Agenda item

Proposal: Reserved matters application for approval of appearance, landscaping, layout and scale, following outline approval 17/03029/OUT for construction of 130 homes, sustainable drainage infrastructure, open space and play areas, internal roads, paths and parking, landscaping and associated plant and infrastructure.

The Planning Specialist (Development Management) presented the application as detailed in the agenda report and highlighted to members that some of the objections received were related to matters that had already been considered in the outline planning permission and could not be revisited during this application.

With the help of a PowerPoint presentation she proceeded to show the site and proposed plans and highlighted the key considerations.

A revised construction environmental management plan (CEMP) had been received since the report was published, and had been considered acceptable by the highways authority.

There had also been 6 further objections received with issues raised about the approved outline planning. The recommendation was for approval.

The member of the Henstridge Parish Council spoke in objection to the application and made a number of points including:

·         The main concern remained the increase in road traffic thorough the village.

·         It was important that the approved CEMP route was adhered to.

·         There was no record of any 106 agreement in the lead up to the 2018 appeal or since this.

·         The management of the proposed open places would be split between a management company and the parish council.

·         The LEAP development does not take into account the existing facilities in the village.

·         Affordable housing should be allocated as a priority to tenants with a parish connection.

·         Had concerns about parking provision and the displacement of parking spaces from other roads.

There were 3 members of the public that spoke in objections to the application and some of their comments included:

·         The development was unpopular and unwelcome in the village.

·         There was no traffic mitigation in place before the planning permission was agreed.

·         Parking was an increasing issue in the village and the planning report showed a shortfall of 19 parking spaces.

·         A proposed traffic light scheme to improve pedestrian safety on the a357 will decrease further available parking.

·         The highways report should be ignored and the developers should make some further provision for parking in the developments even if that meant reducing the number of houses.

·         Permission was up to 130 houses and not as an exact number.

·         There was not the facilities in Henstridge to accommodate these extra homes.

·         The environmental impact on wildlife did was not being taken into account.

The agent then addressed the committee in support of the application and some of his comments included:

·         Worked with the planning officer to produce a desirable layout and plan.

·         Unit numbers were in accordance with the outline granted.

·         Building to present and improved building regulations on sustainability including air source heat pumps.

·         Prepared to work with the Parish council in relation to the 106 funds.

·         Have offered to work with local residents groups to work with any comments post planning permission and prior to commencements.

Ward Member Councillor Hayward Burt reminded members how the outline application was opposed by the village and Area East committee and was overturned on appeal.

He thanked the developer for trying to engage with the parish council to resolve issues and shared concerns that condition 10.3 was not being dealt with before the reserved matters application.

He was pleased to know that the CEMP had been approved.

There had been no local consultation regarding the S106 funds. Parking was a huge issue already and felt that this was a relevant point despite there being no highways objections.

He welcomed the inclusion of air source heat pumps but noted that evidence of acceptance relating to drainage had not yet been received.

Ward member Councillor William Wallace agreed with all of Councillor Burt’s comments and highlighted the large local opposition to the proposal.

The County highways officer explained to members that Somerset parking standards allowed garages to be included in parking totals so while there was a shortage in spaces in parking on the street, when considering the Somerset parking standards there was not a shortage. There was also overprovision of visitor spaces by 12.

The planning specialist confirmed that the outstanding information in relation to the Local Flood Authority had been received.

The Parish Council representative highlighted that the potential changes to the high street on Condition 10.3 would displace already existing parking outside properties. Any discussions on the shortfall of parking spaces should also have this in mind.

The planning specialist explained that any amendments to condition 10 would be subject to a Section 73 planning application and would have to go through the usual planning process.

There was some discussion by members and some of the following comments were made:

·         Many concerns were raised about the parking issues. There should be an excess in parking spaces and people do not use garages for parking.

·         There were no details of street lighting in the report.

·         The proposed site was rejected by the parish and the council and not it was clear that it was not supported by locals.

·         As a reserved matters application and felt the application had to be approved.

The Lead principal planner clarified the process of the reserved matters application. He then explained that in terms of refusing the application, it could not be refused on the basis of number of dwellings. Using parking as reason for refusal would not have the backing of the highways authority if the application went to an appeal and the committee would have to consider this when making the decision.  The decision made by the committee would be a recommendation and the final decision made by the Chief Executive.

One member suggested that there could be a change to the application to turn some garages to car ports to satisfy the issues raised about parking.

The Principal Planner explained that to defer the application ran the risk of the developer exercising their right to appeal for non-determination and suggested that the application was determined today.

In response to a question regarding possible amendments to the parking provisions and matters raised, the agent sought clarification on whether a decision could still be made.

Following a short discussion it was proposed and seconded to refuse the application based on the lack of sufficient parking spaces under policy TA5 item 6 and TA6.

On being put to the vote the application was refused on 7 votes in favour, 1 against and 2 abstentions.

RESOLVED

That Area East members recommend the Chief Executive Refuse application 21/00369/REM, contrary to the officer’s recommendation for the following reasons:

The proposed development, if approved, would fail to provide sufficient parking to serve the number of dwelling proposed. National Guidance (Manual for Streets) notes that only 44% of garages tend to be used for parking, and when that proportion of  garages is discounted from the parking calculations, there is a shortfall of parking across the site, which is further exacerbated by insufficient parking provision for the three-bed properties. The development is likely to result in parking displacement onto Woodhayes Way and the surrounding highway network to the detriment of highway safety and contrary to Policies TA5 and TA6 of the South Somerset Local Plan (2016-2028) and Manual for Streets guidance.

(Voting 7 in favour, 1 against and 2 abstentions)