Agenda item

Proposal: Residential development of up to 24 dwellings.

The Planning Officer presented the application and reminded members a previous application on the same site had been considered by Area North Committee in March 2015. He noted that the disused railway line to the south of the site has always been seen as the edge of development in Martock. Members were provided with several updates including:

·         The agent had requested that attention be drawn to a recent appeal decision at Castle Cary where the level of housing exceeded the target stated in the Local Plan – in response the officer explained that the appeal related to a market town with a direction of growth, and this did not apply to Martock.

·         Regarding site layout, the applicant had agreed to create links to existing footpaths if the application is approved.

·         Two further letters from the public have been received regarding drainage.

The Planning Officer noted some of the Inspectors comments regarding the appeal for the previous application at the site, where the Inspector had agreed with members that the drainage strategy submitted at that time was not adequate. This revised proposal had taken those comments into account and an improved drainage strategy had been provided and the appropriate consultees were satisfied that it could be delivered. Regarding landscape, the Inspector had also previously referred to there being some harm by going north of the railway line. This current proposal had a reduced number of properties and although there were still some concerns they were not considered to be so great as to recommend refusal of the application. It was acknowledged that the Drainage Board would like to see some improvements in the Foldhill Lane catchment area including works along Foldhill Lane.

Mrs F Hook, spokesperson for Martock Parish Council, commented a significant number of parishoners had attended local meetings. The parish council did not agree with the officers and they felt the changes made since the last application had not addressed concerns. She also made reference to the natural break of the railway line being breached, the concerns of the Drainage Board not being addressed, the proposed entrance being in an area where the national speed limit applies, and that if approved housing in Martock would be almost 30% over the target specified in the Local Plan.

Mr G Swindells and Mr A Clegg spoke in objection to the application and their comments included:

·         Reference to local drainage routes, recent flooding incidents in the village and in particular surface water running down Foldhill Lane causing flooding in Church Street.

·         Reference to the settlement strategy and to recent appeals in Martock at Lavers Oak and Ringwell Hill where the Inspector had referred to the number of approved housing in Martock being over the figure stated in the Local Plan.

·         If more housing in Martock it should not breach the historical boundaries for development.

Mr M Langdon, hydrologist and Mrs J Montgomery, agent, then addressed members. Their comments included:

·         Acknowledge concerns have been raised about flooding and capacity of a culvert. The drainage and attenuation proposed would mean water draining from the site at a slower rate than required by policy.

·         They noted the comments of the Drainage Board about the drainage along Foldhill Lane but it was not reasonable to require the applicant to remedy the entire Foldhill Lane catchment area.

·         Site is opposite a care home in a sustainable location, and the revised application is at a lower density to previously.

·         Much landscaping would be retained, the Landscape Officer no longer recommended refusal, and the Inspector had not previously found the landscape concerns to be so detrimental.

·         Recent Castle Cary appeals showed SSDC does not have a five year land supply.

Ward member, Councillor Neil Bloomfield, commented he agreed with some comments made but not others. He noted the care home opposite this site was on falling ground, but this application site was on rising ground. Half way through the period of the Local Plan and Martock was already over the target level specified. Martock is a village not a market town. He did not support the proposal and was fearful that breaching a historical development boundary would open up gates to further development.

Ward member, Councillor Graham Middleton, noted he had been aware of the site for several years and previous attempts for further development. He referred to roads north of the site being inadequate, high incidents of speeding in the immediate area of the site and the road could not be made safe due to the culverts. He noted other sites with approval for housing in Martock where no work had commenced for almost two years, probably due the market not wanting the housing. This proposal would not address local housing needs, and he felt detail provided to date about a number of drainage matters was still inadequate. He did not support the application.

During discussion members raised several comments including:

·         Concern about road safety

·         Feel development of large houses will push young families out of the community. Smaller houses are needed.

·         Too similar to previous application and don’t feel all drainage concerns have been addressed or have overcome the objections of the Inspector.

·         Know area well. Feel the development could exacerbate flooding in the village and don’t consider the drainage issues have been adequately addressed.

·         Feels like this will be over development of Martock, little has changed since the previous application.

·         Will breach the natural settlement boundary and there will be harm to the landscape. Martock is already over the settlement figure.

The Area Lead and Legal Services Manager responded to points of detail and clarified:

·         The Drainage Board concerns were about the Foldhill Lane catchment area not just the development site.

·         Some comments were raising new issues, such as highway safety, which had not been raised as a major concern with the previous application.

·         On-site drainage had been considered to be satisfactory by statutory consultees and dealing with drainage off-site was beyond what this developer was required to do. Refusal on drainage grounds would be difficult to defend on appeal.

·         If minded to refuse the application, officer advice was to not include reference to housing numbers in the reason.

At the conclusion of debate it was proposed to refuse the application, contrary to the officer recommendation, on the grounds that it would breach a natural settlement boundary and be detrimental to the landscape. On being put to the vote, the proposal to refuse the application was carried unanimously. The Area Lead clarified the wording for the refusal and this was agreed by members.

(Voting: Unanimous)