Agenda item

Application Proposal: The erection of 142 dwellings together with associated infrastructure including access/highway improvements, drainage and attenuation, play area, open space and landscaping.

The Agency Planner updated that Barratt Homes had offered to increase their Section 106 payment by £20,000 towards the feasibility work required for the Chard link.  A further 19 letters of objection had been received since the last Committee meeting reconfirming that the proposal does not conform with the Chard Regeneration Strategy, no capacity at the school, harmful to landscape, no further capacity for cars, detrimental impact on wildlife, flooding and drainage issues and loss of agricultural land.  The same letter which had been submitted on the previous application had also been submitted on this application.

The Agency Planner gave a detailed presentation on the application which covered the following:

·         The key considerations associated with the application were principle of development, highways, ecology, flooding, visual impact, layout, scale and design and residential amenity.

·         Summary of Appeal Inspector’s decision and its’ relevance.

·         Site layout and surrounding area.

·         Access details to the site.

·         Proposed highway improvements and footpath links.

·         Location of the play area and open space.

·         Location of the surface water attenuation area and ecological habitat enhancements.

·         New planting along the southern and northern boundaries and instant hedging along the western boundary.

·         The proposed development would make provision for 50 affordable dwellings.

·         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. 

·         No objections raised from Highways.

·         The Council’s Ecologist did not object to the proposal and had recommended mitigation conditions.

·         An Environmental Impact Assessment could not be insisted upon.

·         Flooding and drainage measures were both satisfactory.

·         No objection in terms of Landscape setting.

·         Layout offers an arrangement that allows future residents and existing neighbouring residents to enjoy a good level of residential amenity in terms of overlooking and general loss of privacy.

The Agency Planner concluded that given the lack of demonstrable harm and the benefits that the scheme would provide in the provision of housing including affordable dwellings, economic benefits during construction and new occupants in the town the application was recommended for approval subject to conditions and the completion of a Section 106 agreement.

In response to members’ questions, the Agency Planner confirmed the following:

·         The position of the turning head;

·         The new application for 142 dwellings required new supporting information.  Any reference to 110 dwellings was an error in the report.

·         There was little difference between 110 and 142 in terms of landscape impact.

·         The Landscape Assessment identified that the site had a high capacity for development.

·         The 110 dwellings may have included many more larger dwellings and often intensification of the site was because the units had become smaller.  It was for members to judge whether the proposals were a cramped form of development judged against existing patterns of development to the south.

·         The previous scheme protruded north whereas this scheme was much more in line with the edge of the settlement.

·         As the CRESTA Centre was no longer in operation, the community, health, leisure and open space contribution would go towards a different equivalent facility.

·         This site was not the preferred option for growth.  The Local Plan directed growth to the east.

·         The Transport Assessment was assessed by the Highway Authority.  They were satisfied that the right turn lane was not required.

·         The provision of car charge points was included as a standard condition.

·         Class 1 and Class 2 land was protected.  There was no significant weight given to Class 3 land.

The Committee was addressed by 4 people in objection to the application.  Concerns raised related to the following:

·         Increase in traffic

·         Insufficient traffic survey

·         Lack of on street parking

·         Lack of pathway into town

·         Lack of school places

·         Unsuitable site

·         This application and the previous application would become joined

·         Impact on wildlife

·         Lack of infrastructure

·         Increase in density to the previous application

·         The two-storey houses would overlook the bungalows

·         Development would not be sustainable

·         Poor visibility at the junction

·         Need for eco housing

·         Crimchard was a busy road and development would increase dangers

The Committee was then addressed by the Applicant and the Agent.  Points raised related to the following:

·         The size and scale of units had decreased compared to the previous scheme.

·         The previous scheme had no 1 bed dwellings and very little 2 bed dwellings.  This scheme was for 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 bedroom properties.

·         The size of the dwellings had been reduced in response to the local market.

·         The scheme provided an extra 10 affordable units.

·         Links to the north would require planning permission and were not included in this application.

·         A condition had been offered for the scheme to commence in 12 months.

·         In the Local Plan review, the site was encouraged to be brought forward for development.

·         The site was included in the Chard Regeneration Scheme in reserve and was not required at the time.

·         There was a shortfall of 700 homes in Chard.

·         The scheme did not prejudice the Eastern Development Area which could come forward in its own right.

·         The scheme would deliver 50 affordable units.

·         Proportionality Chard had the highest affordable housing need in the district.

·         The scheme would make a contribution towards education and a swimming pool.

The Ward Member, Councillor Martin Carnell stated that he was unable to support the Officer’s recommendation for the following reasons:

·         The site was not in accordance with the Local Plan

·         Development contrary to the Chard Regeneration Plan

·         Transport Assessment misrepresentation of reality on the ground

·         Junction of Cuttiford’s Door Road and Hornsbury Mill would not be wide enough to facilitate an HGV vehicle as stated in the Transport Assessment

·         On street parking in Helliers Road was almost permanent and not occasional as stated in the Transport Assessment.

·         Convent Link Junction assessment already deemed as high risk and nothing being done to mitigate against the increase in traffic.

·         Traffic Assessment not sufficient enough to make a decision on the application.

During the discussion on the application, members expressed varying views on the application which related to the following:

·         Loss of agricultural land

·         Ecological and landscape affect

·         Traffic assessment not fit for purpose

·         Chard had the highest need for affordable and social housing

·         The scheme would provide another 50 affordable homes which was needed in Chard

·         People born and brought up in Chard should be able to remain in Chard and contribute to the life of the town.

In response to a member question, the Highway Authority representative advised that the works to provide the access would be covered by a legal agreement.  The agreement would cover making sure that the road approaching the access was wide enough and appropriate visibility displays in place to allow for two way traffic.

At the conclusion of the debate, 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 issues raised during the debate:

·         The application contains a transport assessment that has failed to take into account local conditions and circumstances and proposes an access onto a busy, single carriageway width road with poor alignment. The proposal therefore fails to provide a safe and convenient access and is therefore contrary to policy TA5 of the South Somerset Local Plan (2006-2028).

·         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).

Members agreed with the suggested reason for refusal and on being put to the vote the application was recommended for refusal by 6 votes in favour and 3 votes against.