Agenda item

Cllr Colin Winder returned to the meeting.

The Planning Officer presented the application as detailed in the agenda.  He provided members with several updates including:

·         4 letters that had been received from neighbouring properties since the agenda had been produced raising similar issues to those already raised;

·         Reference was made to the trees at the front of the site that were the subject of a tree preservation order, the tree officer had raised no objection to the application. If approved, a condition could be included to safeguard the trees.

With the aid of a power point presentation an aerial view of the site and the indicative site plan was shown which included the ‘no ‘build zone’.

The officer explained that a similar application had been for 35 dwellings and this one was for 25, he confirmed that his recommendation was the same as before to approve the application.

In response to an Email that he had received, the chairman informed members that the statement printed in the Western Gazette had been lifted from the officer’s report and had not been verbally given by an officer of SSDC.

Mr M Russell the Chairman of Wincanton TC (Town Council) addressed the committee in objection to the application; he reiterated the views of the TC as detailed in the agenda report.

Mr C Downton, Mr D Castle, Mrs S Brennan, Mr Steady, Mr T MacCaw, Mr T Carroll, Mr Pratt, Mr R D’Arcy, Matron C Andrew and Mr R Tindal all spoke in objection to the application. They asked members to consider the local concern for this application and recommend refusal.

A Crean QC, spoke on behalf of the applicant in support of the application and urged members to support the officer’s recommendation.

Ward Member Cllr Colin Winder spoke in objection as he felt that a balance of employment and housing was needed, SSDC now had a 5 year housing land supply, there would be too many people for jobs in the area; the bus service was non-existent, all services would be under pressure. He also referred to the prematurity of this application before the adoption of the local plan.

Ward Member Cllr Nick Colbert also spoke in objection to the application and agreed with the points raised by Cllr Winder.  Cllr Colbert did not think that the wellbeing of local residents would be improved by this application.  He was concerned about the access and lack of a footpath in Dancing Lane; he proposed that the application should be refused using the 4 reasons previously used.

The chairman asked if the agent was available to address the committee, but he had already left the meeting.

During discussion varying views were expressed, including:

·         Local views should be taken into account;

·         A lack of local employment;

·         Would cause an increased risk of flooding;

·         The application was premature;

·         The experts view should be challenged;

·         Travel Plan was irrelevant and unsustainable;

·         Each application should be judged on its own merits;

·         The Ward Members should be supported;

·         A Highway Officer should visit the site;

·         The previous reasons for refusal should be used;

·         Concerned about the cumulative impact of previous approvals and other proposals in Wincanton; the basis of the local plan could be destroyed.

Discussion ensued regarding the reasons for refusing the application. Although the Area Lead East advised that there was no evidence that the development would increase the risk of flooding, Members wished to include that as a reason although it was acknowledged that the riparian owner and the appropriate authority would have to give approval in order to drain surface water to an existing surface water culvert.

It was subsequently proposed and seconded to refuse the application contrary to the officer’s recommendation for the following reasons:

·         The proposal is for up to 25 dwellings on a site that is not within reasonable walking distance remote of primary schools, employment opportunities and the services and facilities available in the town centre. Given the distances, topography and nature of the route and the lack of regular bus services future residents would have no realistic alternative to the private motor car to access services and facilities necessary for daily life. The submitted travel plan does not satisfactorily demonstrate that the future residents would have any option but to rely on the private motor car for virtually all their daily needs. Such lack of choice of transport modes constitutes unsustainable development contrary to the presumption in favour of sustainable development running through the NPPF which is not outweighed by any reasonable benefit arising from the development

·         It has not been demonstrated that the loss of best and most versatile agricultural land (grades 1 & 3a) has been justified in this instance where there is other lower grade land available.

• Dancing Lane by reason of its width, lack of pavements and use by school children is incapable of safely accommodating the additional traffic generated by this development without severe detriment to pedestrian safety.

·      It has not been demonstrated that the proposal to develop up to 25 houses on this site could be satisfactorily achieved whilst maintaining the setting of the grade 2 listed Verrington Lodge.

·         The approval of this proposal for 25 dwellings, in advance of the adoption of the emerging local plan would, cumulatively with previous approvals and other proposals in Wincanton, be premature and prejudicial to the further planned growth of Wincanton.

·      It has not been satisfactorily demonstrated that the proposed drainage strategy adequately acknowledges the existing drainage issues in the locality. As such it cannot safely be concluded that the proposal would not increase the risk of flooding elsewhere

On being put to the vote the motion was unanimously carried in favour.

RESOLVED: That Planning Application14/04234/OUT be refused contrary to the officers recommendation for the following reasons:

1.    The proposal is for up to 25 dwellings on a site that is not within reasonable walking distance remote of primary schools, employment opportunities and the services and facilities available in the town centre. Given the distances, topography and nature of the route and the lack of regular bus services future residents would have no realistic alternative to the private motor car to access services and facilities necessary for daily life. The submitted travel plan does not satisfactorily demonstrate that the future residents would have any option but to rely on the private motor car for virtually all their daily needs. Such lack of choice of transport modes constitutes unsustainable development contrary to the presumption in favour of sustainable development running through the NPPF which is not outweighed by any reasonable benefit arising from the development. Accordingly the proposal is contrary to the policies contained within the NPPF and saved policies ST3, ST5 and TP2 of the South Somerset Local Plan (2006).

2.    It has not been demonstrated that the loss of best and most versatile agricultural land (grades 1 & 3a) has been justified in this instance where there is other lower grade land available.

3.    Dancing Lane by reason of its width, lack of pavements and use by school children is incapable of safely accommodating the additional traffic generated by this development without severe detriment to pedestrian safety.

4.    It has not been demonstrated that the proposal to develop up to 25 houses on this site could be satisfactorily achieved whilst maintaining the setting of the grade 2 listed Verrington Lodge.

5.    The approval of this proposal for 25 dwellings, in advance of the adoption of the emerging local plan would, cumulatively with previous approvals and other proposals in Wincanton, be premature and prejudicial to the further planned growth of Wincanton.

6.    It has not been satisfactorily demonstrated that the proposed drainage strategy adequately acknowledges the existing drainage issues in the locality. As such it cannot safely be concluded that the proposal would not increase the risk of flooding elsewhere and the proposal is therefore contrary to saved policy EU4 and ST5 of the South Somerset Local Plan

(Voting: Unanimous)