Agenda item

Application Proposal: Outline application for the erection of a single storey dwelling and formation of access

The Planning Officer presented his report to members with the aid of a PowerPoint presentation. He explained that this was an outline planning application and that this was an application for a modest bungalow. He further explained that the SSDC Highway consultant considered that a safe access could be achieved. He recommended that the application be approved.

Mr John Knight, a representative of the Parish Council, addressed the Committee. He spoke in objection to the application. He explained to members that it was the view of the Parish Council that this would be over-development of the site, which would leave minimal garden space and the access would be dangerous. He further explained that a Parish Plan, which had been endorsed by the Committee, failed to highlight a requirement for housing. He pointed out that there had been no support from the local community.

Mr Currie and Mrs Hurstwaite spoke in objection to the application. Their comments included;

·         Severe concerns have been raised by the Parish Council.

·         The lane is dangerous, only 3 meters wide and steep in parts.

·         Vehicles enter the lane at excessive speed

·         There is no turning point for large vehicles

·         Hedgerows and bushes will need to be removed.

·         There is a well-established walnut tree which could be damaged.

·         This is garden grabbing and will be out of keeping with the area.

·         There will be loss of light and an increased risk of flooding

·         The road is frequently used by walkers and school children.

·         There is no benefit to local residents

Mike Williams, the planning agent, addressed the Committee. He advised members that the site was surrounded by modern properties and that the planning officer had a robust reason for approval and that there were no technical reasons to refuse the planning application. He further advised that the council did not have a 5 year land supply and that dwellings in sustainable locations should be favoured. It was his view that this was a modest dwelling, outside of a conservation area which would not look out of place. He hoped that the Committee would approve the application.

Councillor Mike Beech, Ward Member, explained that the site and the access were on a very narrow single lane road which was used as a route to a school.  He pointed out that the proposed dwelling would have very little garden area and felt that this was over development of the site. He expressed his concern over the access, highway safety and the walnut tree.

During the discussion, members were concerned over the access to the site and it was suggested that this site was inappropriate for a dwelling and that the site would be overdeveloped and cramped.

The Development Manager clarified that the access itself does not require planning permission.

Following the discussion, it was proposed and seconded that the planning application be refused, contrary to the Planning Officer’s recommendation. On being put to the vote, this was carried 9 votes in favour with 1 abstention.

Members further requested that an informative be included with the decision to state that the access was considered dangerous on a narrow road which is often used by school children.

RESOLVED:              that planning application 16/03426/OUT be refused, contrary to the Planning Officer’s recommendation, for the following reason, and to include an informative detailing the concerns of the highway safety for the following reason;

01.          The proposed development, by reason of the size, topography and prominence of the site would result in a cramped form of development that fails to respect or relate to the character and appearance of its surroundings, thereby having an unacceptable impact on the visual amenity of the locality, and therefore the proposal is contrary to policy EQ2 of the South Somerset Local Plan and the aims and objectives of the NPPF.

(Voting: 9 in favour with 1 abstention)