Agenda item

Proposal: Erection of 200 dwellings (70 affordable and 130 open market) with associated highways, drainage, landscaping and public open space.

The Specialist, Development Management presented the application as detailed in the agenda and explained this was an outline application and therefore scale, layout, appearance and landscaping are not for consideration at this time.  He also updated members that although his reason for refusal was omitted from the original report, this had been emailed separately to members and should now be included on the current agenda report. He also updated members that since the report had been circulated, 11 further letters of objection had been received which broadly followed the points already set out in his report. 

He also updated that he had received one letter of approval and summarised the comments included as follows:

·         Well thought out plan.

·         No objection from consultees.

·         Section 106 legal agreement would provide substantial financial contributions.

·         Too late to preserve countryside approach.

·         Many other towns have had development on the outskirts of the towns, for example Bruton and Wincanton.

·         Station and railway line provided a boundary for Castle Cary and Ansford, this development would be within these boundaries.

·         Housing land supply shortage.

·         Social benefits of the proposed affordable housing.

·         Development would provide financial and economic benefits to the town which outweigh the visual impacts of the development.

With the aid of slides the Specialist, Development Management then proceeded to show the site and proposed plans.  

He referred to the key considerations being the principle of development and explained that Castle Cary and Ansford had already received a substantial amount of growth (completions and commitments) over recent years.  This currently exceeded the proposed housing target for the area by 291 dwellings as set out in the Local Plan. He believed the development would again significantly increase this target and therefore would be contrary to Policy SS1 and Policy SS5. 

He also noted that the site is outside the direction of growth and that the Council does not currently have a five-year housing land supply.  He explained that most important to the determination of this application included policy’s SS1, SS5 and LMT1.  He advised these should only be afforded limited weight, and that the application should be considered for approval, unless the harm of doing so would significantly and demonstrable outweigh the benefits of the scheme.

He also referred to the landscape and local character, and that although the impact of the view is relatively localised it would have an effect on the open countryside and visible approach from both north and south.  He believed this development would propose a significant breach to the town’s development boundaries and adversely affect the character of the area and the setting of the town.  It was a significant consolidation of built form, which results in harm to the local character and contrary to policy EQ2 and the neighbourhood plan DP1.  

The Specialist – Development Management also advised members on the following:

·         The Highways Authority had raised no objections and that the scheme meets safety audit and connectivity issues.

·         Any noise concerns from the nearby railway station could be mitigated by condition.

·         The site is located within Flood Zone 1, and that the LLFA are satisfied with the applicants proposed attenuation scheme at this stage.

·         Wessex Water recognise capacity issues in Castle Cary and Ansford but they if necessary, with further negotiations with officers, can satisfactorily service this concern.

·         70 affordable housing units, LEAP and youth facilities and highways improvements would be provided within the scheme.

·         The proposal would provide significant financial contributions towards education as well as CIL contributions.

The Specialist, Development Management therefore concluded that after considering all of the responses and advice, as outlined in the agenda report, his proposal was to refuse the application for the reasons as set out in the agenda report.

The Committee were then addressed by 9 members of the public including representatives from Castle Cary and Ansford Parish Council.  Their comments included:-

·         Need to protect the heritage of the area. This proposal would scar the open countryside in what is a highly visual and prominent location and would therefore be of significant harm to the local landscape.

·         Would result in the loss of valuable agricultural land.

·         The site is located outside the planned area of growth and would be detached from the local area.

·         Raised highway safety concerns with the road currently having insufficient means of pedestrian safety.

·         There would be a significant increase in traffic and pollution.

·         The site does not have adequate connectivity to the town centre.

·         Would take the total number of new homes for the area to over 500, which radically exceeds the proposed target.

·         The proposal is unrealistic and unsustainable with a lack of employment opportunities.

·         Over 77 objections from local residents.

·         The proposal is located outside the local plan development area.

·         Housing Target already grossly exceeded.

·         Flood mitigation not been fully addressed , and with a sloping site water will run off into the River Brue and put the railway station and properties downstream at considerable risk to flooding.

·         Concern regarding mechanical ventilation, should it be required to mitigate noise and pollution, especially prudent at this current time with Covid 19.

·         Already a 40% increase in housing within the area.

·         Fundamental objection to the principle of development, that policy HOU2 is relevant and must be taking into account and call for a pause in the granting of planning permissions.

·         This development, if approved, would create an urban sprawl outside the northern boundary and permanently destroy the countryside and local market town.

·         Proposal fails to comply with key landscape policies.

·         Proposal would harm the unspoilt heritage asset of the Victorian railway station and it’s setting.

·         The heritage assessment undertaken considered the proposal to be in conflict with the Council’s heritage strategy and historic environment policy EQ2. 

·         Future development needs to be carefully planned, in order to safeguard this classic historic market town.

·         Believe the development would become a ghetto and divorced from the main town.

The Agent then addressed the committee.  His comments included:

·         The proposal would have a positive difference to the area and would provide a boost for affordable and open market homes.

·         Site is sustainably located with safe walking routes to local amenities.

·         The proposal would boost the vitality of the area and its local businesses.

·         Council currently has lack of five year housing land supply.

·         Believe the recent landscape assessment undertaken had tipped the balance for a refusal of the application.

·         Proposal would only provide the loss of two agricultural fields and hedging.

·         There would be significant proposed open space with prosposed new hedgerows and substantial tree planting to ensure development works with the landscape and not against it.

·         Policies EQ2 and DP1 do not only relate to landscape issues, but to ensure environmental sustainability to provide future homes as well as conserve the countryside.  The proposal therefore does not fail the test and as such outweighs any landscape impact.

Ward member, Councillor Kevin Messenger supported the comments already made by Castle Cary and Ansford Parish Council and reiterated the huge opposition to this application.  He believed the development would have a significant impact on the landscape and character of the area and would not support the application.

Ward member, Councillor Henry Hobhouse raised caution to the affordable housing aspect of the scheme.  He felt that once outline permission is granted developers then look to reduce or even take away the affordable housing aspect of the scheme.  He agreed with the officer’s recommendation to refuse the application.

During member’s discussion, several comments were raised, including the following:

·         Development would not enhance the historic aspect of the town.

·         The proposal would have an impact on the Victorian railway station that is significant part of the heritage of the area.

·         Did not believe there was a continuing problem with affordable housing.

·         Highways have not addressed the problems regarding the lack of pedestrian crossings and road safety concerns.

·         Huge impact on the environmental views of the area.

·         Concerns raised regarding the sewerage disposal from the site believing it would exacerbate the current issues within the area.

·         Significantly exceeds the housing target and hierarchy of the town.

·         Permanent and adverse impact on the local town.

·         Situated in the centre of a wraparound road and therefore not a healthy place for people and children to live.

·         Do not believe the proposed mechanical ventilation to be acceptable.

·         Need to encourage all planning applications to be more ambitious in line with the Council’s environment strategy.

It was then proposed and seconded that the application be refused, as per the officers recommendation as set out in the agenda report. On being put to the vote this was carried by 12 votes in favour, 0 against and 1 abstention.

(Voting: 12 in favour, 0 against, 1 abstention)