Agenda item

Proposal: Outline application for the development of up to 35 dwellings with all matters reserved except access including the demolition of the existing building and highways works to Claycastle

The Development Management Specialist introduced the report and advised that one further neighbour comment had been received questioning the surface water flooding at the site.  She further noted that another application for 34 dwellings and a village hall at another site in the village had been received since this was submitted and that a legal opinion had been received which argued that the two applications should be determined at the same time.  The legal opinion also mentioned inadequacy of the submitted information and prematurity relating to the Local Plan and possible change in village hierarchy.

The Legal Specialist said the legal opinion had raised a number of points; it argued that this application be deferred to allow the Manor Farm application to be ready to be determined so the cumulative impacts of the 2 applications could be considered together. She said that she did not see that there was legal reason sufficient to withstand challenge to defer the determination of this application to wait on the Manor Farm application to be ready to be determined. She confirmed that each application should be considered in accordance with the policies of the Local Plan at that time on its merits taking into account all the responses from the statutory consultees, (highways, planning policy) and other material considerations.  She confirmed that, as far as she was aware, the Local Plan did not contain a policy which would prevent the current application being considered now and the Manor Farm application coming forward at a later stage; based on the principle of fairness and justice the Courts had accepted where there were 2 similar applications being heard then the application first submitted and ready shall be the first to be determined.  She confirmed that the Regulation Committee were not bound to follow a decision of a previous Area Committee which resolved to defer a matter it was considering.  If the members felt there was insufficient information provided in respect of this application to make the decision then they should seek provision of the information but she cautioned against deferral for information that would not be material to the decision making process.  She confirmed that it was not considered that any prematurity argument would be upheld on appeal.

The Development Management Specialist confirmed the village was listed as a rural settlement in the Local Plan with some local services.  She outlined the site with an indicative layout of the proposed housing and the proposed widening to the access lane to improve visibility.  Improvements to local footpaths adjacent to the site would assist access to the village.  She noted there was some surface water flooding risk across the site although the Lead Flood Authority had not raised any objections.  A local resident had submitted photographs which detailed local flooding on Claycastle and Stonage Lane as well as the poor nature of Claycastle in terms of its width and layout.  She noted that a local resident had submitted their own highway report which had been forwarded to the Highway Authority for consideration. The Officer read out to Committee the Highway Authority’s comments received that morning which concluded that they did not object to application.  She confirmed her recommendation remained to grant permission subject to conditions.

Additionally the Development Management Specialist advised the Committee that in response to Drainage reports and Ecology information provided by third parties the relevant Consultees for these matters had been asked to review this information but both the Lead Local Flood Authority and Council’s Ecologist continued to raise no objection to the scheme. The latest comments received from the Lead local Flood Authority were read out in full by the Officer.

In response to questions from Members, the Development Management Specialist and Legal Specialist confirmed:-

·         There was no reason sufficiently strong enough to withstand challenge to defer the application because there was another development site proposed within the village.  If it were deferred then Members should be aware the applicant had the right to seek non-determination of the application. 

·         The Haselbury Plucknett Village Plan was dated 2014 and because of its age only limited weight could be given to it.

·         Haselbury Plucknett was listed as a rural settlement in the Local Plan and as such did not have a development area. 

·         The Council’s Egologist had not raised any objection to the application and had mitigated ecology in the conditions of approval.

·         The local education authority had not requested any contribution towards education from the development in the Section 106 obligation.

·         Any water run off from the site would be accommodated through a sustainable urban drainage scheme (SUDS) and the proposed attenuation pond at the Reserved Matters application.

·         The proposed fencing/barrier along Small Brook would be part of the Reserved Matters application.

·         Landscape settlement character was a subjective matter of opinion.

The Ward Member, Councillor Oliver Patrick, advised that the development represented a sizeable expansion into open countryside, it did not respect local distinctiveness and bordered the neighbouring parish.  The access road to the site could not give adequate access to the village for pedestrians resulting in over-reliance on cars and the surface water flooding at Claycastle was regular during the winter months.  He concluded that houses had been constructed in rural settlements far in excess of those anticipated within the Council’s Local Plan and if the development went ahead, together with the one proposed at Manor Farm, it would represent a 23% increase in housing in the village.  He asked that permission be refused for these reasons.

The Committee were then addressed by a representative of the Parish Council who said that 124 local residents had attended a parish meeting to discuss the application and none were in favour of it.  The application had 213 letters of objection and none supporting it whereas the site at Manor Farm had widespread support.  The Village Plan supported small scale development, infill and conversion.  He said there had been no robust consultation or housing need identified and the development would have a significantly detrimental impact on the village.

The Committee were then addressed by 5 local residents whose comments included:-

·         A highway audit was carried out by local professionally qualified residents and concluded the access road was narrow, presented safety problems to pedestrians and was prone to flooding.  Additional traffic would increase the danger.  The Highway Authority’s proposed conditions of approval could not be achieved.  The footpath was not a viable route to the village.

·         An ecology report produced by a local expert said that local wildlife including deer, badgers, foxes and bats all used the site for feeding and dormice were found at the edge of the site, which were protected.  Small brook bordered the site and provided further evidence of water voles presence which were also a protected species.  Their food source could be at risk of pollution from water run-off from the site.  Mitigation measures would not compensate for their loss of habitat.  The application was contrary to several policies of the Local Plan.

·         A qualified hydrologist spoke regarding flood risk in the area.  He said that the site was not near a main river but Small brook flooded regularly across the site.  He said the Flood Risk Assessment had not taken account of water run off from the adjacent road and the proposed storage pond did not take account of any additional flood water flowing onto the site. 

·         A representative of the CPRE said they had serious concerns regarding landscape harm, ribbon development, harm to the heritage of a listed building and the emerging SSDC Local Plan. He said the site was not commensurate with the village character, which was linear.  The emerging Local Plan did not list the village as a rural settlement for sustainable development but as countryside not for development. 

·         A planning lawyer advised that limited information given regarding Small brook and the drainage from the site were a reserved matter so Members did not have the full information before them.  He said the alternative site at Manor Farm was preferable as it was a brownfield site and it was a material consideration.  A recent parish meeting found no support for the scheme and there was a more suitable scheme elsewhere.

A drainage engineer, on behalf of the applicant, advised that the whole of the site was in flood zone 1 and so at the lowest risk of fluvial flooding and so not requiring a sequential test. A 3D model of the ground levels across the site showed overland surface water flooding but flooding to the south would not enter the site but would flow east.  Video footage of Stonage Lane during flooding supported this.  Soakaways were a viable surface water disposal route for the site.  Surface water would be attenuated by a controlled discharge so improving water quality and maintaining biodiversity.

The agent for the applicant said 12 of the proposed 35 houses would be affordable for the younger members of the community.  He said there was an identified housing need in the district and new rural housing would help to maintain the vitality of local facilities and the community.  The villages of the district needed housing in the right place and the professional consultees and recommending officer had no objections to the application.  Housing was not being delivered at the target rate in the Local Plan and this site would provide good family housing.

During a short debate, Members felt there were a number of concerns which had not been addressed regarding drainage and noted that the Local Lead Flood Authority had initially expressed concerns regarding the development.  It was also noted that the site was surrounded by rising land and there were no pavement routes planned to the village facilities, despite the planned road improvements.  Also that the site encroached into open countryside. 

Councillor Paul Maxwell said he had a number of policy concerns regarding the application and proposed that it be refused permission for the following reasons:- 

1. Landscape – the proposal did not follow the existing linear pattern of development within the village but protruded into the open countryside
2. Drainage and flooding – there was insufficient information to show the development would be protected against future flooding.
3. Highways – the approach roads were not appropriate for vehicles or pedestrians and the level of traffic generated would bring traffic conflict.
4. Ecology – there was a lack of information to ensure protected species and biodiversity would be appropriately safeguarded.

This was seconded by Councillor Adam Dance. 

The meeting was then adjourned for 5 minutes whilst the officers and Councillors Paul Maxwell and Adam Dance discussed the proposed reasons to refuse the application. 

The meeting was reconvened and the proposal to refuse permission for the following reasons was put to the vote and was carried by 10 votes in favour, 0 against and 0 abstentions. 

RESOLVED: That members of the Regulation Committee recommend to the Chief Executive that planning application 19/00273/OUT be REFUSED permission for the following reasons:

1.      The development, by reason of its siting, scale and protrusion into the open countryside, will result in an incongruous massing of built form that fails to relate positively to the predominantly linear pattern of development and rural character of this edge of settlement locality. The development will have a visually intrusive presence within the local landscape and result in an unacceptable level of harm on the local landscape character and distinctiveness of the area that would not be outweighed by the benefits of the scheme. The proposal is therefore contrary to the aims and objectives of policies SD1 and EQ2 of the SSLP (2006-2028) and the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework.

2.      It has not been adequately demonstrated that the development is capable of being served by a suitable drainage scheme that would appropriately safeguard future residents of the proposed development from the risks of flooding or prevent any increased risk of flooding to existing local residents contrary to the requirements of policy EQ1 of the South Somerset Local Plan (2006-2028) and the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework.

3.      The approach roads to the site are considered to be substandard, due to their restricted width and poor alignment, and to be unsuitable to serve as a means of access for a development of this scale and nature which is likely to generate significant levels of traffic and cause increased disruption to the local highway network and bring different road users into increased conflict, to the detriment of highway safety contrary to the aims and objectives of policy TA5 of the South Somerset Local Plan (2006-2028) and the provision of the National Planning Policy Framework.

4.      Insufficient information has been provided to determine what the proposal’s ecological impact would be and whether the development would appropriately safeguard protected species and mitigate against its impact upon biodiversity. The proposal would therefore be contrary to the aims and objectives of policy EQ4 of the South Somerset Local Plan (2006-2028) and Chapter 15 of the National Planning Policy Framework. 

(Voting: 10 in favour, 0 against, 0 abstentions)*

*Note: Councillors Vijeh and Wallace did not vote on this application.