Agenda 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 also updated members on the following:

·         Site meeting referred to in his report should read the 13th May 2015.

·         Clause a) i) to be amended to read 2 x 3 bed (shared ownership)

·         Insertion of clause vi) regarding adoption of Open Space Section 106 Agreement

·         Condition 2 to be amended in line with updated report and plans

·         Condition 6 to be amended should members be satisfied with land/surface water drainage scheme

·         Condition 11 to be amended to include the wording ‘notwithstanding the submitted plans’, in order to allow a review of tree and hedge removal/planting once the existing structures are removed and the boundaries can be properly accessed.

He informed members that the application had been deferred from the April committee for a members site visit to take place in order to assess the drainage and issues of the proposed affordable housing.  He also informed members of two further letters received from local residents regarding comments on drainage issues, affordable housing, density of housing and appropriate road surface materials. 

The Area Lead South also updated members on further comments received from Hardington Parish Council regarding the Affordable Housing Tenure Options.  He referred to the three Proposals A, B and C as shown on the power point presentation and in the agenda report and explained that the applicant had put forward two additional options (A&B) in addition to the original proposal (C).

The Area Lead South considered that Proposal C to include 3 social rent and 2 shared ownership was the preferred option also supported by the SSDC Strategic Housing Team.  Proposal A which included 5 low cost homeownership (Discounted market Housing) was the proposal supported by Hardington Parish Council.

He also referred to the key considerations including whether the proposal would accord with the adopted Local Plans approach to rural settlements – Policy SS2; Highway implications; Drainage; Setting of Heritage Assets; Tenure of Affordable Housing; Landscape Impact. 

In conclusion he considered all outstanding issues could be adequately controlled by planning conditions and a planning obligation and therefore his proposal was to approve the application subject to the conditions as set out in the agenda report.

In response to questions, members were informed that:

·         the proposed drainage scheme to serve the development including the process of diverting and collection of surface water had been submitted.  It is understood that further arrangements would be required from two adjoining land owners in order for these works to be implemented. 

·         Confirmed the agreed onsite water drainage scheme including the attenuation tanks would be maintained by a management company.

·         Other land drainage issues would be the responsibility of the respective land owners, for example the adjoining ditch is the responsibility of the neighbouring farmer.

·         Appreciate the comments and recommendations of Hardington Parish Council however satisfied any harm is outweighed by the benefits of the scheme and considered the proposal acceptable with the scale and character of the local area. 

Andrew Webb, Hardington Parish Council Representative then addressed the committee.  He felt that this current proposal was too large and high a density and considered the previous indicated number of 10 dwellings was sufficient for the area.  He said Moor Lane was now assigned as a Bridleway which was used to access the playing fields and that the increase in traffic would pose a significant danger to children, pedestrians and horse riders. He was disappointed that a viability assessment had not been made available by the developer.

Alan Ivory a local resident spoke in objection to the application.  He said the intention was to deliver low cost housing and bungalows to provide the most suitable housing for the area and voiced his support of the Parish Council’s affordable housing tenure option of 5 low cost homes.  He expressed concern regarding the water drainage system indicating roof water would still gather quantities of silt, moss and leaves from the roof tops.

Anne Lunt a local resident also spoke in objection to the application.  She appreciated the member’s site visit which recently took place and referred to Policy SS2 of the SSDC Local Plan stating that local development should have support from the local community.  She said this proposal would have a 43% increase in housing development in the area and that Moor Lane itself was a single track road where the increase in traffic could be a danger to children and pedestrians using the lane.

Clive Seaton also spoke in objection to the application.  He said the lanes around the village were very narrow and was concerned that an increase in traffic would pose a safety risk.  He likened the proposal to a ‘housing estate’ which was not appropriate within village.

Dan Trundle, the Agent also addressed the committee.  He explained the site had previously been used as an agricultural commercial business which had been vacant since 2012.  He said the site was currently an eyesore and unsafe and that they had actively sought to consider residents views regarding the proposal and resolve the drainage and affordable housing issues.  He felt the net gain of 13 houses was only 3 extra from that of the Parish Councils proposal of 10.  There had been no landscape visual impact objection and the proposed affordable housing tenure option was supported by SSDC Strategic Housing.  He concluded that this proposal would deliver new suitable housing for the village.

In response to comments made, the Area Lead South explained the challenge when trying to assess and focus on the benefits for the local area.  He appreciated the issues raised however ultimately guided by Policy he considered the proposal submitted to be acceptable.

The Development Manager also clarified to members Policy SS2 of the SSDC Local Plan which provides local communities the opportunity to support development within the local community and less sustainable areas. 

Councillor Cathy Bakewell, Ward member appreciated the need for affordable housing, however valued the Parish Councils’ comments and therefore would look to support Proposal A for 5 low cost homeownership.  She understood the need to regenerate the village which currently included a good local shop, 2 public houses and excellent recreational facilities. She felt the site was currently an eyesore and although supported the redevelopment of the site was unhappy with the density of houses on the site and raised concern regarding the access road.

Councillor Gina Seaton, Ward member agreed with the comments already made by the Parish Council.  She felt that 14 dwellings greatly exceeded the original 8/10 houses that was first indicated.  She said the position of the 5 bed house at the higher rear level of the site would have an adverse impact of the landscape and the overall development would be detrimental to the surrounding countryside and views.  She indicated the desire to look after both the young and old people and felt the proposed development did not met the local need.  She concluded that there was no street lighting in Moor Lane and therefore further traffic could be dangerous to local walkers, cyclist and horse riders and therefore she would not support the application.

During members’ discussion, several points were raised including the following:

·         Considered that the application did not meet with Policy SS2 of the SSDC Local Plan with clear indication the application was not supported by the local community.

·         Community Led Plans specify smaller starter homes and bungalows considered to be of greater benefit to the local area.

·         Development could change nature of the village.

·         Considered 14 dwellings too many, indicating a 20% growth for the area used for one development.

·         Moor Lane itself was a single track road where the increase in traffic could be a danger to children and other users of the lane.

·         Considered the access from Moor Lane to be inadequate for the increase in traffic flow. 

·         Appreciate this is a marginal judgment as the application does not need to meet all the requirements of Policy SS2 of the Local Plan.

·         Government looking to help with the new ‘Right to Buy ‘ scheme

·         Appreciated that all issues could be overcome or adequately controlled by condition and therefore consideration of the application was difficult.

In response to members, the Corporate Strategic Housing Manager explained that existing Housing Association tenants have the ‘right to acquire’ but curtailed in rural areas at this present time and confirmed therefore that this development would currently be exempt.  However, he also stated that nobody yet knows the full details of the Governments proposal to extend the ‘Right to Buy’ to Housing Association tenants’.

The Development Manager also told members that the Local Plan Strategy firstly offers development in larger settlements but if there is over riding evidence and local need this is equally acceptable.

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

·         Fails to comply with Policy SS2 of the SSDC Local Plan

·         Fails to meet with the scale and character of the settlement and Community Led Plans

·         Does not have the support of the local community

It was then proposed and subsequently seconded that planning permission be refused, contrary to the officer’s recommendation for the following reasons as read out by the Area South Lead:

‘The scheme does not meet an identified housing need; it is not commensurate with the scale and character of the settlement and does not have the support of the local community.  As such the proposal is contrary to Policy SS2 of the South Somerset Local Plan (March 2015)’.

On being put to the vote this was carried by 14 votes in favour and 4 against.

RESOLVED:

That application 14/05063/FUL be refused for the following reason:

The scheme does not meet an identified housing need; it is not commensurate with the scale and character of the settlement and does not have the support of the local community.  As such the proposal is contrary to Policy SS2 of the South Somerset Local Plan (March 2015).

(voting: 14 in favour, 4 against, 0 abstentions)