Agenda item

(Having earlier declared a Personal & Prejudicial Interest Councillor Gina Seaton left the room during consideration of this item).

The Area Lead South presented the application as detailed in the agenda and with the aid of a power point presentation showed the site and proposed plans.  He informed members that Highways were in support of the proposed road layout and as part of the scheme an improved cycle provision to the site had been agreed.

The Area Lead South referred to the key considerations of Principle of Development, Landscape Impact and Highways.  In conclusion he considered that the proposal did not outweigh the harm on the surrounding open countryside and therefore his recommendation was to refuse the application for the reason set out in the agenda report.

In response to questions, members were informed that:

·         Leylandii trees on the east boundary of the access road were in the ownership of No 167 West Coker Road.

·         Highways had agreed the proposed highway layout which would include the siting of the bus stop.

·         It is not standard procedure to undertake a viability assessment prior to application; however the applicants are comfortable with the level of contributions being sought.

·         No evident issues have been raised at this stage regarding foul drainage problems; however this would be detailed between the applicant and Wessex Water.

·         No reason to give a differing view to that of the Conservation Manager as set out in the agenda report regarding the impact upon heritage assets within the area.

Stan Shayler, Chairman of East Coker Parish Council addressed the committee.  He stated the proposal was outside of the development area, that the site was not identified in the emerging Local Plan and the necessity to protect Grade I agricultural land.  He explained that the emerging East Coker Neighbourhood Plan had not identified this site for development and that housing needs for East Coker were recently identified as 11 dwellings.  He referred to the 800 homes already allocated for the Keyford Site and furthermore at the Bunford Hollow development and considered another 144 homes would create excessive traffic problems within the area. 

Jim New, East Council Parish Council representative and Objector who is a nearby resident also expressed his concerns.  He felt the proposed development would create extra traffic problems within the area and that the proposal and design access lacked imagination.  He believed Localism should dictate that resident’s views should have weight in planning decisions.

Mr A Harwood also spoke in objection to the application.  He reiterated the concerns regarding traffic impact and the necessity to protect Grade 1 agricultural land.  He also raised his concern regarding the impact the development would have on the privacy of his own property and the impact on local schools within the area.

Andrea Caplan, the Agent then addressed the committee.  She explained this application sought outline planning consent and the applicant had worked with officers to provide an acceptable proposal.  She appreciated the concerns regarding the access but that this was an acceptable proposal and not contrary to policy ST5 of the South Somerset Local Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).  She felt it was a suitable location to provide much needed housing and also financial contribution to the area.  She hoped that members would support the application.

Councillor Cathy Bakewell, Ward member raised a number of concerns regarding the application which included:

·         Outside development limits

·         SSDC had a five year land supply

·         Premature to the emerging Local Plan

·         Proposal would have a significant impact on the surrounding countryside

·         Unimaginative design

·         Disappointed with the lack of public consultation

·         Incremental loss of Grade 1 agricultural land

·         Increased traffic on an already busy stretch of road and surrounding country lanes

In conclusion she felt that combined with the proposed Bunford Hollow development further development would have a significant impact on the traffic in the area.  She therefore supported the officer’s recommendation for refusal.

Members then discussed the application at length and comments in objection to the application were expressed reiterating the concerns already made by Ward member Councillor Cathy Bakewell and included the following:

·         Contrary to policies of the South Somerset Local Plan (2006) and Emerging Local Plan and NPPF

·         Loss of Grade 1 agricultural land

·         Housing already allocated for the Keyford Site and furthermore at the Bunford Hollow

·         Severe impact on the surrounding local country lanes

·         Lack of places freely available within local schools

·         Concern regarding the drainage issues of the site

During a short debate, members discussed and suggested additional reasons for refusal to include:

·         Highway safety

·         Loss of Grade 1 agricultural land

Following a short discussion, it was then proposed and subsequently seconded that planning permission be refused as per the officer’s recommendation for the following reasons as read out by the Area Lead South:

01    The proposed extent and projection of the site into open countryside without a credible tie with the urban edge is considered to be at variance with the form and setting of the locality and would erode local character.

02    The cumulative impacts of development in the area would create highway safety implications that are considered as severe.

03    The scheme does not seek to use poorer quality land in preference to that of higher quality. The loss of Grade 1 agricultural land is deemed unnecessary.

This harm is not considered to be outweighed by the benefits of the proposal and as such does not represent sustainable development contrary to policy ST5 of the South Somerset Local Plan (Adopted 2006), polices SS5, YV1 and YV2 of the Emerging Local Plan and the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework.

On being put to the vote this was carried unanimously.

RESOLVED:

That application 13/01791/OUT be refused for the following reasons:

04    The proposed extent and projection of the site into open countryside without a credible tie with the urban edge is considered to be at variance with the form and setting of the locality and would erode local character.

05    The cumulative impacts of development in the area would create highway safety implications that are considered as severe.

06    The scheme does not seek to use poorer quality land in preference to that of higher quality. The loss of Grade 1 agricultural land is deemed unnecessary.

This harm is not considered to be outweighed by the benefits of the proposal and as such does not represent sustainable development contrary to policy ST5 of the South Somerset Local Plan (Adopted 2006), polices SS5, YV1 and YV2 of the Emerging Local Plan and the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework.

(Voting: unanimous)