Agenda item

The Planning Officer presented the application as detailed in the agenda and with the aid of a powerpoint presentation showed the site and proposed plans, including photos of the site and from neighbouring properties.

He also showed plans from the previously approved application which had since lapsed, as he believed it would help members in showing the differences in this application and the previous application approved in 2011. 

The Planning officer confirmed that there were no further updates to the report and referred to the key considerations for members including:

·         Whether anything had materially changed since application 10/04538/FUL and does this result in the same decision?

·         Impact upon residential amenity.

·         Impact upon visual amenity.

·         Impact upon highway safety.

He considered the current policies and guidance of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) to be fundamentally the same and that the proposed dwelling was to be sited further away from the neighbouring property than that of the current garage.  He referred to the comments made by the County Highways Authority and that the existing access is sufficient for this application and therefore his recommendation was to approve the application for reasons as set out in the agenda report.

In response to members’ questions the Area Lead South and Planning Officer confirmed that:

·         There is additional land within the applicant’s ownership as indicated by a blue line within the application plans; however this land is not part of this application.

·         With the aid of slides showed the differing levels between the application site and the existing bungalows and their gardens in Nash Lane to the west of the site.

·         Obscure glazing would be fitted to the 2 first floor windows in the rear south elevation.

·         The proposed dwelling was to be the same height as the previously approved dwelling with the footprint marginally larger to include a garage at ground floor level with a larger bedroom above.

·         Proposed dwelling to be approximately 6 metres from the neighbouring property 2a Nash Lane.

·         Appreciated the concerns regarding the drainage issues especially due to the levels and alleged sandy soil, however the application is accompanied with a drainage proposal, previously a detailed scheme was agreed and on the basis of expert advice a suitable form of drainage can be achieved on this site.

·         Had consulted with Western Power regarding electricity wires across the site however no comments had been received at this time.

·         This application is for a single dwelling located within the site as indicated within the red line of the submitted plans.  The land situated outside of this area, although within the applicants ownership, is not part of this application and should not be considered with this application.

Councillor Gina Seaton ward member, proposed that in order to appreciate the full degree and levels of the site in relation to the existing properties, 2 and 2a Nash Lane, and the concerns regarding run off and flooding that a site visit be made before the application was determined.  This was subsequently seconded and on being put to the vote was lost by 7 votes in favour and 7 votes against.  The Chairman provided his casting vote against the proposal of a site visit.

Mrs Bridget Sugg, Chairman of East Coker Parish Council then addressed the committee and spoke in opposition to the application.  She wished to reinforce the comments already made by East Coker Parish Council and believed that due to the topography of the site it was a totally unsuitable location for any new dwelling.  She reiterated the concern regarding the sandy soil within the area and the overbearing impact this proposal would have on the neighbouring properties within Nash Lane.  In conclusion she believed this proposal would be seriously detrimental to the streetscene and have a significant impact on the surrounding local area.

Mr David Stephens, representative of some of the residents of Nash Lane spoke in opposition to the application.  He appreciated this was a controversial application and believed the report placed great reliance on the previously approved planning permission which had now since lapsed.  He believed the framework of planning had changed radically since 2010 and that this application does not comply with the sustainable aspects as set out within the NPPF, principally due to the impact this proposal would have on the neighbouring properties.  He was not confident in the proposed surface water drainage system, believed a site visit was necessary to fully appreciate the levels of this site and that the knowledge of local residents should be taken into account. 

Mr Shaun Travers and Mr Ryan Huntley also addressed the committee and spoke in opposition to the application.  Comments made included:

·         This proposal would have a significant visual impact on what is a historical and characterful part of the town.

·         Would harm what was a distinctive site with a large number of protected trees.

·         Insufficient survey undertaken of neighbouring properties especially the properties to the west of the site within Nash Lane.

·         Noted the strong objection from both East Coker and West Coker Parish Councils.

·         Significant change in planning policy since the approval of the last planning permission and therefore do not need to make the same mistake twice.

·         Concern regarding water services running through the proposed site that currently served neighbouring properties.

·         Reiterated concerns regarding the sandy soil and surface water drainage of the site.

·         Overbearing impact on the neighbouring properties.

·         Localism and lack of consultation from the applicant.

Mr Rob Smith the agent then addressed the committee.  He referred to the previous planning permission already granted where all conditions had been discharged and building control regulations met.  He believed there was no significant change from the previous scheme other than this proposal was to be sited further away from the neighbouring boundary which also provided a good three bed house for the local area.

Councillor Gina Seaton, Ward member raised concerns regarding the overbearing impact of the proposal on neighbouring properties, the loss of light and overall loss of privacy to the adjacent properties particularly 2 and 2a Nash Lane.  She considered that due to the topography and sandy soil of the site that this is a totally unsuitable location for a dwelling.  She referred to a recent refused application of the site which had included three bungalows and stated the reasons for refusal of that application.  She believed the proposal would be detrimental to the area and contrary to Policy EQ2 of the local plan and aims and objectives of the NPPF and would not support the application.

Councillor Cathy Bakewell, Ward member also raised concern regarding the proposal.  She reiterated concerns regarding the significant impact the proposal would have on the streetscene and surrounding local area and the flooding and drainage issues of the site.  She questioned the concerns over the future of the remaining land at the rear of the site that is still within the ownership of the applicant.

During discussion, members expressed varying comments including

·         Appreciated the varying levels of the site and sought clarification over the differing ground levels of the site in relation to the neighbouring properties in Nash Lane.

·         Raised concerns regarding the overbearing impact on the neighbouring properties of Nash Lane but questioned whether this had significantly changed from that of the previous approved application.

·         Believed the proposed dwelling located further away from the neighbouring property 2a Nash Lane was an improvement from that of the previous approved scheme.

·         Cannot clearly find any significant reasons to go against the policies set out in the local plan or NPPF.

·         Questioned the outcome and costs of an appeal and the weight given to any historical planning consent of the site.

·         Raised concern regarding the land at the rear of the site and its future use.

In response to members’ comments the Area South Lead acknowledged the previous application had since lapsed but clarified that the reasons and considerations for this application were fundamentally the same.  He appreciated the concerns raised regarding the varying levels and drainage issues of the site due to the alleged sandy soil, however stated that no evidence had been proven and as such the recommendation was still to approve this application.

The Chairman then proposed and subsequently seconded that planning permission be granted as per the officers recommendation as set out in the agenda report.  On being put to the vote this was lost by 5 votes in favour and 3 against.

Following a short discussion it was then proposed and subsequently seconded that the application be refused contrary to the officer’s recommendation for the following reasons as read out by the Planning Officer:

‘The proposal by reason of its location and siting fails to conserve or enhance the landscape character of the area, fails to reinforce local distinctiveness and respect local context whilst causing an overbearing relationship to 2 and 2a Nash Lane.  As such the proposal is contrary to Policy EQ2 of the adopted South Somerset Local Plan (2006-2028) and the aims and objectives of the NPPF’.

On being put to the vote this was carried by 9 votes in favour, 5 against and 1 abstention.

RESOLVED:

That application 17/01396/FUL be refused for the following reason:

The proposal by reason of its location and siting fails to conserve or enhance the landscape character of the area, fails to reinforce local distinctiveness and respect local context whilst causing an overbearing relationship to 2 and 2a Nash Lane.  As such the proposal is contrary to Policy EQ2 of the adopted South Somerset Local Plan (2006-2028) and the aims and objectives of the NPPF’

(voting: 9 in favour, 5 against, 1 abstention)