Agenda item

Proposal: The erection of 3 No. dwellings with associated works including the creation of a new access and landscaping.

The Specialist (Development Management) presented the application as detailed in the agenda and provided information regarding the key considerations. The officer recommendation was for approval of the application.

A spokesperson for High Ham Parish Council, two members of the public and a representative for the CPRE spoke in objection to the application. Some of their comments included:

·         The application had been ongoing for 18 months and had been contentious in the local community due in part to its proximity to the Grade 1 Listed church.

·         Reference to the character and distinctiveness of the heritage assets and settlement.

·         Feel that Policy SS2 is being compromised.

·         The lane behind the church to the site is very narrow and has a sharp bend. Damage has already been done by large vehicles and the lane cannot be widened.

·         There will be some overlooking on properties whose doors open directly onto the lane.

·         The proposal will open the way for larger development across the rest of the field.

·         Proposal will fundamentally change the distinctiveness and character of the area.

·         Historic features of ridge and furrow are in the field and should the hedge not be protected due to it’s significance?

·         Proposal will be incongruous when viewed from nearby footpaths and from the North and East.

·         There will be an adverse impact. Heritage assets are protected in the NPPF and Local Plan – the application should be refused on principle.

The agent then addressed members and referred to sustainability and reminded members of the responses from statutory consultees. He noted the proposal was a high quality design which would help to meet local need.

Ward member, Councillor Gerard Tucker, acknowledged the access to the site was poor. There was a 90° bend alongside the church wall, and a 120° junction at the opposite end of the road, and access was therefore likely to be challenging for larger vehicles. Potential residents would likely commute as there were few local employment opportunities. The houses proposed were not affordable housing, and with little employment nearby and the proximity to the church and heritage assets, he didn’t feel the proposal met policy requirements. He also commented that he would liked to have seen a stronger travel plan, and recommended refusal of the application.

During discussion, many members expressed concern about the proposal. Some of the comments included:

·         Road access to the site is not good.

·         Need to protect our heritage assets.

·         This location is unacceptable.

·         Acknowledge comments in CPRE response about impact on heritage assets.

·         Not keen on the design and the conservation area is around the site.

·         The church is tucked away from the site.

·         Design could be better but struggle to see huge harm.

In response to comments made, the Specialist (Development Management) advised caution was needed if members were minded to refuse the application on heritage grounds, as Historic England as a statutory consultee had not objected to the proposal. He acknowledged concerns raised about roads being narrow, and explained that members needed to consider if the impact of intensification of traffic would be so severe as to refuse the application.

It was proposed to refuse the application on the grounds that policies had a presumption of non-development in this location, the landscape and character were not enhanced or preserved, and the heritage significance of the church, church wall and nearby grade 2 listed properties would be compromised.

Having heard the proposal and reasons put forward, the Specialist (Development Management) suggested some revised wording to the reason in planning terms, which was agreed by members.

On being put to the vote the proposal to refuse the application was carried 8 votes in favour and 1 against with no abstentions.

(Voting: 8 in favour of refusal, 1 against, 0 abstentions)