Agenda item

Councillor Firmin left the meeting at 1.32pm

Comments from members of the public included;

(summarised)

·       Concerns that the access to the site through the small gap in the hedge was not suitable for the construction of 28 houses;

·       An alternative access route was needed onto the site for construction vehicles and maintenance of the commercial orchard;

·       This was a family friendly estate for children who cycle and walk up and down the roads every day for school and to go to the park or play and we get many dog walkers if you allow the construction traffic to come through the estate damage will occur to vehicles and you could be responsible for someone getting hurt or injured from the construction traffic;

·       Concerns for pedestrian with disabilities using the narrow footways;

·       Environmental waste and emergency vehicle concerns;

·       Concerns with increased traffic through the village;

·       The proposed site was too close to the other houses;

·       The access to the development was outside of the development boundary;

·       Concerns with the effect on wildlife as this development cut across an existing wildlife corridor;

·       Environmental concerns due to the canal being a haven for wildlife and supported so many species of birds and mammals;

·       Concerns with light pollution;

·       Concerns that the proposed Orchard was not wildlife friendly due to it being commercial not organic;

·       Concerns with the proposal to dig through the children’s play area for drainage;

·       Concerns with the negative effect on the appearance of the existing estate;

·       The local school was close to capacity and the local surgery oversubscribed;

·       Concerns that this was a creeping development;

·       Concerns with the loss of greenspace;

·       The Parish Council and residents opposed to the application;

·       There was no policy in the neighbourhood plan to state that you cannot develop outside of the settlement boundary;

·        The development would not be more than two stories in height and would include some bungalows;

·       This development would extend the existing green wedge and offer more green space than housing;

·       The development was in a sustainable location with a mix of affordable housing;

·       The site would be protected from further development due to the proposed planting to the west which would add all of the remaining land right up to the motorway with commercial apple orchards and a large screening natural tree belt along the motorway;

·       No concerns with flooding as the development was 30m from the canal so not in the flood plane;

·       The revised access arrangement was an appropriate and acceptable design given the location of the access on the level of the development proposed on the site this arrangement would enable vehicles pedestrians and cyclists to safely access the site and will assist in reducing vehicle speeds on Dereham Close;

·       The mitigation strategy had been scrutinised by Natural England and Somerset Ecology Services which had their full support and approval;

·       The development gives huge carbon gain biodiversity and a natural habitat for wildlife along with ground or air source heating;

Comments from Members included:

(summarised)

·       Concerns with the lack of a 5-year strategic land supply and the Strategic Housing need in Creech St Michael;

·       Concerns that we were giving access to 28 houses through a road that was only three metres wide;

·       Concerns with the access routes for the farm vehicles when removing the apples from the orchard;

·       Concerns with spray drift at certain times of the year. Commercial companies operating orchards put down a lot of spray several times a year and this was going to be very close to the houses;

·       Concerns that any development on any land which is Greenfield was not going to improve things for the balanced ecological wildlife that existed there at present;

·        An alternative access was needed for construction traffic;

·       Concerns that this development was out of the development limits;

·       Concerns with the affordable housing element to make the site viable;

·       Concerns that an agricultural field was been removed from the food supply and the grade of the arable land;

·       A proper bat survey was needed on the potential impact on the Horseshoe bats before permission was granted;

·       Concerns that the mitigation proposal was consistent with SWT climate positive planning interim guidance statement on planning for climate emergency;

·       A site visit was needed to see the traffic concerns for residents;

·       Concerns that there were transport and accessibility issues along with cycle network problems;

·       Concerns that the development was in the vicinity of rivers and canals and the need to protect trees, woodland, orchards, and hedgerows;

·       There were 57 letters of objection from residents;

·       The developer should be applauded for his initiative measures to the phosphate issues;

Councillor Hill proposed and Councillor Wren seconded a motion that planning permission be GRANTED. That authority be delegated to the Chair and Vice-Chair to grant permission, subject to a S106 Obligation to be completed within 6 months of the date of the Committee and an amendment to Condition 21 to require the construction traffic access  for the development to  come from the agricultural accesses that are identified within the land outlined in blue.

The motion was carried.

After this application a 10-minute break was proposed and seconded.