Agenda item

Approval of reserved matters for the erection of 40 dwellinghouses,  details of layout,scale, appearance and landscaping to include levels, external materials, and enhancement of biodiversity of outline planning permission 13/3593/OUT

The Planning Officer presented his report to the Committee with the aid of a powerpoint presentation. He highlighted that the red line had been reduced since the development was approved at outline stage and pointed out that of the 40 homes proposed, 14 would be affordable homes.

Barry Moorhouse, representing Castle Cary Town Council spoke in objection to the proposal. He expressed his concern over the extra traffic and the exit road onto Station Road which will become more dangerous once the 250-300 houses proposed opposite the site will be built. He objected to the proposal on the grounds of highway safety and questioned whether the access arrangements could be amended.

Pek Peppin, also representing Castle Cary Town Council spoke in objection to the proposal. She explained to the Committee that this proposal did not provide well designed homes, with a safe access and sufficient sized gardens and thought that the homes were boring in design and lacked any style or flare. She urged the Committee not to rush into approving this application.

Nigel Begg, a representative of Ansford Parish Council addressed the Committee to speak in objection to the application. He referred to an out of date SSDC publication around the design of residential areas and felt that greater efforts should be made to ensure a well-designed residential style and not to waste this valuable land. He expressed to the Committee that he was not opposed to development of the site, but opposed to the design of the development.

Colin Kay, a local resident and a member of Care for Cary criticised the developer for not providing sufficient information and described the development as unimaginative. It was his view that the design was not in-keeping with the area and local materials and stone should be used. He urged the Committee to reject this application and hoped that an alternative scheme could be developed with a more suitable design and new access.

Sally Snook spoke in objection to the application. She informed the Committee that she had supported the previous outline application as she site was larger and the houses were more widely spread across the site. She expressed her concerns over the density of the site, the sizes of the proposed gardens and the hammerhead end to the highway within the development.

Nick Weeks, Ward Member, expressed his disappointment at the substandard design of the planning application and felt that it lacked any imagination. He agreed with comments made relating to the design and density of the site and also raised concern over the water attenuation and drainage of the site and had hoped that the developers would have tried harder to link this site with the adjoining residential developments. For these reasons he did not support the planning application.

During the discussion, which was largely around the design, density and access to the site, it was suggested that the application could be deferred to enable the comments of the Committee to be passed to the applicant with a view to amending the scheme and access. However, the Planning Officer confirmed that the access to the site had previously been approved at outline stage.

Members noted and expressed their disappointment that very little consultation had taken place with the community and concern was raised that the development could further exasperate drainage problems.

Councillor Nick Weeks, Ward Member, expressed that he was not keen on deferring the application on the basis that if the applicant submitted an appeal on the grounds of non-determination, the Committee views would not be taken into consideration and that he would like to see the application refused, but by inviting the applicant to resubmit the planning application after consultation with the community.

Members noted that although the access arrangements had been agreed at outline planning application stage, Members raised concerns over the access to the site.

The case officer was asked to convey to the applicant the committee’s concerns over the lack of proper consultation with local residents, site layout, materials used and proposed highways issues in the light of planning permissions granted since the outline permission for Well Farm.

Following the discussion, it was proposed and seconded to refuse the application, contrary to the officer recommendation, for the following reasons, together with an informative to invite applicant to resubmit the application following consultation with the local community.

·         The proposal by reason of the density of development and its design and detailing would result in the poor quality over-development of the site at odds with the local character and pattern of development to the detriment of the visual amenities of the areas. As such the proposal is contrary to policy EQ2 of the South Somerset Local Plan 2006-2028 and the policies contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.

·         It has not been demonstrated that the proposed layout would facilitate the most appropriate drainage strategy that would maximise the on-site soakaway of surface water. . As such the proposal is contrary to policy EQ1 of the South Somerset Local Plan 2006-2028 and the policies contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.

On being put to the vote, the proposal was carried 8 votes in favour, 0 against with 1 abstention.

RESOLVED:

That planning application 15/0341/REM be refused contrary to officer recommendation for the following reasons;

1.         The proposal by reason of the density of development and its design and detailing would result in the poor quality over-development of the site at odds with the local character and pattern of development to the detriment of the visual amenities of the areas. As such the proposal is contrary to policy EQ2 of the South Somerset Local Plan 2006-2028 and the policies contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.

2.         It has not been demonstrated that the proposed layout would facilitate the most appropriate drainage strategy that would maximise the on-site soakaway of surface water. As such the proposal is contrary to policy EQ1 of the South Somerset Local Plan 2006-2028 and the policies contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.

Informative

1.         You are reminded that the proposal was not supported by any meaningful pre-submission public involvement. Accordingly you are invited engage with the District, Town and Parish Councils to discuss amendments to the refused scheme that would overcome the reasons for refusal identified by the Committee with regard to the level/density of development and the design and detailing of the proposed houses.

(Voting: 8 in favour, 0 against with 1 abstention)