Agenda item

Proposal: Outline planning application for the erection of 12 No. dwellings (incorporating details of access) and associated works including drainage infrastructure and highway works.

The Planning Officer presented the application as detailed in the agenda, noting that the proposal for 12 dwellings was a reduction from the original submission. It was noted the wording of the title was a little confusing, but was exactly as submitted on the application, but for clarity he noted it could have read ‘outline planning application for the erection of 12 dwellings with all matters reserve except for access’. He explained that an indicative layout had been submitted to show that 12 dwellings could comfortably fit into the site.

He updated members that an additional letter had been received from a local resident. One comment referred to housing numbers stated in the Local Plan, flooding and criticism of the site layout and design. Another suggested delaying a decision until the Mertoch Leat development was completed and the impact of it could be ascertained.

Mr A Clegg, a member of the steering committee doing the Martock Neighbourhood Plan, spoke in objection to the application. He referred to drainage routes across the site, most of which were underground, and feared these could become blocked. It was noted data about future flooding was unknown and he felt the application should be delayed until later in the term of the Local Plan.

Mr S Travers, agent, noted, the number of proposed dwellings had been reduced by half since that originally submitted, and the density was now akin to the neighbouring conservation area at Matfurlong Close. He made reference to policies and noted that 19 statutory consultees had been contacted and all had reported no objection including the Conservation Officer. No consultees had raised issues about flooding, and the site could not effectively be farmed due its size. He considered there would be no significant detrimental effects from the proposal.

Ward member, Councillor Neil Bloomfield, commented that SSDC did not currently have a five year land supply but also noted there was not a housing crisis in Martock although 1 and 2 bed houses were wanted. He feared if the principle of housing on the site was approved that the developer may return in the future seeking more dwellings. He did not support the application and felt there would be an impact on the residents of Hurst, and noted there was local opposition to the proposal.

Ward member, Councillor Graham Middleton, noted the Long Orchard Way development being built made this application site appear even more land-locked but that did not mean it had to be built on. Traffic from the site would have to go out on to Water Street which often had numerous parked cars causing manoevering to be difficult at times. He also made reference to the housing numbers stated in the Local Plan.

During the ensuing discussion, many members voiced concern about the proposal.  Comments raised included:

·         Traffic in Martock is eroding the village.

·         Reference to housing numbers in the Local Plan.

·         If there is a desperate need for housing in Martock why aren’t sites with approval being built?

·         Feel there are issues around flooding risk and traffic.

·         Acknowledge more homes are needed nationally. Builds need to be done appropriates sites and don’t think this is an appropriate location. More houses will put Martock at risk of losing its character.

·         An unusual site having housing on three sides.

·         Will be detrimental to residents of Hurst and Water Street, and will impact on the conservation area

In response to comments raised the Area Lead explained that:

·         Many of approved housing permissions in Martock had not come forward to build yet including the houses south of Coat Road.

·         Guidance is clear in the absence of a five year land supply.

·         An increase in the number of dwellings at this application site would require a new application.

·         If housing at Coat Road doesn’t come forward to build then it would make housing need in Martock more acute.

·         Acknowledge housing over a certain level in the Local Plan is unacceptable, and appeal decisions have indicated this may be around the 35% mark.

·         Need to consider the five year land supply including a 20% buffer.

·         Site is now surrounded by development and there may be issues with using the site for recreational use.

·         Highway reasons – following the guidance set down in the NPPF, there was a need to carefully consider if 12 additional dwellings resulted in severe cumulative transport impacts.

·         No statutory consultee had raised concern about flooding issues and the site is adjacent to a neighbouring site with permission.

·         Deferring the application for further advice from independent advisors may be alternative way forward.

The Legal Services Manager cautioned members about referring to flooding in a reason for refusal as no adverse comments had been received from statutory consultees and the neighbouring site had been approved. In addition, members would have the ability to scrutinise the proposed drainage scheme at the reserved matters stage.

At the conclusion of debate it was proposed to refuse the application, contrary to the officer recommendation due to the adverse impact on amenity for existing properties to the north and west of the site, and the impact on the neighbouring conservation area. On being put to the vote, the proposal was carried 8 in favour of refusal, 1 against with 1 abstention.

(Voting: 8 in favour of refusal, 1 against, 1 abstention)