Agenda item

On behalf of his colleague, the Area Lead East presented the report as detailed in the agenda.  He provided members with several updates including:

·         A letter from the owner of the nearby caravan park regarding the close proximity of proposed plots 1 & 2 to their private residence and proposed Plot 8 which would leave the caravan park vulnerable to the elements during the winter months due to lack of screening; and concern that access to the caravan park would be obstructed.

·         Sparkford PC raised concerns about highway and safety issues and access between the site and the High Street; drainage issues in particular sewage in the village, the site was also considered unsuitable for development because of noise from the nearby A303.

The Area Lead East stated that at least 35% of the dwellings would be affordable homes; that detail had been missed from the planning report. It was proposed that the terrace of four would probably be affordable.  With the aid of a power point presentation the officer showed the site and proposed plans, he confirmed that the recommendation was to approve the application as detailed in the report and to include at least 35% affordable dwellings.

Mr J Crawford of Sparkford PC informed the committee that Sparkford did not need any more low cost housing, there was concern regarding flooding, screening from the site and, access to the High Street.  He suggested that if approved the S106 obligation should include funding for the bus service, a new footpath and pavement to the public house.

Mr Ryan and Mr Allan both spoke in opposition to the application and raised concern that by building more properties the sewage /drainage problem would become worse, the development would be contrary to SS2, there was no local support for this application and no benefit to the community

The agent Mr Sinclair advised that included in the development would be a water scheme to alleviate run off from the site, there would be various dwelling types and local materials would be used.

Ward Member, Cllr Mike Lewis advised that although SCC Highways had considered there were no traffic impact grounds to refuse the application, local residents were very concerned about the traffic and the effect the parked cars along the High Street would have . Cllr Lewis was concerned about the access and egress into and out of the site, he also felt the footpath should be enhanced and the issues raised regarding drainage needed to be dealt with.

During discussion varying views were expressed, including:

·         Wessex Water should advise the developer regarding the drainage system which was currently of concern to local people .and they  should be accountable and address the issues;

·         It appeared that there were currently no local applicants for social housing in Sparkford;

·         Local people with local knowledge should be able to decide on an application rather than an inspector making a decision as a result of an appeal.;

·         The drainage issues should be addressed before any decision was made;

·         If approved, assurance would be required to ensure that Wessex Water upgraded the foul water system in the village;

·         Screening would have to be appropriate due to the noise from the A303.

In response to queries the Area Lead East replied that:

·         The height of the nearest dwelling would be no more than 5 meters and should not be an issue to the holiday park;

·         The applicant did not have control of the land to provide a continuous footpath;

·         The application was ready to be determined;

·         The main road was 5 meters wide and SCC had not identified a need for a zebra crossing.

·         The current sewerage system was adequate for users, the recurring problem happens when the nearby Hazelgrove School re-opened after the long summer holiday shutdown;

·         Enquiries could be made to Wessex Water regarding what plans they may have to address the problems with the system; however any work regarding their part of the infrastructure would be dealt with under their legislation and was not a planning matter. If approved, condition 03 in the report would secure the detail.

As there were no objections, the Chairman agreed to allow Cllr Tim Carroll to address the committee. Cllr Carroll suggested that representation was made to the appropriate agency regarding the drainage issues. With reference to the application he suggested that members question whether this application complied with policy SS2 and whether there was the need for more affordable homes in Sparkford.

A proposal was made and seconded to refuse the application contrary to the officer’s recommendation as it did not comply with policies SS2 and SS5. Together with other development in Sparkford, this application would not be appropriate with the scale and character of the settlement, there was no general community support, and there would be no benefits in terms of employment opportunities.

It was suggested that the appropriate agency should be consulted about the foul water drainage issue that had been demonstrated as inadequate within Sparkford.

On being put to the vote the motion was carried by 6 votes in favour and 1 vote against.

RESOLVED That Planning Application14/05052/FUL be refused contrary to the officer’s recommendation for the following reason:

The proposal for 11 dwellings, cumulatively with other development in Sparkford, would not be commensurate with the scale and character of the settlement. The proposal, for which there is not general community support, would not bring forward benefits in terms of employment opportunities; housing to meet identified local need or enhancements to community facilities that would increase the sustainability of Sparkford. As such the proposal is contrary to policies SS2 and SS5 of the South Somerset local Plan 2006-2028.

(Voting:6 in favour:1 against)