Agenda item

Application Proposal: Outline application for residential development of up to 24 No. dwellings, access via the existing Fox and Hounds Public House access, provision of orchard, public open space and associated infrastructure

The Planning Consultant presented his report to members. He explained to members that the application was for outline planning permission, for up to 24 dwellings.

Using a PowerPoint presentation, he provided images of the site as well as plans to show the extent of the site and an illustrative layout. He also pointed out the proposed access to the site. He provided photographs showing the public footpaths around the site and the access. He also pointed out the location of the conservation area and listed buildings in close proximity to the site.

He explained to members that a previous application to develop the site with up to 26 dwellings, had been refused. He explained that there now were less dwellings proposed and that additional landscaping had been added to the proposal. He clarified that there was now a different access to the site, which was proposed through the public house car park.

He informed members that the application was an outline application, however the access was not a reserved matter and clarified that members were considering the access to the site.

He drew members attention to a development of 8 houses which had been approved across the road from the site and provided a plan to show these dwellings, which had not yet been built, with the proposed outline application.

He also explained to members, that although the proposed dwellings would be set back from the road, that the roofs would be visible from the road.

He explained that he had read the Charlton Community Plan, however pointed out that it carried limited weight and that he had considered the policies within the NPPF and the SSDC Local Plan.

He introduced a representative from the Somerset County Council Highways Authority and a representative from the Lead Local Flood Agency and explained that they were available to answer any questions in relation to the highway access or drainage concerns.

He referred to a letter from Foot Anstey Solicitors dated 9^th September and explained that the agent has submitted a response to this letter, both of which letters had been referred to all committee members. He explained that reference to an outline application site in Mudford had been mentioned within this letter, however he explained that in his opinion, they were not comparable sites as the Mudford site was inappropriate due to the prominence of the site and the way in which it protruded from the settlement boundary.

The Planning Consultant explained that condition 27 related wholly to the access, however he would be able to amend the condition to clarify this further. He also explained that following comment that condition 26 was not a lawful condition, he explained that he had discussed this was the councils solicitor, who was content that this was a lawful condition and added that the condition had been suggested by the Lead Local Flood Authority.

He summarised that on balance, he recommended that the application be approved as detailed within the officer report, subject to an amendment to condition 27.

Prior to the discussion, the Chairman reminded members that they application had been 2-starred in line with the councils scheme of delegation and should members resolve to refuse the application, that it would be referred to the Regulation Committee for determination.

Councillor Charlie Hull, Ward Member, explained that he was a resident of Charlton Adam and had previously made his objection to this application known and therefore would not participate in the vote. He added that he had very strong concerns over this application and felt that it was not in keeping with the village. He also pointed out that the school would soon reach full capacity. He also explained that he had concerns over the increase in traffic and highway safety and felt that the development did not meet the housing needs of the village.

Councillor Tony Capozzoli, also Ward Member, spoke in support of the application. He pointed out that the headmaster of the primary school ‘welcomed’ this development. He also explained that children walking to school was not an issue and that walking to school was good for children’s health. He felt that the development would benefit the public house and the shops in the village. He explained that he would like to be assured that the access road could be adopted by SCC. He also raised some concern over the drainage and sewerage on the site.

Representatives from the Parish Council addressed the Committee. Their comments included;

·         The local concerns and significant objections raised have not been considered in the officer report.

·         Concerns raised by the Parish Council have been overlooked.

·         The proposal did not comply with policy SS2 as there was no local support for the proposal.

·         Over 100 objections have been sent to the Planning Officer.

·         Development in Charton Adam is generally linear in character and this proposal is not in keeping.

·         The estate style design has not been accepted by the Planning Inspectorate on a recent appeal in Mudford.

·         There is no evidence to suggest that the highway access will be adopted by SCC.

·         The information contained within the traffic survey is out of date.

·         The Charltons Community Plan has been ignored. The proposal would be overdevelopment of the site.

·         An additional 208 vehicle movements a day would be created by this development. The roads are dangerous and lives will be put at risk as there are no pavements.

·         There are existing sewerage issues in the village.

Members of the public spoke in objection to the application. Their comments included;

·         There is no justification for the development

·         No reference has been made to the appeal decision for a site in Mudford which was refused due to the estate style development, which wasn’t in keeping to the linear style of development in Mudford. This is similar to the linear style of development within Charlton Adam.

·         Significant harm will be caused to the character of the area.

·         As dwelling are being built on the other side of the road, it is important to keep the southern side open to retain the historic settlement gap between Charlton Adam and Broadway

·         The officer has not considered the cumulative impact of this proposal and has failed to recognise the approval of an additional 8 houses on the opposite side of the road.

·         There is a clear lack of support from the community, which is contrary to the spirit of SSLP Policy SS2. There has been no consideration to the Community Plan.

·         Policy TA5 seeks to ensure that safe access be provided for all. This proposal does not provide safe access for pedestrians and cyclists. The footpaths around the site do not provide useful links to the village. There are no options for safe footpaths to the village.

·         The site is inappropriate and the application is not materially different to the previous application which was refused.

·         There is no evidence that the drainage scheme will be appropriate and the site may be unsuitable for a development of this size.

·         The access to the site is dangerous. There are blind corners on both sides of the site. There are many accidents on the junction to the main road.

·         There are no pavements around the site and the road is narrow and busy.

·         The traffic survey is out of date and does not allow for the recently approved dwellings over the road.

·         The sewerage system is already overloaded and struggling and any increase will exacerbate the problem. Wessex Water are aware of the issues and that this site might be undeliverable because of the issues. Raw sewerage is flowing up through manhole covers in the village.

·         There used to be a pond and a culvert in the field. A full drainage survey needs to be carried out before the application can be determined.

The potential developer spoke in support of the application. He explained that, if planning permission was granted, it was his intention to build well designed homes, constructed in good natural local materials. He added that Charlton Adam was a very pretty village and hoped that the individually designed dwellings would benefit the village. He explained that it was the intention to provide good landscaping and generously sized gardens and felt that the dwellings would enhance the village. He added that the occupiers would support the shop, pub and school.

A member of the public spoke in support of the application. She explained that the precedent for dwellings in this area has already been set, by granting approval for 8 dwellings on the opposite side of the road. She added that Wessex Water had carried out work in the area to stop leaking and flooding and suggested that the same would apply to this site. The school has said that it would welcome new pupils and the shop, play areas and the village halls would also benefit. The development would also support more employment and would provide low cost homes. She explained to members that there was another footpath adjoining Cedar Lodge that would provide access to the centre of the village.

The agent addressed the Committee. He explained that Wessex Water had not raised any objections to this application and pointed out that they were in the process of rectifying the existing issues, however pointed out that this would not contribute to the existing problems.

He explained that there would be a minimal increase in traffic, approximately one car every three minutes out of the access. He also explained that a traffic survey had been completed and found no evidence of any personal injuries. He confirmed that he would be happy to link the development to the Cedar Lodge footpath and would be happy for a condition to be added.

He felt that three of the reasons for refusal of the previous application had been addressed by moving the access to a different location. He pointed out that the amendments ensured that there was a gap in the landscape on the southern side of Broadway and that the properties were less prominent from the road. He confirmed that 35% of the properties would be affordable and that local employers and primary school supported the application.

A member of the public raised concern that the Cedar Lodge footpath was overgrown and did not provide easy access to the village centre.

The Planning Consultant read out the comments from Wessex Water which appeared in the report. He also clarified that the application was for up to 24 dwellings and any subsequent reserved matters could propose a figure lower than 24 dwellings, but not a higher number of dwellings.

In response to a question from a member, the Planning Consultant confirmed that the access would need to be constructed before development could commence as this would then allow construction traffic to access the site. He also pointed out that the ownership of the public house car park was not a material planning consideration.

The Principal Planning Liaison Officer of Somerset County Council Highways Department  advised members that there was no reason to suggest that the road and access could not be adopted, however this would be considered at the reserved matters stage. He also confirmed that required visibility splays depended on the speed limit on the roads, however 43m was the general requirement. He noted that the visibility splay provided on this development fell short of this, however he confirmed that SCC highways had not raised any objection to this application.

The Sustainable Drainage Officer of the Lead Local Flood Authority clarified her involvement in the scheme and clarified that there were no surface water drainage objections being raised by that Authority, subject to the imposition of a planning condition requiring submission of details of a surface water drainage scheme.

The Planning Consultant confirmed that the previous application had been refused for four reasons. He explained that any additional reasons for refusal would be considered by the Planning Inspectorate should be application be refused and appealed with questions raised by the Inspector as to why those additional reasons had not been included as part of the previous refusal. Unless the Council had robust explanations for including such additional reasons, then the Council ran the risk of an award of costs against it.

During the discussion, members felt that the access was dangerous, especially given the lack of pavements.

In response to a question from a member, the Planning Consultant advised that although the Cedar Lodge footpath was narrow and overgrown, he had used the footpath.

Another member felt that the sewerage upgrade should take place before works were commenced on site.

It was proposed and seconded that the application should be recommended for refusal and referred to the regulation committee for determination. The reasons put forward for refusal related to;

1.    Sewerage works being inadequate to cater for the proposed development and resultant pollution risks.

2.    The proposed access onto Broadway Road being inadequate to serve the proposed residential development due to inadequate visibility splays.

3.    The resultant unacceptable danger to highway safety due to lack of footpaths and the road network being unsuitable to serve the resultant increase in traffic, contrary to Local Plan Policy TA5.

On being put to the vote, this was carried 6 in support, 2 against and 2 abstention.

RESOLVED:  that members resolved to refuse the application, contrary to the officer’s recommendation; as such the application is now referred to the Regulation Committee for the following reasons;

1.            Inadequate sewerage system to cater for increased foul water and effluent disposal generated by the proposed residential development.

2.            Inadequate means of access and visibility onto Broadway Road to serve the proposed residential development.

3.            Unacceptable danger to public safety due to the inadequate nature of the highway network within the village to serve the proposed residential development.

(voting: 6 in support, 2 against and 2 abstention)

Following the vote, members continued to discuss the reasons for refusal and hoped that the Regulation Committee would consider issues in relation to Policy SS2 (lack of community support) and reiteration of reasons 1 and 3 that were attached to the previous refusal of planning permission relating to application reference 16/05458/OUT when reaching its decision. Nevertheless no formal vote was taken to resolve to agree to these additional reasons.