Agenda item

Proposal: Proposed development of 9 dwellings with access and landscape planting provision.

The Specialist – Development Management updated members regarding the following:

·         Condition 3 be amended at the beginning of the wording to read ‘No works above ground works shall be carried out unless particulars of the following have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority’.

·         Condition 17 be amended to now read ‘twenty years’ and not ‘five years’ as set out in the agenda report.

·         Additional condition be included to read as follows:

‘The development hereby permitted shall not be first occupied unless a scheme for the maintenance of all communal areas including the landscaped and shared parking areas have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The communal areas shall thereafter be retained and maintained in complete accordance with the approved maintenance scheme’  

With the aid of slides the Specialist, Development Management then proceeded to show the site and proposed plans.  She also summarised the key considerations of the application regarding the following:

·         Principle of Development.

·         Landscape and local character.

·         Highway safety and traffic impact.

·         Residential amenity.

·         Flooding and drainage.

·         Ecology.

·         Planning Balance.

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

The Committee were then addressed by 3 members of the public including a representative from Queen Camel Parish Council.  Their comments included:-

·         No affordable housing element included within the proposal.

·         Vehicular access along England Lane was already very difficult with road safety concerns for pedestrians and school children

·         There was limited accessibility for emergency vehicles.

·         This proposal was not consistent with draft neighbourhood plan.

·         The proposed site was near a conservation area and located outside the village development boundary.

·         With a previous application already approved within the village, the housing target for the area has already be met, therefore the application was not required.

·         Increase in traffic and parked cars within the area.

·         The site was an important floodplain for the river Cam, which could rise by 1 - 2m during heavy rain.  To build on the site would put other properties in the village at risk of flooding.

·         During construction the ground would be compacted and any heavy rain would have a serious impact for residents.

The Agent for the applicant advised that pre-application discussions had taken place with officers from the Council and several technical reports were submitted with the application on highways, drainage, ecology and archaeology at the site.  He said the Access Statement confirmed there were no recorded personal injury collisions on Englands Lane or the junction with the A359 in 19 years.  The site would generate on average 1 vehicle movement every 10 minutes at peak hours which was not significant.  The Highway Authority had confirmed that the proposal was acceptable and the new houses would be outside the flood risk area. The flood risk assessment and surface water drainage had been accepted by the Environment Agency and Local Flood Authority.  The Queen Camel Neighbourhood Plan had not yet been adopted and so carried no weight.  The houses would be smaller, sustainable and more affordable and additional parking for vehicles was provided. 

The Ward Member, Councillor Mike Lewis, said the site was not allocated in the draft Neighbourhood Plan which was close to adoption.  He expressed disappointment that the developer had not consulted the Parish Council and noted that there was another development site within the village for 43 houses which had planning permission and this was sufficient for a rural settlement.  The site was contrary to the Neighbourhood Plan and access to the site would be an issue along Englands Mead.  He proposed that the application be refused permission for the reasons of siting, scale, layout and design. 

In response to questions from Members, the Specialist, Development Management advised:-

·         Given the limited access to the site she had asked the Highway Authority to review their comments and they had considered that access for emergency and other large vehicles was adequate.

·         Electric vehicle charging points were included in the conditions of approval.

·         Englands Lane was a quiet lane and whilst there was no footpath along the entire length it was a safe walking route for access to the village.

·         The site and the location of the dwellings was not within the flood zone and condition 6 dealt with drainage and surface water run-off.

·         Paragraph 50 of the NPPF said permission should not be refused for prematurity in relation to the adoption of the Neighbourhood Plan.

·         The proposed parking on the site was above the level required by parking standards and an additional parking area had been provided.

During discussion, the following points were made:-

·         Permission had been refused by Members for other sites in the district because of limited access, only to have them overturned by Planning Inspectors at subsequent appeals.

·         Parking was an issue in many villages in the area.

·         Concern at building so close to a flood zone.

·         The access to the site appeared very limited.

·         The Neighbourhood Plan had been delayed for a number of reasons but was now ready to go to a referendum.

·         Vehicles parked on the pavement in Englands Mead was an issue.

·         Should we allow houses to be built so close to a flood plain.

·         The flooding of the local primary school caused it to be relocated within the village.

Councillor Mike Lewis proposed that the application be refused permission for the reasons of siting, scale, layout and design as inappropriate and not sustainable in that area.  This was seconded by Councillor Colin Winder.

The Specialist, Development Management said that clear and specific reasons for refusal were required to defend any subsequent appeal by the applicant. 

Officers together with the Ward Member retired to a separate room to discuss the reasons to refuse the application.  On returning to the meeting, the Specialist, Development Management read out the proposed reason to refuse the application as:-

The proposed development relates poorly to the existing built form by reason of the siting, scale, layout and design, and represents an unsustainable form of development by reason of poor accessibility by foot to local services, in particular due to the lack of a continuous dedicated footway to the village centre.  This is contrary to the aims and objectives of policies SD1, TA5, EQ2 of the South Somerset Local Plan and the provisions of the NPPF.

This reason to refuse the application was accepted by Members and when put to the vote was carried by 9 votes in favour of refusing, 3 against and 0 abstentions.

(Voting: 9 in favour of refusal, 3 against, 0 abstentions)