Comments from members of the public included;
· Concerns with sustainability from a transport view of the site;
· Concerns with Highway safety and parking issues;
· The development was outside of the village envelope;
· The development was not supported by the residents or the Parish Council;
· There was no leisure, employment or public transport in the village;
· Concerns with building on green spaces and agricultural land;
· Concerns with who will maintain the new Orchard;
· This development would set a dangerous precedent for farmers to sell fields for further development in the village;
· Flooding concerns;
· There was no support for the offer of the shop in the village;
· No facilities or infrastructure to support extra residents in the village;
· The development would fracture the community;
· No consideration for the noise pollution of the area;
· The development did not comply with Somerset’s climate objectives and did not maintain the character of the village and would set a dangerous precedent;
· The recent neighbourhood plan indicated that there was support for a small increase in housing in the parish and wanted a shop in the village;
· Pleased that affordable homes were in the mix for this development;
· There was now a regular weekday bus service in the village, not constrained by school term times;
· The shop would also provide a café with outside seating as the nearby village;
· The community shop would not only provide everyday goods for local consumers but also provide a social hub for the village;
· This development provided the only prospect of affordable housing which the current neighbourhood plan did not provide;
· The new foot paths and orchard would improve the village;
· The site was fully phosphate neutral;
· The shop would be within easy walking distance of most of the village;
· The properties would all be carbon neutral with solar panels if planning permitted;
· No other SHLAA sites have come forward for this development despite the preference for brown field land;
Comments from Members included:
· Villages like this need to regenerate to keep themselves alive;
· Concerns that it was a good scheme but the scale was to big to deliver;
· Concerns with the ‘gifting of the shop’;
· Concerns that this development was outside of the village envelope;
· Concerns that no viability has been supplied or requested;
· Viability concerns for the shop to run appropriately;
· Drainage and run off concerns on the site;
· Clarification needed on the footpath being registered as a public right of way;
· Concerns that this was not the best location for a village shop;
· Concerns with the maintenance of the orchard;
· What other proposals were there for on-site power generation and vehicle charging points;
· How would the play equipment be accessed by the young children from this site and elsewhere;
· Clarification needed on the suggested £100 monitoring fee, what will be monitored and by who;
· The village needs to be allowed to expand naturally to survive;
· This development was in the open countryside and should not come at a cost of an up-to-date settlement strategy or the character and appearance of the area;
· The development should be 100% affordable housing;
Councillor Tully proposed and Councillor Hill seconded a motion for the application to be GRANTED. That motion was lost.
Councillor Wren proposed and Councillor Lithgow seconded a motion for the application to be REFUSED against Officer recommendation.
Refused as per reasons 1 and 2 from the Planning meeting on the 10 December 2019.
• 1. The proposal would result in the provision of 8 dwellings, in open countryside beyond the settlement boundary of Hatch Beauchamp. Hatch Beauchamp is classified as a village within the adopted Taunton Deane Core Strategy development hierarchy. This designation reflects the limited range of services available within the village, its poor public transport connectivity, the inevitable reliance upon the private motor vehicle that would result and its general unsustainability as a location for significant new residential development. As a result, the proposal is contrary to policies SP1 (Sustainable Development Locations) and CP6 (Transport Accessibility) of the adopted Taunton Deane, 2011 – 2028. It is also contrary to the provisions of section 5 ('Delivering a sufficient supply of homes'), particularly the section on 'rural housing' and paragraph 78, of the National Planning Policy Framework, as revised in February 2019.
• 2. The level of open market housing required to cross subsidise the delivery of 4 affordable dwellings on this rural exception site has not been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the authority and is therefore contrary to Core Strategy Policy DM2; the provisions of the Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document (Section 1.10 Exception sites) and
para. 77 of the National Planning Policy Framework. It would result in the provision of 4 open market dwellings, in addition to the 4 affordable dwellings, in open countryside beyond the settlement boundary of Hatch Beauchamp. Hatch Beauchamp is classified as a village within the adopted Taunton Deane Core Strategy development hierarchy. This designation reflects the limited range of services available within the village, its poor public transport connectivity and general unsustainability as a location for significant new residential development.
Additional reason regarding drainage will be supplied by the Officer.
The motion was carried.