Agenda item

Planning Application 16/03605/FUL - Land East of Ablake. A372, Pibsbury, Langport

Minutes:

Proposal: Erection of two dwellings and garage block.

The Planning Officer presented the application as detailed in the agenda, commenting that many members would be familiar with the adjacent site which had been previously been discussed and approved by committee for houses. He noted that two previous applications on this application site had been refused due to access to services and local facilities. It was noted another key consideration was the impact on setting, character and appearance.

Mr G Richmond spoke in objection to the application, and on behalf of other local residents. He supported the officer’s reasons for refusal and felt that two dwellings would be squashed on the site. Of more concern was the garage block along the roadside which would have poor visual appearance to properties across the road. They were not against development of the site but they felt a proposal needed to be more in keeping with the area.

Mr M Williams, agent, noted this was the first time development of this site had been discussed by committee. He noted the adjacent site had been deemed by members to be a sustainable location for development and so it would be difficult to argue this site was not. This proposal was effectively infill development along that side of the road. The proposed dwellings were in scale, and although of a different design to others locally it did not mean they would not fit in. Based on other committee decisions he considered this site must be in a sustainable location and asked members to approve the principle of the development and that points of detail could be negotiated with the applicants.

Ward member, Councillor Clare Aparicio Paul, explained to members why the application was before the committee. She noted the site location was a redundant plot between other residential properties.

During a short discussion several members expressed their support for the officer recommendation to refuse the application. Comments raised included:

· Feel it’s over development

· Garage block along the road is inappropriate

· Disappointed that applicant has not heeded the advice of officers

· Accept principle of development on this site but what is proposed will be cramped

At the conclusion of debate it was proposed to refuse the application as per the officer recommendation, and on being put to the vote, was varied unanimously.

RESOLVED:

That planning application 16/03605/FUL be REFUSED, as per the officer recommendation, for the following reasons:

Reasons:

01. The proposal would represent new residential development in open countryside, for which an overriding essential need has not been justified. The application site is remote from local key services and as such will increase the need for journeys to be made by private vehicles. The proposal fails to enhance the sustainability of the settlement, and constitutes unsustainable development that is contrary to Policy SD1 of the South Somerset Local Plan (2006-2028) and to the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework.

02. The proposal, by reason of its design, scale and massing, represents a dominant and visually intrusive development on the south side of the A372, that fails to respect the established character and appearance of the locality, or to reinforce local distinctiveness of the setting, contrary to the aims of the NPPF and Policy EQ2 of the South Somerset Local Plan (2006 - 2028).

Informatives:

01. In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the NPPF the council, as local planning authority, takes a positive and proactive approach to development proposals focused on solutions. The council works with applicants/agents in a positive and proactive manner 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, the applicant was advised that the proposal did not accord with the development plan in important respects. There are not considered to be any material planning considerations to outweigh these problems.

(Voting: 10 in favour of refusal, 0 against, 0 abstentions)

Supporting documents: