Agenda item

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

·         Further supporting information regarding drainage had now been received and found to be acceptable;

·         County Archaeology had found no issues with the geographical survey and doubted that there would be anything of interest on the site, however, proposed condition 09 would deal with any issues;

·         A local resident had queried the notice period of 6 working days before the meeting took place and it had been confirmed that only 5 working days’ notice of the date of the meeting needed to be given.

With the aid of a power point presentation the Area Lead East indicated the red line of the site, an aerial view of the site, the public open space, indicative plans of the different sized proposed dwellings and the care home.  The officer could confirm that a Highway Officer had visited the site. He also confirmed that his recommendation was to approve the application as the proposal was considered to be an acceptable form of development that accorded with the policies of the Local Plan, and the aims and provisions of the NPPF. The site is adjacent to the settlement boundary of Milborne Port and is considered to be in a sustainable location with access to a range of day to day services and facilities. No adverse impacts on highways safety, archaeology, landscape, ecology, drainage or residential amenity had been identified that justified withholding planning permission, the proposal would provide significant benefits in terms of the provision of a variety of housing types of various tenures, allotments and on site open space.

Pam Alexander the Chairman of Milborne Port PC, Mr R Douglas, Mr P Davis, Ms E Wilson, Mr B Walden, Mr J Hughes and Mrs L Elson all spoke in objection to the application.  Their comments included:

·         Concerned about the cumulative effect the extra traffic from the development would have on the village;

·         Lack of infrastructure;

·         The local school was already near to maximum capacity;

·         Did not think the opinion of the PC had been taken into account;

·         Suggested that members should visit the site;

·         The report appeared to dismiss local objections;

·         There was already enough housing in Milborne Port

·         The NPPF makes reference to brownfield sites;

·         Serious concern about the already difficult 5 way junction with no proposed provision for a crossing;

·         The impact on the nearby Listed Buildings and the landscape;

·         Insufficient details regarding the proposed care home;

·         There were already 14 care homes in the local area;

·         The lack of available local jobs would mean occupants of the new development would have to work outside of Milborne Port and would need to travel to work;

·         The views of the public should be taken into account;

·         There was already a concern about the low water pressure more properties would worsen the problem;

·         Good farmland was needed for food not for development.

Mr M Scoot, the agent, addressed the committee and urged members to approve the application which had no objections from statutory consultees, he said that South Somerset did not have a 5 year housing supply and he suggested that a crossing across the A30 had been included in the plans.

Ward Member Sarah Dyke-Bracher asked for confirmation that the application had not been 2 starred. She made reference to the fact that the PC were against the application for many reasons. With other approved applications in the area and other sites under construction the number of dwellings would far exceed the target indicated in the Local Plan. The 5 way junction previously referred to was a concern.  If this application was approved it should be the last development allowed in Milborne Port.

With reference to the suggestion that the number of proposed dwellings would exceed the number quoted in the Local Plan, Mr Scoot had calculated the final figure would be just below 279. He also confirmed that there were plans for a crossing across the busy A30.

Cllr Sarah Dyke-Bracher said that any application for Milborne Port should be definitive and the best for Milborne Port.

A member of the public disputed whether a crossing or footpath could actually be accommodated as most of the properties in the vicinity had no frontage and led straight onto the pavement.

During discussion varying views were expressed including:

·         If the application was refused experience indicated that any appeal inspector would override the views of the public;

·         County Highways had not looked at individual traffic problems;

·         The 5 way junction was already dangerous and this application would add to the issues;

·         Policy SS2 that made reference to ‘community lead plans’ had been ignored in the report;

·         The SSDC Conservation Officer did not consider the site suitable;

·         Did not think there was enough parking allocated for the care home;

·         Several members had visited the site;

·         Other developments in Milborne Port had been refused and consistency in decisions was required;

·         Lack of employment land and local job opportunities was of concern;

·         The impact on local services would be detrimental.

The Development Manager explained that while Policy SS2 was relevant to the application in West Camel it was not relevant to Milborne Port and other larger places. The new SSDC Highway Officer had been unable to comment on this application as he had worked for the site during his previous employment.  He also stressed that issues regarding water pressure were the responsibility of Wessex Water and they would have to make good any issues.

The Area Lead East explained that the plans shown in this application were only indicative, and allocated parking for the care home could be amended.  County Highways were happy with roads on the development and access to the proposed plots.

A proposal was made and seconded to refuse the application contrary to the officers recommendation, the following reasons were put forward:

·         Concern regarding highways and the 5-way junction;

·         The high graded agricultural land  of the proposed site;

·         Contrary to the NPPF;

·         Impact on the character of Milborne Port;

·         Breaking up the boundary with Gainsborough

The Area Lead East reminded members that it would be difficult to defend an appeal against reasons that statutory consultees had not objected to. However if members had local knowledge of certain issues regarding highway safety that could be easily expressed those reasons could be put forward, a safety report could possibly be obtained as part of any appeal.  He then suggested that the following wording could be used as a robust reason for refusal

The proposal by reason of its layout and location on rising ground outside the established built form of Milborne Port and in close proximity to heritage assessments (listed buildings and the conservation area) would result in the loss of the distinctive setting and character of the village. As such the proposal is contrary to polices SD1, EQ2 and EQ3 of the South Somerset Local Plan and the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework.

It has not been demonstrated that the local road network, specifically the junction of Gainsborough with the A30 with its geometry and 5 arm layout, can safely accommodate the additional traffic likely to be generated by the development without severe adverse impact on highways safety. As such the proposal is contrary to policy TA5 of the South Somerset Local Plan and the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework.

It has not been demonstrated that the loss of best and most versatile agricultural land has been justified in this instance. As such the proposal is contrary to the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Members were content to use the wording as suggested by the Area Lead East and on being put to the vote the motion was unanimously carried in favour of refusal.

RESOLVED: That Planning Application 14/03377/OUT be refused contrary to the officers recommendation:

The proposal by reason of its layout and location on rising ground outside the established built form of Milborne Port and in close proximity to heritage assessments (listed buildings and the conservation area) would result in the loss of the distinctive setting and character of the village. As such the proposal is contrary to polices SD1, EQ2 and EQ3 of the South Somerset Local Plan and the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework.

It has not been demonstrated that the local road network, specifically the junction of Gainsborough with the A30 with its geometry and 5 arm layout, can safely accommodate the additional traffic likely to be generated by the development without severe adverse impact on highways safety. As such the proposal is contrary to policy TA5 of the South Somerset Local Plan and the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework.

It has not been demonstrated that the loss of best and most versatile agricultural land has been justified in this instance. As such the proposal is contrary to the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework.

(Voting: Unanimous in favour)