Agenda item

Residential development, erection of 20 dwellinghouses with associated roads and parking

The Planning Officer presented the application as detailed in the agenda with the aid of a powerpoint presentation.

He explained to the Committee that the site already had outline planning permission for 17 dwellings, which had been allowed following an appeal and that the layout of this scheme was fundamentally the same.

He informed the Committee that some additional correspondence had been received from the Parish Council and objectors. The Parish Council raised further concerns over the boundary hedgerow, the Walnut tree, design of dwellings, highway and car parking issues. They also wanted to point out that any views from individual parish councillors provided were the views of the individuals concerned and not the Parish Council.

Further letters of objection had been received which expressed concern over the amount of social housing proposed, the number of houses, design, access, drainage and school capacity.

The planning officer pointed out that the social houses could be allocated to Henstidge residents first through a S106 agreement.

D Nichols, Chairman of Henstridge Parish Council, spoke in objection to the application. He pointed out that the Parish Council are not against development of the site, but would like to see a carefully designed scheme which would be a positive addition to the village. It was the view of the Parish Council that the development had inadequate access and parking and expressed his concern over the close proximity to the Walnut tree.

Mrs P Thompson, Mr Cullum, Mrs J Bates, Mrs D Coates, Mr P Thompson and Mrs L Courtney spoke in objection to the proposal. They raised several concerns including;

·         The access onto Church Street is dangerous

·         The proposal will further exasperate parking problems in the area

·         Henstridge already provides a high amount of social housing and the wording should be amended to ensure that a maximum of 35% social housing is created

·         The Village Plan and Design Statement had been ignored

·         Approval should only be given for 17 homes, not 20 homes

·         The school is at full capacity and will be unable to cope

·         Development is too close to an existing home and will block light into this home and garden

·         The proposal has been poorly designed and will not sit comfortably in the village

Mr Matthews, the applicant, addressed the Committee. He pointed out that although the application was for 20 homes, rather than 17, there was very little difference in the proposed development when compared to the previously approval scheme. The Housing Officer had confirmed that there was a requirement for 1 bedroomed homes in Henstridge, which explained the rise in homes from 17 to 20.

Councillor William Wallace, Ward Member, raised points on behalf of Councillor Tim Inglefield as well as himself, to include the number of school places which may be required and the road width along Furge Grove.

He expressed his concern over the design, site levels and the parking issues which he thought may cause problems outside of the proposed development site.

During the discussion, Ward Members expressed that they would like to see a play area in the site and concern was raised over the school places which would be needed. The Development Control Manager confirmed that the case officer had visited the school and that there was no problem with capacity at the primary school.

Members raised concern over the design of the development. It was pointed out that the houses should be of traditional design and that these dwellings had nothing in common with the village and that 17 homes would be adequate for the site.

Following the discussion, it was proposed to refuse the planning application.

On being put the vote, it was unanimously agreed to refuse the planning application contrary to the officer recommendation.

RESOLVED: That planning permission 15/01500/FUL be refused contrary to the officer recommendation for the following reasons:

1          The proposed scheme by reason of its density, layout and design of dwellings would have an adverse impact upon the character and appearance of the locality and does not accord with the requirements of Policy EQ2 of the South Somerset Local Plan and Part 7 of the NPPF

2          The proposal does not provide sufficient parking which will result in an adverse impact upon highway safety and will displace parking onto the already crowded adjoining highways thus resulting in a negative impact upon amenity.  As such the proposal does not meet the requirements of Policy TA6 of the South Somerset Local Plan or the standards set out in the adopted Parking Strategy.

(Voting: Unanimous)