Agenda item

Proposal: The erection of 34 No. dwellings and associated works including access, parking and landscaping.

Prior to the officer’s presentation, Members discussed the proposal that the application would be referred to Regulation Committee if members were minded to refuse permission.  It was agreed that information on the date of the Regulation Committee meeting would be circulated to members. 

The Area Lead Planner advised that a report on the number of failed planning appeals was currently being compiled by the Lead Specialist – Planning to be presented to the four Area Committee meetings and also further information would be added to the monthly Planning Appeals reports to Committee. 

The planning officer presented the application and advised that since writing his report, the Police Crime Prevention Design Adviser had confirmed that the amended plans met their safety requirements, and, one further letter of objection had been received from the resident of 24 West End Close.  The applicant was a housing association who had indicated that all the proposed dwellings would be affordable, however, 35% affordable housing would be secured through a Section 106 legal agreement.  He noted that the Local Plan identified South Petherton as a rural centre and as such development was expected.  Although the Local Plan anticipated 229 houses to be constructed in the village during the plan period, including this development, there would be 309 dwellings with permission which was a 35% increase over the Local Plan target, although, the Local Plan target was not to be considered a maximum number of dwellings.  He also drew attention to the proposed ecological planting strip around the site, the Wessex Water main drain down the south east boundary, the need for a construction plan during development and the need to remove a small section of garden fence at 24 West End Close where it crossed the pavement. 

Ms D Hodson Wright spoke on behalf of South Petherton Parish Council, and said that the village had already taken their fair share of houses.  A Community Land Trust had identified a need for 10 or 11 low cost houses which should be available for local people.  She advised the local schools were full, there was currently only one doctor at the local surgery and there was consultation on the closure of the library which would be a further loss of facilities. 

The Committee were then addressed by Ms L Hanslip and Mr B Apps in opposition to the proposed development.  Their comments included:-

·         Loss of light by overshadowing trees and 3 visitor spaces proposed alongside the boundary to their property.

·         Reduction in scope for safer parking as parking is not permitted within 10 metres of a junction. 

·         This could be a possible exception site for the Community Land Trust.

·         This site was never part of the Strategic Housing Land Assessment or in the issues and options of the Local Plan.

·         We are already 35% over the Local Plan target for housing in the village and there is still 10 years left of the current Local Plan. 

Mr J Layzell, Executive Director for Stonewater, said access to good quality, affordable housing was important and they had no intention to delay the build.  Although they were bound to provide 12 affordable units, all 34 would be affordable with a mix of affordable rented, home ownership and housing for older tenants. 

Mr M Frost, Agent, said the site would provide a valuable contribution to local housing need and planning policy SS5 allowed a permissive approach to modest development. He said the development would not affect the village hierarchy in the Local Plan and there would be no impact on neighbourhood amenity. He concluded there were no objections from the statutory consultees and there had been a number of letters of support as well as objection. 

One of the Ward Members, Councillor Crispin Raikes, noted that the Parish Council did not support the proposal, citing parking and access as their concerns.  He also expressed concern whether the schools could accommodate any further students and the disruption to residents during construction.  He concluded that any future appeal was likely to be successful but he did have concerns at the proposed access. 

The other Ward Member, Councillor Adam Dance, said that although he wanted affordable homes in the village, he had checked the Homefinder Somerset register and there were only 17 people or families seeking accommodation in the South Petherton area.  He said that as a school governor he was aware there were no further school places and there was already difficulty in obtaining an appointment at the local doctors surgery.  He felt the plot of land was too small for the proposed number of properties and the access roads were too narrow as cars were usually parked either side. 

During discussion, varying views were expressed.  Some Members felt there was a need for affordable houses and pointed out that the education authority said there was some capacity locally for students, whilst others expressed concern at the narrow access, parking and construction traffic as well as the additional pressure on the schools and doctors surgery. 

It was proposed and seconded to refer the application to the Regulation Committee with a recommendation to refuse for the following reasons:

1. Skewing of Local Plan settlement hierarchy
2. Detrimental to residential amenity
3. Harmful to highway safety due to overdevelopment on site
4. Unsustainable location due to gradient up to the site from the village centre

On being put to the vote, this proposal was carried (voting: 5 in favour, 4 against, 1 abstention). 

At the conclusion of the debate, Councillor Neil Bloomfield asked that the following appeal decisions be referenced in the officer’s report to the Regulation Committee as he felt they were pertinent:

a.    Lavers Oak, Martock- 15/00446/OUT 91 dwellings - refused on appeal (Harm to landscape character, 50% over Local Plan housing number)

b.    Ringwell Hill, Bower Hinton- 14/04723/FUL 49 dwellings - refused on appeal (Unsustainable location - more than 2000 metres from village centre, 32 or 40% over Local Plan housing number)

(Voting: 5 in favour, 4 against, 1 abstention)