Agenda item

Planning Application 17/03800/OUT** - Land Os 3727 Part Windmill Hill Lane Ashill


Application proposal: Erection of 25 dwellings and formation of access (outline)


The Planning Officer introduced the application and outlined the history of the site.  He advised that the Local Plan allowed for some development in rural settlements and Ashill had some limited facilities and so was acceptable for development. Historical applications at the site had been refused permission because of impact on the area but settlements previously had development boundaries which no longer existed.  His recommendations was to approve the application with conditions.


In response to questions from Members, the Planning Officer advised:-


·         There were no shops in the village and the bus service had declined but this was one aspect of the whole application.

·         SSDC were investigating setting up their own management company to maintain foul and surface water drainage in the long term at such developments.

·         There was another application for the development of 26 houses to the east of the village which had not been determined.

·         Although the Local Plan had provided an expected target of 2,242 homes across all the rural settlements, with completions and commitments, this figure was now at 2,700.

·         The Highway Authority did not consider that the highways impact would be severe and did not raise an objection to the scheme.


The Committee were addressed by the Clerk to Ashill Parish Council, a local resident and a representative for the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE) who all spoke in opposition to the application.  Their comments included:-


·         The Parish Council were extremely concerned that their comments may be ignored.

·         The scheme did not promote local distinctiveness and was only a few metres away from a flood zone 3 area.

·         The impact of the development would not outweigh the benefits and a site visit should be made before making a decision. 

·         The impact on the Council’s housing target would be negligible.

·         More applications were being approved with no access to facilities or transport.

·         This was a speculative application in the wrong area.


The Committee were addressed by the planning consultant on behalf of the applicants.  He said they had discussed the site with planning officers in 2016 and 2017 and they found the site sustainable and developable.  They had originally proposed 40 houses at the site but reduced this to 30.  Public consultation had taken place and a balanced response had been received. He said there would be no significant landscape harm and he urged the Committee to grant permission.  


The Ward Member, Councillor Linda Vijeh, said she did not feel this was a sustainable location and although she accepted the highway officers’ comments, she did not agree with them.  She proposed the application be refused permission.


During discussion, varying views were expressed.  Some members felt the sustainability of the site was not proven and the application should be refused, whilst others felt that the village should grow to survive and keep the school and other facilities open.


The Senior Planning Adviser stated that the application should help the sustainability of the village as development attracted services.  If the Committee were minded to refuse the application then it would be referred to the Regulation Committee for determination.


It was proposed and seconded that the application be refused permission on the basis of sustainability and impact on the landscape, and on being put to the vote, this was carried (voting:7 in favour, 3 against, 0 abstentions). 


The Chairman then clarified that as the application had been 2-starred under the Scheme of Delegation, and the committee were minded to refuse, the final determination would now be made by the Regulation Committee.



That Planning Application: 17/03800/OUT** be REFERRED to the Regulation Committee with a recommendation to refuse for the following reasons:


Not a sustainable location

Impact on landscape


(Voting: 7 in favour, 3 against, 0 abstentions)


Supporting documents: