Agenda item

Cllr Mike Lewis said that although he was a Somerset County Councillor he confirmed that he did not have a prejudicial interest in Planning Application 14/02020/OUT

The Area Lead East presented the application as detailed in the agenda report. He provided members with several updates including:

·         Confirmation that the Environment Agency had no further concerns;

·         Letters from 3 local residents: 2 worried about the level of development and traffic concerns and 1 regarding the badger set on the site that had recently been interfered with;

·         There had still been no objection from County highways;

·         Although an officer from County highways had been invited to attend the meeting no Highway officer was in attendance.

With the aid of a power point presentation the officer showed details of the site, proposed indicative layout, and photos of the vicinity.

The officer confirmed that the key considerations were:

·         Principle of development

·         Cumulative impact

·         Local landscape and visual amenity impact

·         Residential amenity

·         Highway issues

·         Planning obligations

He confirmed that his recommendation was to approve the application as detailed in full in the agenda report.

Mr N Begg, Mr A Gibbons, P Peppin, Mr R Antell, Mr C Kay, Mr M Bainbridge, Mrs C Bainbridge, Mrs C Sharley, V Nobles, K Boland, Mr W Vaughan, Ms L Johnston, Mr D boxer, S Lane, B M Lane, A Cleaveland and S Knapman all spoke in objection to the application ther comments included:

·         There was no real demand for new houses;

·         Wished to prevent over development;

·         A neighbourhood plan and design statement was in progress;

·         Concerns about road safety issues;

·         Anxious about the increase in traffic along the B3153;

·         Worried about the 3 Wessex Rail crossing points;

·         Understood the need for housing but if these were built out all at once only 53 new dwellings would then be required by 2028;

·         Phased development would be preferred;

·         Concern about the narrow roads in the vicinity;

·         The proposed link to the industrial site was not what had been intended locally;

·         Children and people with special needs would need a safer route into the town rather than that shown on the proposed plan;

·         If approved all monies from the S106 obligation should be used towards facilities in Castle Cary;

·         Existing brownfield sites should be developed first;

·         Would prefer that the neighbourhood plan was finished before any decision on the applications was made;

·         There would be more houses in the area than recommended in the Local Plan;

·         This application was piecemeal and inappropriate;

·         Concerned about the impact on the existing badger sets and if approved a buffer would be required and a condition regarding badger mitigation;

·         Disappointed that the badger group had not been invited to the meeting;

·         The existing school should not move out of the town centre;

·         Castle Cary did not need a new primary school, there was potential to extend the existing one;

·         There would be a huge impact on the community if all the planning applications pending, in the area were approved;

·         The application was not sustainable or appropriate;

·         The Local Plan included a link road but the nature of the proposed road would exclude HGV’s;

·         Disappointed that the Highway Authority had let the community down again as they had failed to send an officer to attend this important meeting although a request had been made by SSDC for an officer to attend;

·         The development would make the road through Clanville even busier and would make it hard for the residents already living there;

·         A full independent traffic assessment was needed;

·         This development was premature;

·         Concerned about the possibility of flood risk downstream;

·         Investment in businesses etc and opportunities for young people was required before more houses were built;

·         This plan did not allow for expansion and a road through the estate would be unsuitable to gain access to the industrial estate;

·         If a bridge was built across the railway line thought needed to be given regarding access for the disabled;

·         Concerned regarding the suggested conflict of interest because of SCC owning the top part of the proposed development area.

Mr G Davies addressed the committee to ask that if the application was approved the right of way should be retained.

Mr J McMurdo the agent explained that the application had taken 2 years of consultations to reach this stage.  He urged members to approve the application as there were no technical reasons to refuse it and no technical consultees had objected.

Ward Members Cllrs Henry Hobhouse and Nick Weeks both spoke in opposition to the application they thought the application was unsound due to the highway issues, although employment land was needed this was not in the right place, the proposed link road was flawed and would mean there would be no current service direct to the industrial estate now, or in the future, a more detailed application was required with the correct infrastructure. It was stressed that should this application be approved access should not be allowed directly to Torbay Road.

In response to a query the chairman apologised for the lack of a hearing loop at the school but it had been the only suitable venue available for the number of local people concerned about the application.

The Development Manager reiterated that the proposed scheme did comply with the adopted Local Plan and it would be difficult to refuse it regarding the principle of development. He also added that it was not the responsibility of SSDC to safeguard protected species such as badgers

During discussion varying views were expressed:

·         Suitable infrastructure was required first;

·         The application should be refused as there was no traffic assessment;

·         There appeared to be too much development too quickly;

·         The character of the town would be spoilt;

·         There would be a serious cumulative impact if all the pending applications were approved;

·         It would be unsuitable for HGV’s to pass through a housing estate;

·         There was a distinct lack of funds  to provide the suggested costly infrastructure;

·         Homes were required for people living in the community but not huge housing estates;

·         The developer should have consulted with the community better;

·         A TRO was essential before the application could be considered;

·         Consideration should be given to the cumulative effect of future applications in the area;

·         A major new road across the fields from Station Road and Torbay Road was required to link into the trading estate;

·         There was the possibility of flood impact downstream and more detail was needed;

·         As this was an outline application information regarding drainage etc would be dealt with at reservation stage;

·         A proper plan was required for Castle Cary to include all of the proposed future development;

·         Independent highways advice and appraisal was required as SCC was the joint applicant.

The Area Lead East explained that this Outline application was for members to consider the principle of development.  The applicant had listened to local concerns and was to provide attenuation ponds, details of which would be included in follow up applications. A condition had been included regarding the badger set. 

Discussion then continued where the majority of members indicated that they were mindful to refuse the application because of the traffic impact of the new development; there was also a suggestion to defer the application until the results of an independent traffic survey were known. However Cllr Mike Lewis suggested that if the application was deferred the applicant could appeal on grounds of non-determination.

The Senior Legal Executive reminded members that they would need good, robust reasons to refuse the application.

The Development Manager explained that the application did put into place the requirement of the Local Plan.

Members suggested the following could be included in the reasons for refusal:

The requirement of a Transport Assessment; the lack of infrastructure planning; to ensure the Local Plan was achievable; to review the amount of HGV traffic the travels through Clanville; the necessity of an appropriate HGV link road . 

However the Area Lead East suggested that the following wording should be used as a robust reason for refusal: As it had not been adequately demonstrated that the local road network could satisfactorily accommodate the level of traffic likely to be generated by this development without severe adverse impact on highways safety. As such the proposal is contrary to policy TA5 of the South Somerset Local Plan 2006-2028 and the policies contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.

 Members were content to use the wording suggested by the Area Lead East and it was proposed and seconded to refuse the application.  On being put to the vote the motion was carried by 9 votes in favour; and 2 abstentions. (Cllrs William Wallace and Anna Groskop abstained from voting as they were both cabinet members of SCC)

RESOLVED:

That Planning Application 14/02020/OUT be refused contrary to the officers recommendation for the following reason:

It had not been adequately demonstrated that the local road network can satisfactorily accommodate the level of traffic likely to be generated by this development without severe adverse impact on highways safety. As such the proposal is contrary to policy TA5 of the South Somerset Local Plan 2006-2028 and the policies contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.

(Voting: 9 in favour: 2 abstentions)