Agenda item

(Having earlier declared a Personal and Prejudicial Interest Councillors John Clark and Mike Lock left the room during consideration of this item).

The Planning Officer presented the application as detailed in the agenda and with the aid of a power point presentation showed the site and proposed plans. 

He reiterated to members the update from both the SCC Highways and the SSDC highways consultant as already detailed under application 16/02464/S73 which concludes when viewed in context of other applications in this area raised no objections. Comments included:

·         SCC Highways – Main vehicular access will be via Thorne Lane, which is narrow and restrictive in some sections.  Again like the previous proposal the application would result in an increase in vehicle movements on Thorne Lane it is our opinion that it would only be at certain times and not consistently throughout the day.  As a consequence the proposal did not warrant an objection on traffic impact grounds.

·         SSDC Consultant – Would anticipate the use of the pitches were unlikely to coincide with the college peak times – the use of the pitches is more likely to be in the evenings and at weekends. In addition, the development of the key Site has to be considered.  This is a committed development under construction and although unsure what was agreed in the end with regard Lufton Lane is sure SCC was going to secure a sum of money towards a potential TRO to restrict vehicular use along Lufton lane if increased traffic generation flow was going to cause a problem.

He also informed members of an update received from the SSDC Conservation Officer which he read as follows:

“There are a number of heritage assets close to the application site. These include Lufton Manor, Lufton House and Lufton Church. The proposal is of a significant scale in an area of open countryside. The three historic assets I’ve mentioned enjoy a rural setting, and Lufton Manor features a sizeable associated area of planned parkland. I cannot find any supporting statements within the application documents to show that this has been considered. Paragraph 128 of the NPPF makes it clear that the applicant should describe the significance of any heritage assets affected by the proposal. I am of the view that given the scale of the proposal and the extent of formal landscaped parkland abutting the site there is the potential for the works to cause harm to the setting of nearby heritage assets. There is no evidence within the application documents to demonstrate that the significance of the setting of these assets has been taken into account in developing the proposal.

Therefore, in addition to Robert’s concerns about the impact on the Montacute House parkland I also suggest that the application should be refused due to the lack of supporting information in accordance with para. 128 of the NPPF, and potential impact on the setting of Lufton Manor Parkland”.

The Area South Lead also updated members of the following:

·         That further Archelogy information would be required and sourced before formal determination of this application

·         Correction to page 88 should read ‘Lufton Lane and Thorne Lane and surrounding network’ in place of Moor Lane.

·         Email received from Brympton Parish Council who wished to clarify that they are no longer the operators of the allotments and now managed by a different body.

·         Amend condition 14 to include that access be used for pedestrian/emergency access only.

The Area South Lead referred to the key considerations including:

·         The benefits of the Playing Fields

·         Highways and Accessibility

·         Landscape and Heritage Assets (including archaeology)

·         Anti-social Behaviour/Security

He concluded that on the basis of all the information provided and with the amendment to condition 14 and the satisfactory receipt of the Archaeology materials his recommendation was for approval for reasons as set out in the agenda report.

In response to members’ questions, the Area South Lead confirmed that:

·         The Lufton Key Site includes a clause within the Section 106 Agreement that provides options to mitigate any problems or concerns should there be an increase in traffic movements along Lufton Lane associated with the Key Site.

·         Usage of the pitches would predominantly be early evening or at weekends given the provision of formal pitches. This would be at times when traffic is generally lower in Thorne Lane and Lufton Lane.

·         The site was within walking distance of the Lufton Key Site and therefore potentially 696 homes. It has been recognised that the Key Site is slightly deficient in formal sports pitches and it was wholly possible that this proposal would be valuable to this development alone meeting an acknowledged need.

·         Does not consider this to be a rural development and therefore Policy SS2 is not appropriate in this case.

·         Believe there may be a link with the aspirations of YTFC to develop Huish Park, however this is not a concern at this time and should not be a consideration to members when determining this application.

·         The Crime Prevention Officer is aware of the proposal and raises no significant objection as per his comments set out in the agenda report.

·         The facility would be run as a Community Playing field and therefore could not preclude persons from entering the site.

The Development Manager stated it was not proposed to designate as an open space but was proposed to be subject to a management condition which would achieve the community access required as is enjoyed elsewhere such as Yeovil recreation ground.

Liz Glashier representative of Brympton Parish Council spoke in objection to the application.  She raised several concerns including that the application falls outside the designated area for development and disjointed from the town.  The only access is along narrow country lanes with an obviously safety issue to users of the lane both by pedestrians and vehicles. She also felt that proper highways scrutiny is missing, Sport England have been misrepresented and unsure why the Crime Prevention comments had been withdrawn.

Roger Meecham, Maggie Baker, Jamie Cheeseman and Susan Collins all members of the public then addressed the committee and spoke in objection to the application.  Various comments were made including:

·         Inappropriate location and replacement for the existing community recreation land that already exists at Yeovil Town Football Club.

·         Is there a proven need especially as the Westland Sports site is being redeveloped.

·         There are Archaeological remains on the site.

·         Impact on the surrounding area which is currently unspoilt countryside.

·         Concerns over anti-social activities on site as it cannot be secured if it’s for public use.

·         Who funds the facility and where is the business case? Unlikely a ‘Community Trust’ could take over the project without substantial funding from either Parish Council or other bodies.

·         No requirement for these facilities at Lufton and too far removed to benefit the residents to Abbey Manor Park.

·         Would have a huge impact on the Lufton hamlet, the surrounding countryside and the heritage assets within the area.

·         Can only access the site by car as there are no other safe means of access.

·         No social gain or need.

·         Concern regarding the surface water run-off from the site and therefore increase flood risk to adjacent property.

·         Community benefit does not outweigh the impact on the local community.

·         Lanes around the site are very narrow with few passing places and safety concern to pedestrians and cyclists.

John Dover, John Evans, Peter Hockley and Mark Baker then addressed the committee and spoke in support of the application.  Various comments were made including:

·         Community Sports Trust would agree to long term management of this proposal, who would look to support and promote sport and opportunities and work with individuals and work in partnership with organisations.

·         Playing pitches are a vital resource and in short supply to help support and encourage the young to participate in sport.

·         Yeovil College only have two sports pitches and would welcome more local pitches in which to play, as currently have to go outside the area to play matches.

·         Currently have insufficient playing pitches to help support and promote youngster playing the game of football and therefore the Somerset Football Association wish to support this proposal.

·         Local Football clubs would welcome the use of extra good quality pitches which are currently in short supply.

·         An additional cricket pitch would also be provided on site.

·         Need to support the sports facility to help and encourage children to play sport.

David Bell, the agent then addressed the committee.  He noted that all consultees made no objections following the revised proposal and understood there were other sports facilities located within areas of Archaeological and conservation.  He said the application had significant local and national support due to the lack of existing facilities within the area and that the Community Sports Trust would look to manage the site.  He also clarified to members that there is no proposal for a licenced bar on the site.

Councillor Sarah Lindsay, Ward member voiced several concerns regarding this application which included:

·         Serious concern regarding road safety due to the traffic movements and the impact this would have along these narrow lanes.

·         Various bodies have raised concerns and objections to this application.

·         Lose of prime agricultural land.

·         Considers it to be in a remote location and not within walking distance, therefore concern over the sustainability issue of the site.

·         Concern regarding anti-social behaviour on the site due to its remote location and 24 hour open space facility.

·         Surrounded by narrow country lanes with few passing places and insufficient lighting and the safety concerns to people wishing to access the site on foot or cyclists.

Councillor Peter Seib, Ward member also voiced several objections to this application including:

·         Understood there not to be a public need in this case as not considered a key site provision.

·         Cannot see the wider public benefit.

·         Cricket pitch is not considered of suitable size to provide additional adult provision.

·         Concern that the facility would need to be financially subsidised.

·         Serious concern regarding road safety due to the traffic movements and the impact this would have along these narrow lanes.

·         Surrounded by narrow country lanes with few passing places and insufficient lighting and the safety concerns to people wishing to access the site on foot or cyclists.

·         Consider it to be in a remote location in open countryside.

·         Concern regarding Anti-social behaviour on site due to its remote location.

During members discussion several comments were made including:

·         Impact on the Lufton hamlet, the surrounding countryside and the heritage assets within the area.

·         Concerns regarding the drainage of the site and the ongoing maintenance issues.

·         No business case and therefore concern regarding the sustainability of the site.

·         Surrounded by narrow country lanes with few passing places and insufficient lighting and the safety concerns to people wishing to access the site on foot or cyclists.

·         No bus routes to site.

·         Believe the proposed terraces on the site would have an severe impact on the local character.

·         There are known football pitch facilities on the edge of towns.

·         Appreciate the highway concerns, however the advice from SCC Highways consider it to be acceptable.

·         Possibility of Housing or Industrial development on his land be worse.

·         Believe it to be attached to open countryside and not in it.

In response to members’ comments, the Area Lead South clarified to members that:

·         The site would have a height limit barrier to restrict vehicle access to the site, although this barrier would allow bus drivers, refuse lorries and emergency vehicles to override this in order to access the site.

·         Condition 6 as set out in the agenda report would help mitigate any concerns regarding the drainage issues of the site.

He also confirmed to members that an approved management and maintenance scheme and community use scheme would need to be submitted and approved prior to approval of this application. 

Following a further discussion a short adjournment was taken in order to make certain of the satisfactory wording for the reason for approval to this application to ensure that satisfactory information be received to secure community use of the site and the satisfactory receipt of the assessments of the Archaeological remains.

David Bell, the agent also wished to clarify to members that the original submission proposed was that a management company support and manage the site with the help of the local Parish Council.  However, this interest was not forthcoming and therefore the current proposal allowed the Community Trust to manage the day to day dealings of the site and welcomed the support of local councillors in this capacity.

There being no further debate, it was proposed and subsequently seconded that the application be approved as per the wording read out by the Chairman as follows:

‘Approve application 15/02535/FUL subject to satisfactory receipt of a desktop assessment and field evaluation of potential Archaeological remains and to secure Community Use in conjunction with the completion of a legal agreement to secure Community Use in the conjunction with condition 19.’

On being put to the vote this was lost by 4 votes in favour, 6 against and 0 abstentions.

Following a short discussion, it was then proposed and subsequently seconded to refuse the application for the following reasons:

·         Proposed engineering works and facilities would have an adverse impact upon the character of the area and nearby designated heritage assets.

·         Proposed recreation facility fails to provide the necessary safe access to and from the site for pedestrians and cyclists.

·         The creation of a recreational facility in this isolated location has the unacceptable potential to result in crime, disorder and anti-social behaviour.

On being put to the vote this was carried by 6 votes in favour, 0 against and 4 abstentions.

RESOLVED:

That application 15/02535/FUL be refused for the following reasons:

1)    The proposed engineering works and the changing rooms/facilities would have an adverse impact upon the character of the area and nearby designated heritage assets.  The proposal is therefore contrary to policies EQ2 and EQ3 of the South Somerset Local Plan and paragraphs 131-134 of the NPPF.

2)    The proposed recreation facility fails to provide the necessary safe access to and from the site for pedestrians and cyclists. The proposal is therefore contrary to policy TA5 of the South Somerset Local Plan and paragraph 32 of the NPPF.

3)    The creation of a recreational facility in this isolated location has the unacceptable potential to result in crime, disorder and anti-social behaviour and as such is contrary to policy EQ2 of the South Somerset Local Plan and paragraph 58 of the NPPF.

(voting: 6 in favour, 0 against, 4 abstentions)