Agenda item

The Planning Officer presented his report to members with the aid of a powerpoint presentation.  He advised that the application was a revised outline application for up to 7 no. dwellings and that the application was to agree the principle of development and access only, all other matters were reserved.  He outlined the key considerations associated with the application which were impact on visual amenity/setting of listed buildings, highway safety, drainage and sustainability/5 Year land supply.  There were no updates to the report.  He advised that his recommendation was for approval subject to conditions.

The Planning Officer and Development Control Manager responded to Members comments and questions which included the following:

·         Confirmed the location of the four listed buildings near the site;

·         Clarified the access arrangements to the site including plot 7;

·         Houses Lane was a  one way street and would therefore require a signage scheme for people coming out of the site;

·         The edge of the site was 5 metres away from a listed building;

·         Confirmed that service delivery vehicles could drive past the site and then reverse into the site;

·         It was difficult to accommodate pedestrians/cyclists beyond the confines of the site;

·         There was a pedestrian route from within the site to Tatworth Street;

·         Confirmed that the access to the site would accommodate emergency vehicles;

·         It would be satisfactory for a refuse collection vehicle to pull up alongside a development and was not always necessary for them to turn around on the site;

·         It was inevitable that some people would use their vehicles to access services such as the local school; 

·         The road can cope with the increase in vehicles and to demonstrate that the impact is severe would be very difficult;

·         Policy SS2 in the Local Plan refers to the need for two facilities.  Tatworth benefits from various facilities;

·         There was currently no speed restriction on Houses Lane;

·         The 3 metres wide access was appropriate to serve a single dwelling;  

·         There was no calculation on the precise number of parking spaces as the application was only outline. The proposed layout was parking strategy compliant.

The Committee was addressed by Sarah Humpreys who spoke in objection to the application on behalf of herself, Martin Turner, Simon Boyle, Naomi Gilchrist and Alastair Purcell.  Concerns raised included the following:

·         Overdevelopment and non-compliance with policies EQ2 and EQ3, ST1 & SS2;

·         House No. 7 is of a sympathetic design and should be extended to the other houses;

·         Traffic Safety and access concerns;

·         Erosion and removal of sections of the Devon bank;

·         Houses Lane is unsuitable for additional traffic;

·         Pedestrian access issues with Plot 7;

·         Issues with flooding and surface water run off in the area;

·         Prefer to see lesser density of houses that are in keeping and can be sustainable.

The Committee was then addressed by Terry Bailey in support of the application.  He advised that he was born and grew up in the village and that the proposal would increase the opportunity for young people to remain in the village.  

The Agent, Mr John Bird, commented that the development would be well located within an acceptable distance to services.  He was of the opinion that the submitted plans reflected the semi-rural location.  The new dwellings would have south facing gardens with views to the west.  The intention was to use traditional materials with a mix of high quality two and three bed units which would offer a visual enhancement.  He advised that the applicant had sought to satisfy the concerns raised and there was unanimous support for the application from consultees.    

Ward Member, Cllr. Andrew Turpin raised a number of concerns with the application including: surface water and flooding in the area, narrowness of the lane, removal of the hedgerow and the possibility of dormice, Houses Lane unsafe for pedestrians and the impact on the listed buildings.

During the discussion, members put forward a number of concerns with the application which included the following:

·         Removal of the hedgerow;

·         Impact of the proposed development on the listed buildings;

·         Narrowness of Houses Lane;

·         Overcrowded development.

It was initially proposed to approve the application as per the Planning Officer’s recommendation but this was not seconded.

It was then proposed and seconded to refuse the application for the following reasons:

·         Adverse impact upon the setting of the designated heritage assets and listed buildings;

·         Crowded form of development;

·         Insufficient width of Houses Lane to access seven units.

On being put to the vote there were 3 votes in favour, 3 against with 5 abstentions.  The Chairman used her casting vote against the proposal to refuse the application.

It was subsequently proposed and seconded to defer the application for further detail on the access and the provision of access for pedestrians, emergency and refuse vehicles.  On being put to the vote the proposal was carried by 7 votes in favour, 3 against and 2 abstentions.