Agenda item

Outline planning application for the erection of up to 210 dwellings with public open space, landscaping and sustainable drainage system (SuDS), vehicular access point from West Hill

The Specialist for Development Management advised that the main considerations were the principle of development at the site and access.  He noted that the site was surrounded by agricultural land and it sloped away to the south.  The Atkins development site was to the East.  The application included a vehicular access off West Hill and pedestrian accesses as shown on the plan.  He noted the land had been identified in the Wincanton Neighbourhood Plan as visually sensitive and their policy stated that development in the identified sensitive areas would not be supported unless it was necessary to support the rural economy.  He said the development would to some extent support the rural economy but it was not necessary to support that rural economy.  He said the development would cause significant and permanent harm and there would be substantial adverse effects in landscape terms to the site. The proposed tree screening would take many years to mature and reduce the landscape impact.  The site was not within the direction of growth for Wincanton as defined in the Local Plan. For these reasons, he concluded that his recommendation to refuse permission.

The Committee were then addressed by a representative of Wincanton Town Council.  He said the Council wished to protect that site as an area of natural beauty as it enhanced the town’s rural location.  The additional traffic which the development would generate was a concern and the site was not within walking distance of the town centre which would mean increased demand on the limited parking.  The Town Council had adopted an Environment and Ecological Plan to nurture the historical and natural beauty of the town and the proposed development was at odds with this.  Health, education and local employment could not serve the development and the Town Council strongly objected to it.

The Committee were addressed by two local residents who spoke in opposition to the application.  Their comments included:-

·         The number of houses for Wincanton as defined in the Local Plan had already been exceeded by 201 and there were 3 other sites with potentially a further 353 houses so the Local plan target could be exceeded by 554 – 79% above target.

·         Planning permission for houses already approved but not yet built totalled 170.

·         Allowing the application would open the town to other speculative developments.

·         Residents from this proposed site would access the town’s supermarkets and the A303 through the Atkins Estate which had many sharp corners and cars parked on the road side.

One of the Ward Members, Councillor Nick Colbert, thanked the officer for his presentation and report.  He said the area was highly sensitive and would be a blight on the landscape.  He said that as Wincanton had exceeded the Local Plan target for housing, it should be selective in the developments approved and encourage those which included employment.  He proposed that the application be refused.

The other Ward Member, Councillor Colin Winder, said the area was sensitive and the development would cause substantial harm.  He referred to the 1998 Local Plan which established the new barns farm estate and said it stated that the skyline of Wincanton was to be avoided.  He said this was still important today as 20 years ago.  He also noted that the 2006 – 2028 Local Plan had stated that it was important that housing growth was balanced with employment growth in Wincanton and he expressed his disappointment that a policy had not been proposed on this issue.  Because of this he felt reference to Policy EQ2 of the South Somerset Local Plan (2006-2028) in the reason for refusal was illegal.

During discussion, Members made the following points:-

·         Pleased to see the Ward Members and officer recommendation were in agreement.

·         Good to see that weight had been given to the Neighbourhood Plan. 

·         The application could be contrary to Policy TA5 due to the entrance’s proximity to a bend in the road. 

·         Exceeding the planned number of houses from the Local Plan in the area was impacting on towns and villages.

·         Concern that developers were speculative and were not considering the environmental impacts of their proposals.

It was proposed and seconded that the application be refused permission, in accord with the officer’s recommendation and on being put to the vote, was unanimously agreed by Members.   

RESOLVED: That application 19/01593/OUT - Land at Hook Valley Farm, Part OS 0028, Lawrence Hill, Wincanton be REFUSED permission for the following reasons:-

01.       The site is outside the settlement of Wincanton, in a prominent location on rising land and in an identified visually sensitive area. The site is not allocated for development in the South Somerset Local Plan (2006-2028) or identified as an area for growth. Development of this site will have a significant and demonstrably detrimental impact upon the character of the landscape, the visual amenity of the site and locality, and upon the setting of Wincanton.  The application is therefore contrary to Policy EQ2 of the South Somerset Local Plan (2006-2028), Policy 1 of the Wincanton Neighbourhood Plan, and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Informatives:

01.       In accordance with paragraph 38 of the NPPF, the council, as local planning authority, approaches decisions on proposed development in a positive and creative way, working proactively with applicants to secure developments that will improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area by:

• offering a pre-application advice service, and
• as appropriate updating applications/agents of any issues that may arise in the processing of their application and where possible suggesting solutions

In this case there were no minor or obvious solutions to overcome the significant concerns caused by the proposals.

(Voting: unanimous in favour of refusal)