Agenda item

Application Proposal: Outline application for the development of up to 35 dwellings with all matters reserved except access including the demolition of the existing building and highways works to Claycastle.

The Agency Planner updated that there was an error on page 23 of the report and made an amendment to the site description and proposal.

The Agency Planner presented the application as outlined in the agenda.  With aid of a powerpoint presentation he referred to the following:

·         The key considerations were outline application, principle of development and access for consideration.

·         Access was the only matter for consideration.  The appearance, landscaping, layout and scale would be considered as part of a Reserved Matters application.

·         Location of the application site and surrounding area.

·         Indicative layout showing the central access road through the site.

·         12 of the proposed 35 dwellings would be affordable.

·         Photographs of the site showing views of the existing entrance, the commercial building to be removed and the surrounding area.

·         132 written representations had been received in relation to flooding, concerns over the access, additional traffic, no low cost homes, no policy support and change to the character of the area.

·         The application was located on the edge of the existing built form of the village.

·         Haselbury Plucknett did not have a development area identified in the Local Plan and should be considered as open countryside.

·         As SSDC was unable to demonstrate a five-year housing supply policies relevant to the supply of housing were to be considered out of date.

·         Haselbury Plucknett had a primary school, pub and faith facility therefore the site was considered to be located within a sustainable location.

·         The proposal would result in additional housing which would make an additional contribution towards meeting SSDC’s five-year housing as well as providing a good mix of market and affordable dwellings.

·         The principle of development on the site was finely balanced and should be assessed against the harm to the character of the village and landscape setting and the benefits of the proposal.  It was considered that the benefits of the scheme outweighed the harm.

·         The Highway Authority were of the opinion that the proposal would not result in any capacity issues on the local road network and there were no severe highway safety concerns. 

·         The public right of way running through the site would be upgraded through a S106 contribution.

·         Ecology, drainage, residential amenity and the historic environment had all been identified as being acceptable with conditions proposed to mitigate flooding and surface water.

The Agency Planner concluded that the proposed development represented an appropriate and sustainable form of development and recommended approval of the application subject to conditions.

In response to questions, the Agency Planner and Specialist – Planning confirmed the following:

·         All statutory bodies consulted on the application had responded.

·         The Local Flooding Authority was the body responsible for providing expert advice and had provided a set of conditions.

·         A Viability Assessment could be requested at the Reserved Matters stage.

·         Details of the surface water drainage scheme would be provided as part of Reserved Matter as outlined in Condition 14.

·         The Council currently had a supply of 4.5 years of Housing Land supply.

·         Consideration of Affordable Housing was taken from the 2014 Village Plan.

The Committee was addressed by the Parish Council representative, CPRE representative and 3 people in objection to the application.  Comments expressed related to the following:

·         Report related to 2 sites

·         Objections from the local community

·         Application did not comply with the Local Plan

·         Lack of consultation

·         Adverse impact on Listed Building setting

·         The proposed site was prone to flooding and mitigation measures proposed would not work

·         Effect on wildlife

·         Development would cause harm to the landscape and character of the village

·         No housing need identified

·         Back land development

At this point in the proceedings, the Agency Planner amended his report to remove Policy LMT3 Somerton Direction of Growth on page 24 of the report.

The Committee was then addressed by 3 people in support of the application.  Points raised related to the following:

·         The traffic impact had been robustly assessed and would not be severe.

·         There had been no record of any accidents/injuries at the crossroads and along Claycastle in the last 20 years.

·         The development provided a safe and suitable access from Claycastle.

·         Local widening of Claycastle would help mitigate against development traffic.

·         It was safe for pedestrians to walk along Claycastle.

·         The site was part brownfield and part greenfield however the drainage design had been based upon a greenfield site.

·         A site investigation was undertaken which concluded that soakaways were a viable solution for surface water disposal on the site.

·         Part of the site had a high ground water level and would be suitable for permeable paving.

·         Surface water flowing off the site would be attenuated by a controlled discharge system.

·         The proposed drainage scheme endorsed by the Lead Local Flooding Authority would reduce flows off the site and improve drainage in the area.

·         An ecological assessment had been undertaken on the site followed by further species assessment surveys.

·         All habitats and species recorded on the site were considered to be common. 

·         Eastern hedgerows would be maintained.

·         None of the species identified were reliant on grassland habitat and would not be impacted by the development.

·         Mitigation and enhancement measures were proposed consistent with Policy EQ4 in the NPPF.

The Applicant and his Agent addressed the Committee in support of their application.  Points raised related to the following:

·         Identified need for housing in the district

·         No objections from statutory bodies

·         Applicant sought to address issues raised

·         Viable and sustainable village

·         The local school could accommodate additional children

·         60 people had made a request for affordable housing in the Village Plan

·         Edge of the village development was supported in the Village Plan

·         There was a good bus network in the village

During the debate members made a number of comments in objection to the application which related to the following:

·         The site was at risk of significant flooding

·         Site was located in open countryside

·         Concerns over viability

·         Concerns over loss of character in the village

·         Visual impact

·         Landscape impact

·         Effect on wildlife and biodiversity

·         Road network not robust enough to take additional traffic

·         No support from local community

·         Proposal not consistent with Village Plan

·         Very near to neighbouring settlement

It was proposed and seconded to refuse the application.  The Lead Specialist – Planning suggested to members the following reason for refusal based on the following issues raised during the debate:

•           Detrimental impact on the character of the village

•           Contrary to Policy EQ2, SS2 and Part 15 - Conserving and enhancing the natural environment of the National Planning Policy Framework 

Members agreed with the suggested reason for refusal and on being put to the vote the application was recommend for refusal by 10 votes in favour and 2 abstentions.