Agenda item

(Councillor Sylvia Seal left the meeting for the presentation and consideration of this planning application.)

Proposal: Outline planning application for the erection of 28 No. dwellings (incorporating details of access and layout) and associated works including open space, drainage infrastructure and highway works.

The Planning Officer presented the application as detailed in the agenda. She provided several updates including:

·         two further neighbour comments had been received, one made reference that the proposal would change the historical definition of the village, but other comments did not raise anything new to those indicated in the report.

·         Further consultee comments had been received since the agenda had been published, including:

o   Highways had commented about the visibility splays and they raised no objection.

o   The Tree Officer noted the location of an Oak tree subject to a Tree Preservation Order and requested an additional condition should the proposal be approved.

o   Leisure had revised, and reduced, their requirements due to the Community Infrastructure Levy. The figures now requested were detailed, and the officer noted her recommendation for approval needed to be re-worded accordingly to reflect the revised amounts.

The Planning Officer acknowledged that in considering the proposal some harm had been identified and highlighted the key considerations. She explained in more detail why on balance the officer recommendation was for approval.

Mr P Cushion and Mr P Horsington, of Tintinhull Parish Council spoke in objection to the application. Their comments included:

·         Tintinhull is a small rural settlement and the proposal is out of character.

·         There is no identified local need for 28 houses.

·         The village has no shop, virtually no local employment, no health facility and the school is unable to cope with an increased intake.

·         The parish Community Plan states that Tintinhull should remain a village community with small developments of no more than five dwellings.

·         The Local Plan no significant development for a small parish like Tintinhull.

·         The site is a prominent view as you enter the village from the A303, and the proposal will change the character and setting of the village,

·         Opposed on size and impact to the linear village, and the proposal will have no linkage with existing village.

Mr F Robinson on behalf of the CPRE, Mr K Rice, Ms J Pineau, Mr T Brunt, Ms D Robbins, Mrs A Le Flufy, Mr R Le Flufy, and Mr G Stone each addressed members in objection to the proposal. Some of their comments included:

·         Tintinhull has not received enough consideration about listed buildings and setting of the village.

·         Applications for development on the site have already been refused three times.

·         Existing sewerage system is unable to cope with further housing.

·         Surface water run-off will flood the public footpath.

·         Existing local healthcare provision already struggling to cope and more housing and residents will exacerbate the issue.

·         Concern about highways. Head Street is a major route into Yeovil, traffic density is increasing and many vehicles exceed the 30mph speed limit.

·         The proposal is on a summit on a blind bend.

·         Fear the proposed estate development will set a precedent for further development towards the A303.

·         The SSDC Monitoring Report 2016 refers to the impact of increased development on rural settlements, and numbers not being in line with the Local Plan.

·         Archaeological finds have found nearby and if approved there needs to be an archaeological watching brief.

·         The lack of a five year land supply should be addressed by incentivising development in appropriate areas.

·         In the past only small scale development has been permitted and the village has kept its character.

·         The proposal is not in keeping. It will be an estate creating a carbuncle to a historical village.

·         The curtilage of one listed building will abut the development.

·         The comments of the Landscape Officer are confusing.

·         The listed buildings in the village are like the jewels in the crown of Tintinhull.

Mr M Frost, agent, noted that in the absence of a five year land supply the housing policies in the Local Plan are out of date. The applicants had engaged with the local community but it had been clear from the start that the proposal would gain little support. He noted that development that was considered sustainable, such as this, should not be refused entirely on local objections. There had been no objections from statutory consultees including the Highway Authority. A varied mix of housing was proposed including bungalows, and the development would represent a 6.5% increase in housing for the village.

Ward member, Councillor Jo Roundell Greene, commented it was clear that the village did not want the development. She noted the site had been refused development three times previously due to access. Head Street was a busy road with no pavement in places, and when there were accidents on the A303 or A3088 traffic was often diverted though the village. The proposal would form an isolated development, an estate that would not fit in with the village. The character of Tintinhull was special, with a National Trust property and several listed buildings including a Grade 1 listed property.

She noted there were few facilities in the village and a 7% increase in population would effectively be a huge increase for Tintinthull. People would need to drive to get to facilities and shops, and she did not believe the proposal met Policy SS2 in the Local Plan. She noted that on reading the report it seemed that the Landscape Officer had changed his mind about the impact of the proposal. She strongly supported local residents and asked members to refuse the application.

During the ensuing discussion members raised a number of comments and concerns including:

·         The Local Plan states the distinctiveness of local settlements should be retained.

·         The proposal is inappropriate development for Tintinhull, and local comments should be taken into account.

·         Unable to see what an estate will bring to Tintinhull

·         People will have to travel to work and for shops.

·         Local people say there is no need for the housing in the village.

·         Comments by Inspectors at recent appeals have referred to development in rural areas being detrimental to aspirations of the Local Plan.

·         Concern about the archaeology.

·         The proposal will not be detached from the village but will be attached, albeit undesirable.

·         Acknowledge a 28 dwelling development may not be considered huge, but strong concern that it will have a big impact for a village the size of Tintinhull.

·         Elevated location which will change the character of the village.

·         Acknowledge that Highways have not raised an objection, but concerned about highway safety due to speeds along Head Street.

·         Local people have raised many concerns.

In response to comments made the Area Lead and Planning Officer responded to points of detail including:

·         Information on the type and mix of housing proposed.

·         Hard to argue that the site is not sustainable as its meets more than two of the required criteria.

·         Officers felt there was less than substantial harm to listed buildings that would be outweighed by the benefits of the scheme in terms of the delivery of housing to meet the five year housing land supply, but members were entitled to a different opinion.

·         Caution about using the number of houses or level of development as a reason for refusal.

At the conclusion of debate, it was proposed to refuse the application due to the elevated location, harm to the landscape and village character, and the impact on the setting of listed buildings. Based on comments raised during discussion, the Area Lead suggested the wording for the reasons for refusal, and these were agreed by members. On being put to the vote the proposal was carried 8 in favour of refusing the application, 1 against, with 1 abstention.

(Voting: 8 in favour of refusing the application, 1 against, 1 abstention)