Agenda item

The Area Lead East presented the application as detailed in the agenda and with the aid of a powerpoint presentation showed the site, proposed plans and photos of the vicinity. 

He informed members of various updates including:

·         That Area Development comments reiterated concerns raised as per the two previous applications such as cumulative impact and also the possibility that these outline sites may come forward first resulting in isolated development.

·         Applicant confirmed and content with the SCC education increase in the cost education per place to £14,007.00.

·         SCC as flood authority raised no objection to drainage subject to detail.

The Area East Lead also referred to the key considerations which included:

·         Principle of development

·         Cumulative impact

·         Local landscape and visual amenity impact

·         Residential amenity

·         Highway issues

·         Planning Obligations

The Area Lead East concluded the proposal to have a lack of joined up planning with no way of safeguarding the possibility of leaving an isolated scheme.  He also raised concern regarding the remote point of access from the town and the lack of links to local community facilities and therefore questioned the sustainability of the scheme.  His recommendation was therefore to refuse the application as for the reasons as set out in the agenda report.

Mr Alan Gibbons from Ansford Parish Council addressed the committee.  He confirmed that the Parish Council did not support the application as considered this application was a ‘step too far’ and located in an isolated area with no links to the town centre and its facilities. 

Mr K Knight, Mr C Kay, Mr W Vaughan and Ms V Noble all spoke in objection to the application, their comments included:

·         Loss of greenfield/agricultural land.

·         Previously approved schemes should be developed first.

·         Cumulative impact of well over 450 houses which would be considerably above the housing requirement for this area.

·         Isolated site located well away from the town centre and its facilities.

·         Felt consideration should be given to the impending Neighbourhood Plan indicating this area to be a Greenfield site.

·         Would require yet another access onto Station Road impacting once more on the traffic within the area.

Mr Kevin Bird the applicant then addressed the committee.  He reminded members that this application was currently at appeal for non-determination and countered the reasons for refusal of this application.  He felt this application was no different from that of the previous application 15/02388/OUT that members had just approved.  He believed the scheme to be in no way detrimental to the area, was in the direction of growth and located opposite land already approved for development.   He confirmed that SSDC had accepted they did not have a five year land supply and that the housing figures for the area were merely an indication of the minimum requirement.  He confirmed a travel plan had been agreed with SCC, only three letters of objection had been received and believed this to be of little difference from that of the previous application.

Councillor Henry Hobhouse, Ward member raised concern regarding the isolated location of the site with lack of footpath links to the town centre.  He also felt the addition of yet another access point onto Station Road would be an added reason for refusal, due to the huge impact yet again on road safety within the area.  He would therefore not support this application. 

Councillor Nick Weeks, Ward member also raised his concern believing this application to be ‘one step too far’ at this stage owing to the impending development within the area and would therefore not support the application.

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

·         Cautious that the proposed housing figures were merely an indication of the minimum requirement for the area.

·         Considered the scheme to be situated in an isolated area located at a distance from the town centre and its facilities.

During a short debate, members led by the Development Manager and Area Lead East discussed and suggested the reasons for refusal and the reasons to make a resolution to the appeal against no-determination of the previous application on this site.

Following a short discussion, it was then proposed and subsequently seconded that planning permission be refused as per the officer’s recommendation for the reasons as set out in the agenda report. One being put to the vote this was carried by 3 votes in favour, 0 against and 2 abstentions.

RESOLVED:

(a)  That planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

1)    This proposal for up to 75 dwellings is at the northern end of the Direction of Growth that does not directly abut the existing edge of development and is within the gap between Castle Cary and Ansford. No indicative layout is provided and there is no mechanism that could reasonably secure a phased development with other schemes currently proposed within the Direction of Growth. Accordingly the proposed development, which might be achieved in isolation, would appear as an alien and intrusive urban form development in an otherwise rural setting to the detriment to the landscape character of the area and the amenities of the locality. Furthermore it has not been demonstrate that green infrastructure, in the form of the gap between Ansford and Castle Cary, would be maintained and enhanced. As such the proposal is contrary to policies EQ2 and EQ5 of the South Somerset Local Plan and the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework

2)    In the absence of a mechanism to ensure the phased development of this site with other sites to within the Direction of Growth that could link the proposed development to the town, future residents of these dwellings the proposed development would not be within reasonable walking distance of primary schools, employment opportunities and the services and facilities available in the town centre. As such future residents would have no realistic alternative to the private motor car to access services and facilities necessary for daily life.

No travel plan has been provided to 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 National Planning policy Framework, which is not outweighed by any benefits arising from the development. Accordingly the proposal is contrary to the policies SD1, TP4 and EQ2 of the South Somerset Local Plan 2006- 2028 and the policies contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.

(b)  That the same putative reason for refusal be defended in relation to the appeal against the non-determination of 15/00519/OUT

(voting: 3 in favour, 0 against, 2 abstentions)