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 previous applications such as lack of comprehensive planning and the possibility that these outline sites may come forward first resulting in isolated development.

·         SCC as Education Authority confirmed that 25 places would be required with the cost education per place of £14,007.00 equalling a total of £350,171.00.

·         Applicant content and in agreement of the requested housing and leisure contributions.

·         Castle Cary Town Council raised concerns which included; road safety issues, additional access point onto Station Road, in excess of the local plan housing requirement for the area and the lack of employment opportunity within the scheme.

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

·         Confirmed no objection raised from SCC Highways Authority subject to detail of Travel Plan.

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 this proposal, although in the direction of growth, would be situated outside the area for development as indicated in the draft Neighbourhood Plan although reiterated limited weight should be given to this at this time.  He understood that should this development be approved it would take the housing requirement along with the other already approved developments to be over 60% of the requirement for the area and believed such excessive growth would be at odds with the town’s status in the District’s hierarchy.  His recommendation was therefore to refuse the application as for the reasons as set out in the agenda report.

Mr Alan Gibbons representative from Ansford Parish Council addressed the committee.  He considered this application was a ‘step too far’ and raised concern regarding the sloping levels of the site.  He concluded the scheme did not follow the requirements of the South Somerset Local Plan, raised concern regarding the traffic safety along Station Road and confirmed that for these reasons the Parish Council could not support the application.

Mrs Penny Steiner representative from Castle Cary Parish Council addressed the committee.  She confirmed the Parish Council unanimously opposed this application believing the local road network to already be under severe pressure especially as two additional developments had been approved.  She said the application exceeded the housing requirement for the area as indicated by the Local Plan and no employment opportunity had been identified.

Mr B Lane and Mr K Knight then spoke in objection to the application, their comments included:

·         No employment opportunity specified within the development.

·         Felt consideration should be given to the impending Neighbourhood Plan which had been prepared by hugely knowledgeable local people.

·         Local people’s views should be taken into account.

·         Loss of greenfield/agricultural land.

Councillor Nick Weeks, Ward member questioned the accountability of the bringing forward of employment land within this application and although indicated other land may be available within the local area enquired into the responsibility of such matter.

Councillor Henry Hobhouse, Ward member believed this application was again ‘a step too far’ and reiterated concerns over the lack of employment land within the proposal and therefore agreed with the officers recommendations for refusal as set out in the agenda report

In response the Principal Spatial Planner agreed with members that there was currently a lack of ability in bringing forward employment land within these proposed developments.  He confirmed that work was being undertaken to look into this matter not only in this area but across the district and that this could be a consideration for members when determining this application.

He also advised members that although there was no denying the amount of effort made in producing the Neighbourhood Plan, for the purpose of the consideration of this application members should be reminded it carried limited weight at this time due to the comprehensive process of implementation yet to be completed.  As a point of clarity he also advised the committee and members of the public that the five year housing supply requirement referred to is based on the district wide figure.

During a short discussion, members believed the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) guidance should support and help achieve sustainable development and prevent isolated developments.  Members believed this application fails to achieve such sustainable development for economic, social and environmental reasons and therefore it was 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 unanimously.

RESOLVED:

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

1)    This proposal for up to 125 dwellings is at the northern end of the Direction of Growth that does not directly abut the existing edge of development. No mechanism is proposed that could reasonably secure a phased development with other schemes currently proposed within the Direction of Growth. Accordingly the proposed development, which might be delivered in isolation, would appear as an alien and intrusive urban form development in an otherwise rural setting to the detriment landscape character of the area and the amenities of the locality. As such the proposal is contrary to policy EQ2 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 the south that would 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.

The submitted travel plan does not satisfactorily 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.

3)    The proposal, to be acceptable would require reasons 1 and 2 to be addressed, however if that were to be achieved the level of growth in Castle Cary/Ansford, a lower tier ‘local market town’, would be in the region of 523-598 dwellings, some 40-60% in excess of the minimum set out in policy SS5. Such excessive growth would be at odds with the town’s status in the District’s hierarchy of settlements as set out by policy SS1 and would prejudice the planned, sustainable delivery of growth across the district. As such the proposal is contrary to policies SD1, SS1 and SS5 of the South Somerset Local Plan 2006- 2028 and the policies contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.

(b)  That the same putative reasons for refusal be defended in relation to the appeal against the non-determination of 14/05623/OUT

(voting: unanimous)