control.  The development would mean an increase in traffic, pollution, congestion and noise and potential for increased accidents.

·         Proposed development site provides an extensive sway of open fields and countryside spread across the northern edge of the town and provides an attractive and valuable landscape.

·         Lack of health centre provision.

·         Detrimental impact on dormice.

·         Who will check that the vehicles are 7 ½ tonnes and stop the emergency access being abused?

·         Residents would travel by car to access employment, schools and other facilities.

·         Need for sufficient flow in traffic within and outside of Chard.

·         New home for football club being used as a red herring.

·         Not in accordance with the Local Plan and outside of development limits.

·         Scheme would be a significant traffic generator.

·         There would be a significant and detrimental impact on the various species of wildlife on the site.

·         Not part of Chard Regeneration Framework.

·         Scheme would benefit no one but the Football Club and the developers.

·         Poor local junctions and visibility with many narrow roads.

·         Development would vastly extend the built up area to the historic boundary on the edge of Cuttiford’s Door which would lose its’ identify and become a suburb of Chard.

·         The hamlet already suffered from light and noise pollution from the Business Park, Cricket, Rugby and Football Clubs and loud music from these social clubs often continued into the evening.

·         If the development is permitted noise and light would be brought into the countryside and the rural ambiance of the hamlet would be destroyed.

The Committee was addressed by three people in support of the application.  Comments raised related to the following:

·         This development would have little effect on the settlement of Combe St Nicholas and would not increase its size by 50% as suggested.

·         Development an extension of Chard and not Combe St Nicholas.

·         The relocation of the football club was a top priority within the Chard Regeneration Plan.

·         Will provide additional sports pitches for the town which has the highest shortfall in Somerset.

·         The Local Plan has failed to deliver the additional houses.

·         The revised application has addressed the concerns originally raised.

·         Lack of playing pitches in Chard.

·         Current facilities fall short of FA requirements.

·         County League position in jeopardy.

·         The Club has searched for many years for a new ground.

·         Legal agreement would bind the football club to the land.

·         A haul road was included in the application at the existence of the football club as a temporary measure to protect the clubs’ interests and to develop the site quickly and in the very unlikely event that the house builders are unable to provide an access road and utilities to the site within 12 months.  The haul road is unlikely to be needed and would only be a temporary surface and only used for the purpose of developing the new ground.

·         The new clubhouse would be similar to the current clubhouse and would provide ample provision for private parking.

·         Imperative for the Chard Football Club to be rehoused otherwise it would go out of existence.

The Applicant’s Agent addressed the Committee.  Points raised related to the following:

·         SSDC was not able to demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply.

·         The Strategy for Chard had not proceeded as envisaged.

·         The appeal dismissed in June 2015.

·         This proposal had been amended since the appeal decision to include a reduction in the number of houses and an increase in sports pitches.

·         There were no site specific objections.

·         The Highway Authority have confirmed that the access was acceptable and the proposals would not result in a severe traffic impact in Chard taking into account the cumulative impact of all permitted and proposed developments.

·         Traffic analysis submitted with the application made an allowance for traffic growth to be generated by all development allocated in the Local Plan including the Barrett Homes site.

·         Scheme provided a range of benefits including a policy compliant level of affordable housing, significant boost in housing which would count towards the Council’s 5 year housing land supply, site available, developable and would be brought forward by the applicants in a timely manner, relocation of Chard Town Football Club and additional sports pitches for Chard.

·         The Environmental Impact Assessment submitted with the application looked at cumulative impact.

The Chairman read a short statement submitted on behalf of the Ward Member Councillor Jenny Kenton.  Although she fully appreciated the needs of Chard Town Football club and that the development would deliver their much needed new pitch she also supported the views expressed by the residents of Cuttiford’s Door, Wadeford and Combe St Nicholas.  Reference was made to the extra strain on the Convent Link junction and this out of phase housing impacting the development of a new link road.  It would also impact the direction of preferred growth by flooding the market and causing a lack of requirement for houses in Chard that would build the link road.  She referred to there being evidence of dormice and other protected species in the area and the ecology report identifying the hedgerows as species rich.  The development did not deliver any employment land and encroached heavily on the settlement of Cuttiford’s Door.

The other Ward Member, Councillor Martin Wale referred to the following:

·         The importance of delivering the Local Plan. 

·         Disappointed that there was little reference in the report to the needs of Combe St Nicholas and Cuttiford’s Door. 

·         The development would have an impact on the local roads.

·         The importance of the Blackdown Hills AONB.

·         Two thirds of site was not included as housing allocation in the Local Plan or the Chard Regeneration Plan.

·         Was of the opinion that the land was left as a buffer zone between Cuttiford’s Door and Combe St Nicolas and the AONB and should remain.

·         Land was good quality agricultural land which should be maintained.

·         Notwithstanding the failed Local Plan and the Council’s lack of a 5 year housing land supply to approve the application would be go against Policy and the advice of the Council’s Ecologist.

·         The application should be rejected on the following grounds: area of particular importance, adverse impact of development significantly outweighs the benefits when measured against Planning Policies.

During the discussion, varying views were expressed by Members.  Comments raised related to the following:

·         The indicative layout was a big improvement on the previous scheme.

·         Concerns over traffic impact in Chard town centre which was already a severe problem.  The Convent Link was already operating at over capacity.

·         Chard needed to move forward and growth of the town needed to be on the eastern development area as well.

·         The scheme did not provide any link between the A358 and A30 which would alleviate some of the problems in the town centre.

·         Harm to landscape, ecology and wildlife.

·         Loss of agricultural land and greenfields.

·         AONB not consulted.

·         Development not appropriate for this site.

·         Highway infrastructure not adequate.

·         Good looking scheme.

·         Chard Town Football Club provide a massive facility for the town and should be supported.

·         Lack of playing pitches in Chard.

·         Accept problems in Cuttiford’s Door but don’t agree development would have a large impact on Combe St Nicholas.

·         Need for some form of sensitive road testing to be applied in Chard generally which would support future developments.

·         Access to the site was acceptable in terms of safety.

It was proposed and seconded to recommend refusal of the application.  The Lead Specialist – Planning suggested to members the following reason for refusal based on the grounds put forward by the Ward Member:

·         The site is within an area of landscape importance between Chard and Cuttiford’s Door, on the periphery of the AONB. The resultant demonstrable harm is not outweighed by the benefits and therefore the scheme is contrary to policies EQ2 and EQ5 of the South Somerset Local Plan (2006-2028) and the NPPF.

·         The proposal prejudices the delivery of the Chard Regeneration Plan forming part of the Council’s Local Plan and on which work has started; therefore, the proposal is contrary to policies PMT1, PMT2, SS3 and SS5 of the South Somerset Local Plan (2006-2028).

On being put to the vote there were 5 votes in favour and 5 votes against.  The Chairman used his casting vote in favour recommending refusal of the application.