Agenda item

Proposal: Outline application with all matters reserved save for access for residential development for up to 49 dwellings including landscaping, drainage and new vehicle access from West Street, Templecombe BA8 0LG

The Planning Consultant introduced the report and advised that the site was approximately 2.5ha of greenfield land on the western edge of Templecombe.  Access to the site from the A357 would be through Vine Street, Westcombe and West Street.  The site was adjacent to a residential estate and permission had already been granted for 4 new dwellings at Coombe Farm to the West of the site.  The existing field access would be widened to be the main access which was the main consideration as all other matters would be subject to a reserved matters application.  

The Planning Consultant also advised that the existing hedge boundary would be retained with a pavement to link the development to the village centre.  He noted the narrow access along Vine Street which was a one way street and the on-street parking further along the road.  He drew Members attention to an existing permission for 70 dwellings at Slades Hill and also 19 dwellings at Throop Road, Templecombe.  He said that there were over 30 objections to the application and none in support.  He drew Members attention to the housing land supply, the accessibility and highway safety.  In respect of the latter, he read out a statement prepared by the County Highway Authority clarifying its reasoning behind its recommendation of no highways objection. He concluded that on balance the conflict with the development plan was not sufficient to significantly and demonstrably outweigh the significant and moderate weights that were given to the benefits of the proposal, therefore his recommendation was to approve the application.  He mentioned a recent appeal at Henstridge which had been allowed in a rural settlement in 2018 which he asked Members to consider.

In response to questions from Members, the Planning Consultant advised:-

·         The Council only had a 4 ½ year housing land supply so presumption was in favour of development and the application had more benefits than drawbacks.

·         Until a development with planning permission was considered “deliverable” it was not counted towards the Council’s 5 year housing land supply.  Information on the calculation of this would be circulated to Councillors. 

·         Part of Vine Street was a one-way street.

·         The 289 new houses proposed for the village did not include the 80 proposed at Manor Farm as that application had not been determined yet.

The Committee were then addressed by a representative of the Parish Council who said that a local employer who employed 700 to 750 people were represented as a major local employer but in the Templecombe BA postcode area they were not a major employer.  The Parish Council did not support any part of the application and the developer had not engaged with them at all.  The Slades Hill site had not been fully delivered and further development should not be approved until it had. The scale and size of the proposal and the access to the site were a concern to the Parish Council and pavements should be provided in the area.  The cumulative impacts of developments in the area should be taken into account as they represented a 50% growth in the village since 2011.  The local services were inadequate to support the people which the development would bring.  

The Committee were then addressed by 4 local residents whose comments included:-

·         Part of West Street was a single track lane with no pavements and high hedges and also Bowden Road had no pavement and additional traffic would be a hazard to pedestrians.

·         The access road out of West Street was very narrow and there was concern at creating a bottleneck unless traffic went down Westcombe.  The new development at Collingwood Road had already created extra traffic in the area which was hazardous.  The lack of pavements in the area was a concern and emergency vehicles could get stuck.

·         The presumption in favour of development balanced against policies was a concern as the permissions being granted were not counting towards the Council’s 5 year housing land supply.  There were 1,400 homes in the area with permission which currently did not count towards this target and the Henstridge application was an example of this.  Some traffic data provided was inconsistent as there had been 3 traffic fatalities in the area recently.

·         Access to the proposed development would use Vine Street and West Street to avoid the narrow part of the road at West Street.  49 houses would bring 80 to 100 additional cars, vans or motorbikes plus delivery vehicles.  Vine Street was acutely narrow at 2.3m and speed was already an issue in this area.  Pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders used the road regularly in the wrong direction.

The Transport Planning Consultant for the applicant advised that the village had better transport links than most villages with bus and rail links to local employers.  Therefore, sustainable commuting was substantially higher than most villages.  A travel plan had been agreed to promote sustainable travel from the development.  The Highway Authority had accepted their transport statement and only 25 vehicle movements were predicted during peak hours over the 3 routes in the area.  None of the local streets had any injury accidents recorded and there were no reasonable grounds to refuse the application on highway matters.

The Agent for the applicant said there were no technical objections from statutory consultees and so the site was suitable for residential development and deliverable in the short term.  Templecombe was a highly sustainable settlement capable of accommodating a higher level of growth than other rural areas without significant harm to the area.  There was excellent road and rail connectivity and employment opportunities in the area.  The development would deliver benefits such as CIL payments and contributions towards education, community and sports projects and provide local housing opportunities and increase spending in the local economy.  The site could be delivered without significant issues and he asked that outline permission be granted.

The Ward Member, Councillor William Wallace, advised that he spoke also on behalf of Councillor Hayward Burt, who was unable to attend the meeting.  He said that emphasis had been made on the Henstridge appeal but he felt that site was very different in location to this.  He said the application should be refused for a number of policy areas from the SSDC Local Plan.  The site had previously had two applications for housing and both had been rejected at appeal and the parish already had an additional 154 houses.  He said policy SS2 said the development should be commensurate with the scale and character of the settlement but it did not meet an identified housing need or provide employment opportunities or on-site services.  Further, it did not have local support and there had been very little local engagement.  He said Policy SS5 set out housing targets for 14 settlements but Templecombe was not included and as a rural settlement, it should be treated as open countryside.  The level of growth was for a rural centre and not a rural settlement.  The lack of a 5 year housing land supply should not be used as a reason in favour of granting permission. He concluded by proposing that the application be refused permission for the reasons stated.  This was seconded by Councillor Paul Rowsell.

During discussion, the following comments were made;

• The affordable housing element of a development was often promised then asked to be removed by developers as it was considered unviable.
• If approved, there would by 289 new houses in the village, making it a rural centre in the Local Plan and if a further 80 were approved at Manor Farm it would be classed as a market town.
• Not all of the roads in the local area were narrow and some of the issues raised could be dealt with at the Reserved Matters application.  The location looked to be sustainable.

The meeting was then adjourned for 5 minutes whilst the officers and Councillors William Wallace and Paul Rowsell discussed the proposed reasons to refuse the application. 

The meeting was reconvened and the Legal Specialist cautioned Members that the first reason to refuse the application was very similar to that put forward for the Coat Road, Martock application the previous year upon which Counsel advice had been taken.  She said a planning inspector would consider whether 49 dwellings would result in the distortion of the settlement hierarchy and also there needed to be evidence within the reason of the actual harm in land use terms or consequences for the performance of the Local Plan being in conflict with the policies. She felt the stated reason for refusal was not sufficient on its own and she asked Members to consider this in the first reason of refusal.  She further advised that the second proposed reason to refuse the application was not supported by the statutory consultee, and, although there were local issues regarding highways,the reason for refusal came with the usual warnings members would expect.

The Chairman reminded Members of the Coat Road, Martock planning appeal which had been discussed by them in September 2019. 

The proposal to refuse permission for the following reasons was put to the vote and was carried by 7 votes in favour, 5 against and 0 abstentions. 

1. Templecombe is defined as a rural settlement and, as such, Policy SS2 of the South Somerset Local Plan (2006-2028) is a material consideration in the determination of this proposed development. It is considered that the numbers of dwellings proposed, taken cumulatively with other dwellings in Templecombe completed or with permissions within the Plan period (2006-2028), would result in a level of growth commensurate with the higher tier of Rural Centres. This would be inconsistent with the distribution of development as set out within the Rural Settlements tier in Policy SS5 of the Local Plan. Overall, the proposal would not accord with Policy SS2 and, on this basis, would not accord with Policies SS1 and SS5 of the Local Plan. Whilst the Council acknowledges that it cannot currently demonstrate a 5 year supply of deliverable housing sites as required by the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), and thus paragraph 11 d) of the NPPF is a material consideration, nevertheless the Council is of the opinion that the adverse impacts that would result from the granting of permission for this proposed development would, for the reasons set out above, significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the proposal.

2. The development would result in an increase in traffic along narrow approach roads, including certain sections with no pavements and poor visibility. This would prejudice the safety of highway users both on foot and cycle. As such the proposed development would be contrary to the aims set out in Policy TA5ii of the South Somerset Local Plan (2006-2028) and provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework.

RESOLVED: That members of the Regulation Committee recommend to the Chief Executive that planning application 19/01604/OUT be REFUSED permission for the following reasons:

1. Templecombe is defined as a rural settlement and, as such, Policy SS2 of the South Somerset Local Plan (2006-2028) is a material consideration in the determination of this proposed development. It is considered that the numbers of dwellings proposed, taken cumulatively with other dwellings in Templecombe completed or with permissions within the Plan period (2006-2028), would result in a level of growth commensurate with the higher tier of Rural Centres. This would be inconsistent with the distribution of development as set out within the Rural Settlements tier in Policy SS5 of the Local Plan. Overall, the proposal would not accord with Policy SS2 and, on this basis, would not accord with Policies SS1 and SS5 of the Local Plan. Whilst the Council acknowledges that it cannot currently demonstrate a 5 year supply of deliverable housing sites as required by the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), and thus paragraph 11 d) of the NPPF is a material consideration, nevertheless the Council is of the opinion that the adverse impacts that would result from the granting of permission for this proposed development would, for the reasons set out above, significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the proposal.

2. The development would result in an increase in traffic along narrow approach roads, including certain sections with no pavements and poor visibility. This would prejudice the safety of highway users both on foot and cycle. As such the proposed development would be contrary to the aims set out in Policy TA5ii of the South Somerset Local Plan (2006-2028) and provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework.

(Voting: 7 in favour, 5 against, 0 abstentions)