Agenda item

Application Proposal: outline application for residential development for up to 400 dwellings with associated access

The Area Lead West introduced the report to the Committee with the assistance of power point slides of the site.  He noted that the proposed area of open space had been amended and was now within the parish of Ilminster, not Donyatt.  Since writing his report, one further letter of objection had been received from the CPRE.  He referred to the number of dwellings listed for Ilminster in the Local Plan and said that although the proposal would exceed that number, it was similar to that allowed at Ansford and Castle Cary.  There were no objections from statutory consultees and the site could be built in phases.  The site was a sustainable location and the principle of development had been accepted therefore he recommended approving the application. 

In response to questions from Members, the Area Lead West and the Development Manager confirmed that:-

·         Condition 10 of approval ensured that footpaths and cycleways connections were constructed prior to occupation of any of the houses.

·         The Lead Flood Authority had added 30% to their calculations due to climate change.  The developer would be responsible for ensuring surface water was adequately dealt with.

·         The Highway Authority had originally objected to the second emergency access as they thought that it was proposed as an open access. 

·         The single point of access was a concern for the Landscape Officer however, the Highway Consultant felt it was acceptable.

·         The 20 hectare site was within the acceptable limit of 40 dwellings per hectare, excluding buffer zones.

·         The Local Plan confirmed that there was a need for housing in the district and the site was allocated for housing by the District Council and Plan Inspector.

·         Government advice was to support development unless there was demonstrable evidence of adverse harm.

·         The SCC Highways Department were impartial and there was no link between them and the SCC Estates Department.  An independent Highways Consultant would be very expensive to engage.

·         The professional consultants engaged by the applicants were impartial and the information which they submitted was scrutinised.

Mr A Shearman of Ilminster Town Council said the application had been discussed by them on a number of occasions and there was concern at the lack of infrastructure provided, the single access point, the time of day which the traffic survey had been conducted, the current flooding on the fields, the traffic diverted through Ilminster when the by-pass was closed and the policing of the proposed emergency access. 

Mr B Porritt of Donyatt Parish Council said that although they were appreciative that no land in Donyatt now formed part of the application, they were still apprehensive and needed assurance and an undertaking that no land in Donyatt would be included in any future development. 

The Committee were then addressed by 14 members of the public who were objecting to the development.  Their comments included:-

·         400 houses is too many for one site in Ilminster.

·         Concerned at the impact on amenities such as Doctors and Dentist Surgery and also the additional pressure on the sewerage system which already creates problems for residents in Summerlands.

·         Persimmon Homes were not adequately maintaining the existing drainage ponds for their existing development at Adams Meadow.

·         The site is too far for elderly residents to walk to the town centre facilities so increasing the reliance on cars.

·         There was no car park for the recreation ground so Canal Way was already full of parked vehicles.

·         The CPRE have written to say that the scale of the development would have an adverse social impact upon the town.

·         More houses are proposed with no additional employment so there will be an increase in people travelling to work.

·         The proposed pedestrian crossings on Canal Way will increase existing traffic problems.

·         The proposed number of houses is 288 above the Local Plan allocation for Ilminster.

·         Only one entrance and exit to the proposed development will create major traffic problems. 

·         The farmer does not seed the bottom 30-40 yards of the first field as it floods very badly.

·         A five way roundabout with a cycleway is the only proposed access to the site.

·         County Highway objections appear to have been overcome by two pedestrian crossings and the realignment of the entrance to the Doctors Surgery.

·         The second access was objected to by the Highway Authority but this was withdrawn when the access was changed to emergency only.

·         Use should be made of the Horlicks site for a mixed development to encourage service industries to the town.

·         The proposed development would increase the population of the town by one fifth

·         There is no account of wildlife disturbance at the site.

·         Has approval been obtained from the Parrett Drainage Board on a sustainable drainage system?

Mr A West, the agent for the applicants, said that only the principle of development was sought and the detail of the number of properties and design would be confirmed at the reserved matters stage.  He noted there were no objections from the statutory consultees and that the area of land was allocated for development in the current Local Plan.  A flood risk assessment would be provided for each phase and the objection to the second access point has been a misunderstanding – there was no conflict between SCC and the developers. 

As County Division Member, Councillor Linda Vijeh said that many of the comments raised by the public showed that there would be adverse harm from the proposed development, however, the site was allocated for development in the Local Plan.  She referred to traffic movement and speed indicator guidance and government statistics which she had accessed which she felt the proposed development could lead to an additional 1,000 vehicle movements along Station Road per day.  She said there was a case for an independent travel plan to be drawn up to show the impact of the development and she recommended that the application be deferred to clarify highways issues, a travel plan, a site master plan and any impact upon flooding.

The Ward Member, Councillor Val Keitch, said that although this was the allocated direction of growth for the town, she had concerns at the density, access and other highway issues.  She referred to the current difficulty in obtaining a doctors appointment at the surgery and the lack of employment opportunities in the town. She said that she wished to see young people working and able to afford to buy houses in Ilminster and the proposed 400 houses was too many for the town.

In response to a question, the Development Manager cautioned Members that if they were minded to refuse the application, it could result in substantial costs being awarded to the developer in the case of a successful appeal and so he would recommend referring the application to the Regulation Committee.

During discussion, some Members expressed concern at the lack of safe cycling routes and links to major towns, the potential for flooding, the single point of access and the overall number of houses proposed.  Although it was noted that some of these issues would be clarified at the Reserved Matters stage, Members felt the application should be deferred for further clarification on highway issues. 

At the conclusion of further debate on the proposed number of houses, it was proposed and seconded to refer the application to the SSDC Regulation Committee with a recommendation of refusal from the Area West Committee.  On being put to the vote the proposal was carried by 8 votes in favour, 0 against and 1 abstention.

The Development Manager clarified that the applicant would have the right to appeal to the Planning Inspectorate for non-determination of the application.

01.       The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposed scale of growth which significantly exceeds the Local Plan targets will not have an adverse impact upon local infrastructure and amenity

(Voting: 8 in favour, 0 against, 1 abstention)