summerfield homes (sw) ltd land at touchstone lane, chard planning...

www.wyg.com creative minds safe hands

Summerfield Homes (SW) Ltd

Land at Touchstone Lane, Chard

Planning Statement

May 2013 Hawkridge House, Chelston Business Park, Wellington, Somerset, TA21 8YA

Tel: 01823 666150

Email: [email protected]


Document Control

Project: Land at Touchstone Lane, Chard

Client: Summerfield Homes

Job Number: A046527

File Origin:

Document Checking:

Prepared by: Catherine Knee Signed: Catherine Knee

Checked by: Peter Grubb Signed: Peter Grubb

Verified by: Peter Grubb Signed: Peter Grubb


Contents Page

1.0 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 1

2.0 Location and Description of Development ......................................................................... 2

2.1 The Site ................................................................................................................................. 2

2.2 The Proposed Development ..................................................................................................... 2

2.3 Pre-Application Consultation ..................................................................................................... 3

3.0 Planning Policy Framework ................................................................................................ 4

3.1 National Planning Policy Framework .......................................................................................... 4

3.2 Development Plan ................................................................................................................... 7

3.3 Other Material Considerations ................................................................................................... 9

4.0 Planning Considerations ................................................................................................... 12

4.1 Principle of Development ....................................................................................................... 12

4.2 Housing Supply ..................................................................................................................... 13

4.3 Suitability of the Site for Housing ............................................................................................ 14

4.4 Layout and Design ................................................................................................................ 18

4.5 Affordable Housing ................................................................................................................ 19

4.6 Planning Obligations .............................................................................................................. 19

5.0 Conclusions ....................................................................................................................... 20

Appendix 1: Wincanton Appeal Decision Appendix 2: Chard Appeal Decision



1.0 Introduction

1.1.1 WYG Planning and Environment are instructed by Summerfield Homes Ltd to prepare this Planning

Statement in support of an application seeking full planning permission for residential development

at land at Touchstone Lane, Chard.

1.1.2 The proposal is for 23 new dwellings ranging from 2 bed to 4 bed properties. Access to the site will

be provided from Touchstone Lane. The development of the site will form a natural extension to the

existing urban area of Chard.

1.1.3 Recent appeal decisions make it clear that South Somerset District Council cannot demonstrate an

adequate 5 year housing land supply, as required by the National Planning Policy Framework (the

Framework). In the absence of a 5 year housing land supply, the Framework advocates the granting

of permission for housing development in sustainable locations such as the application site.

1.1.4 This statement describes the proposed development, explains why it is considered to be sustainable

and how the proposed development accords with the relevant planning polices and appropriate

material considerations that relate to the site.

1.1.5 A significant number of detailed assessments have been carried out and have been submitted in

support of the application. These include:

• Design and Access Statement;

• Ecological Impact Assessment;

• Drainage Strategy;

• Traffic Statement;

• Statement of Community Involvement;

• Landscape Assessment



2.0 Location and Description of Development

2.1 The Site

2.1.1 This 0.99 ha site is located at the north western edge of Chard. The site adjoins residential

development to the south and east and open fields to the north and west. To the south of the site is

a single storey dwelling known as Croft Orchard. To the north of the site is agricultural land. A

hedgerow runs across the site from east to west.

2.1.2 The site relates well to the existing settlement and the level of services that are provided within

Chard, as detailed in Section 2.2 of the Design & Access Statement and Section 6 of the Transport

Statement.

2.1.3 The application site is not currently allocated for any proposed development. The Council has

however previously identified the site as potentially suitable for residential development in the

SHLAA (ref: W/CHAR/0007).

2.2 The Proposed Development

2.2.1 The proposal includes the provision of 23 dwellings comprising 4 two bed units, 12 three bed units

and 7 four bed units. 7 of the properties will be provided as affordable housing.

2.2.2 The development of the site provides the following opportunities which are further explained within

the accompanying Design and Access Statement:

• integrating footpath and cycle routes.

• encouraging a mix of house types to reflect local demand and provision.

• incorporating and enhancing existing landscape features into the development.

• build on the site's strengths to create an attractive residential development within the

existing townscape.



2.3 Pre-Application Consultation

2.3.1 The applicant engaged the Local Planning Authority in detailed pre-application discussions in order

to discuss the principle of the proposals and the detailed matters.

2.3.2 An initial meeting was held with a Planning Officer to discuss the principle of the development in

light of the Redrow Homes appeal decision. Officers provisionally supported the principle of

development on the basis that the Council had demonstrably fallen behind with its housing land

supply. Following this initial meeting, a design meeting was held on 22nd February 2013 with

Officers, to discuss the layout of the scheme. Detailed comments were received from Officers which

were informed by comments from the Council’s landscape and urban design officers. Among which,

officers agreed to offsite open space provision.

2.3.3 Following the meeting, the scheme layout was amended and resubmitted to Officers for further

comments. The amendments were strongly supported by Officers and the proposals therefore

progressed based upon the provisionally agreed layout. The proposals now submitted reflect

comments made by Officers on the detailed layout, density, landscaping and design.

2.3.4 Separate pre-application discussions were also held with the County Highway Authority and the

scope and detail of the draft Transport Statement and proposed access design were provisionally

agreed by Officers.

2.3.5 A community consultation event was held on Monday 22nd April 2013, details of which are contained

in the accompanying Statement of Community Involvement.

2.3.6 These meetings and consultations have provided useful background information which have been

used to inform the development proposals.



3.0 Planning Policy Framework

3.1 National Planning Policy Framework

3.1.1 Central Government policy of relevance is provided in the form of the National Planning Policy

Framework (The Framework). The Framework was published on 27 March 2012. Its policies are

material considerations which local planning authorities should take into account from the day of its

publication. It replaces all previous Planning Policy Statements and Guidance Notes.

3.1.2 At the heart of the Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. The

Framework describes a sustainable development as having three dimensions: economic, social and

environmental. These dimensions give rise to the need for the planning system to perform a number

of roles:

• An economic role – contributing to building a strong, responsive and competitive economy,

by ensuring that sufficient land of the right type is available in the right places and at the

right time to support growth and innovation; and by identifying and coordinating

development requirements, including the provision of infrastructure;

• A social role – supporting strong, vibrant and healthy communities, by providing the

supply of housing required to meet the needs of present and future generations; and by

creating a high quality built environment, with accessible local services that reflect the

community’s needs and support its health, social and cultural well-being; and

• An environmental role – contributing to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and

historic environment; and, as part of this, helping to improve biodiversity, use natural

resources prudently, minimise waste and pollution, and mitigate and adapt to climate

change including moving to a low carbon economy.

3.1.3 Paragraph 8 states that:

• These roles should not be undertaken in isolation, because they are mutually dependent.

• Economic growth can secure higher social and environmental standards, and well-designed

buildings and places can improve the lives of people and communities. Therefore, to achieve

sustainable development, economic, social and environmental gains should be sought jointly

and simultaneously through the planning system.

• The planning system should play an active role in guiding development to sustainable

solutions.



3.1.4 Paragraph 9 sets out the central objectives that should be pursued by the planning system to

achieve sustainable development objectives:

• Pursuing sustainable development involves seeking positive improvements in the quality of

the built, natural and historic environment, as well as in people's quality of life, including

(but not limited to):

• making it easier for jobs to be created in cities, towns and villages;

• moving from a net loss of bio-diversity to achieving net gains for nature;

• replacing poor design with better design;

• improving the conditions in which people live, work, travel and take leisure; and

widening the choice of high quality homes.



3.1.5 For decision taking, this means approving development proposals that accord with the development

plan without delay, and where the development plan is or relevant policies are out‑of‑date, granting

permission unless:

"any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the

benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole; or

specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted". (Paragraph

14).

3.1.6 Paragraph 19 states,

“The Government is committed to ensuring that the planning system does everything it can

to support sustainable economic growth. Planning should operate to encourage and not act

as an impediment to sustainable growth.”

3.1.7 Paragraph 47 advises that “to boost significantly the supply of housing” local planning authorities

should plan for meeting the full and objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing in

it’s housing market area, including identifying key sites which are critical to the delivery of the

housing strategy over the plan period. They should also identify and update annually a supply of

specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide five years worth of housing against their housing

requirements with an additional buffer of 5% (moved forward from later in the plan period) or,

where there has been a record of persistent under delivery of housing, 20%. This is required to

provide a realistic prospect of achieving the planned supply and to ensure choice and competition in

the market for land.

3.1.8 Paragraph 49 advises that housing applications should be considered in the context of the

presumption in favour of sustainable development. The Framework encourages high quality, well

designed, accessible mixed use sites.

3.1.9 Paragraph 214 advises that for 12 months from the day of publication, i.e. until March 2013, full

weight can continue to given to Development Plan policies adopted since 2004 and in accordance

with the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 even if there is a limited degree of conflict

with the Framework. Following this date, greater weight will be afforded to the policies set out in the

Framework.



The Growth & Infrastructure Bill (2013)

3.1.10 The Growth and Infrastructure Bill was introduced by the Government in 2012 with a focus on kick-

starting economic growth particularly through increased residential development alongside, and

complementary to, the Framework.

3.1.11 The Growth and Infrastructure Act gained royal assent in April 2013 and introduces a comprehensive

series of practical measures to reduce confusing and overlapping red tape that delays and

discourages business investment, housing development, new infrastructure and job creation.

Laying the Foundations: A Housing Strategy for England

3.1.12 The importance of employment provision set out in the Framework is also echoed in the government

statement “Laying the foundations: A housing strategy for England” which was launched on 21

November 2011. The Housing Strategy sets out a package of reforms to get the housing market

moving again, on the basis that it is crucial for economic growth. The strategy states that for every

new home built, up to 2 new jobs are created for a year, and without building new homes economic

recovery will take longer than it needs to.

3.2 Development Plan

3.2.1 Section 38(6) of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 confirms that all planning

applications should be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material

considerations indicate otherwise. In respect of the application site, the Development Plan is now

out of date but comprises Regional Planning Guidance for the South West (RPG 10) which was

adopted in 2001, the Somerset and Exmoor National Park Joint Structure Plan Review (adopted in

2000) and the South Somerset Local Plan 1991-2011 (adopted in 2006).

Regional Planning Guidance & the Structure Plan

3.2.2 Regional Planning Guidance (RSS10) and the Structure Plan are to be abolished by the Localism Act

2011. However, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government has yet to lay orders

to make this happen. We anticipate this to take place during the consideration of this application

and therefore very little weight can be attached to RSS10 and the Structure Plan.

South Somerset Local Plan 1991 - 2011

3.2.3 The South Somerset Local Plan was adopted in April 2006 and covers the period to 2011. A number

of its policies have been saved by the Secretary of State until the new Local Plan is adopted. In

accordance with paragraph 214 of the Framework, from the 27th March 2013, if any of the saved



policies conflict with those in the Framework due weight will be afforded to the Local Plan policy in

favour of the Framework.

3.2.4 The following policies are considered to be relevant to the consideration of this application:

• ST3 Development Areas: sets the boundaries to direct development to appropriate locations.

The site falls outside of the development area.

• ST5 General Principles of Development: seeks to ensure that the basic planning objectives are

met and overall quality of life and environment of the District is maintained.

• ST6 The Quality of Development: seeks to ensure high quality design in new developments.

• Policy ST7 Public Space; supports the delivery of safer and inclusive communities.

• Policy ST8 Sustainable Construction; supports the delivery of sustainable development.

• Policy ST9 Crime Prevention; supports the delivery of safer and inclusive communities.

• Policy ST10 Planning Obligations: seeks appropriate level of contributions.

• Policy EC8 Protected Species; seeks to ensure the protection of animals and plants.

• Policy TP1 New development and Pedestrian Provision; ensures the need of pedestrians and

cyclists are met in new developments.

• Policy TP2 Travel Plans; supports the use of Travel Plans for new developments.

• Policy TP7 Residential Parking Provision; seeks to provide a maximum of 2 spaces per dwelling

within villages.

• Policy HG1 Provision for New Housing Development; sets out the strategic requirement within

the District for 13,700 homes over the plan period (1991 to 2011).

• Policy HG2 Provision for New Housing Development; required 741 houses to be delivered in

Chard over the plan period, including an urban extension.

• Policy HG4 Housing Densities; seeks a density of at least 30 dwellings per hectare for new

developments.

• Policy HG6 Affordable Housing; supports the delivery of affordable housing.

• Policy HG7 Affordable Housing - site Targets and Thresholds; seeks a target of 35% of new

dwellings on sites of 25 or more.



• Policy CR2 Provision of Outdoor Playing Space and Amenity Space in New Development; seeks

the provision of open space on new developments and management of its future maintenance.

• Policy CR3 Off Site Provision; requires any off-site provision to be reasonable related to the

development and be appropriately located to serve that development.

• Policy CR9 Public Rights of way and Recreation Routes; seeks to protect public rights of way.

3.3 Other Material Considerations

Emerging Local Plan 2006 - 2028

3.3.1 The Submission South Somerset Local Plan 2006-2028 was submitted to the Secretary of State on

the 21 January 2013. The Plan is currently subject to an Examination in Public and it is anticipated

that it will be adopted in late 2013. The site falls outside but adjoining the settlement limits on the

proposals map.

3.3.2 The Plan identifies Chard as a Primary Market Town. Paragraph 4.42 states that Chard is the

District’s second largest settlement and has significant potential for growth based on the work

undertaken as part of the Chard Regeneration Framework and as such has growth identified which

will go beyond the plan period of 2028.

3.3.3 The following emerging Local Plan Policies are considered to form material considerations in respect

of the submitted application, however these policies are not yet formally part of the Development

Plan:

• Policy SS1 Settlement Strategy; identifies Chard as a Primary Market Town.

• Policy SS4: District Wide Housing Provision; seeks provision for sufficient development to

meet an overall District requirement of at least 15,950 dwellings in the plan period April 2006

to March 2028 inclusive.

• Policy SS5: Delivering New Housing Growth; sets a requirement of 102 houses Chard based

on a requirement of 1,852 dwellings, minus 1,750 existing commitments.

• Policy SS6 Infrastructure Delivery; seeks financial contributions towards affordable housing,

social, physical and environmental infrastructure and community benefits which the Council

consider necessary to enable the development to proceed.

• Policy HG3 Affordable Housing; seeks on-site provision of 35% for all developments of 6

dwellings or more.



• Policy HG5: Achieving a Mix of Market Housing; requires a range of market housing types and

sizes should be provided across the district on large sites that can reasonably meet the market

housing needs based on the evidence from the Strategic Housing Market Assessment or

successor documents. Supporting paragraph 9.27 states that the number type and tenure of

affordable housing will be negotiated on a site by site basis informed by the SHMA,

contemporary information from the housing register and taking into account local imbalances.

• Policy TA1 Low Carbon Travel; requires all new residential developments to support low

carbon principles to support low carbon travel initiatives.

• Policy TA5 Transport Impact of New Developments; requires all new development to address

its own transport implications and maximise the potential for sustainable transport.

• Policy TA6 Parking Standards; requires parking provision in new developments to be design-

led and based upon site characteristics, location and accessibility.

• Policy HW1 Provision of Open Space, Outdoor Playing Space, Sports, Cultural and Community

Facilities; requires new developments which generate a need for such facilities to make the

appropriate provision/contribution in accordance with the Council's published adopted

assessments and needs strategies.

• Policy EQ1 Addressing Climate Change; supports new developments which deliver climate

change mitigation and adaptation through energy efficient measures, sustainable

construction, are located away from flood risk, and incorporate sustainable drainage systems.

• Policy EQ4 Biodiversity; seeks to protect the biodiversity of land and maximise opportunities

for enhancement and connection of natural habitats.

The Chard Regeneration Framework

3.3.4 The Chard Regeneration Framework (2010) identifies the key areas requiring regeneration and those

areas with particular capacity to accommodate growth in Chard. The Regeneration Plan identifies

major growth for Chard to the east of the town as identified by Policy PMT1 in the emerging Local

Plan. The allocated sites will accommodate the majority of the housing requirement for Chard. The

proposal will not conflict with the objective of the plan as it will absorb part of the residual housing

requirement.



Strategic Housing Market Assessment

3.3.5 The SHMA was published in February 2009. The emerging Local Plan seeks to secure housing mix

for both market and affordable housing in accordance with this document. In terms of market

housing, the SHMA found a greater requirement for detached and semi detached houses than for

terraced housing and flats. In terms of size there is a much smaller requirement for 1 bedroom

properties compared with the other house sizes with three quarters of the requirement being for 2

and 3 bedroom properties. In comparison, a higher proportion of 1 and 2 bed affordable homes are

sought (Figure S8).

Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (2010)

3.3.6 The application site was considered as part of the SHLAA in 2010 (ref: W/CHAR/0007). The potential

yield for the site was suggested by the Council to be 26.

Open Space Strategy (2011-2015)

3.3.7 Local Plan Policy CR2 states that where new housing development generates a need for additional

formal and informal recreation facilities, provision will be made pro rata in accordance with the

following standard per 1,000 population:

1. Youth and adult use: 1.8 - 2.0 hectares (4.5 - 5.0 acres) of which 1.4 hectares (3.5 acres) should

be playing pitch provision.

2. Young people and children’s use: 0.6 - 0.8 hectares (1.5 - 2 acres) comprising:

(a) Outdoor equipped playgrounds: 0.2 - 0.3 hectares (0.5 - 0.75 acres)

(b) Casual or informal play space: 0.4 - 0.5 hectares (1.0 1.5 acres).

3.3.8 The document identifies that this approach has only been partially effective as it has only

considered the amount of open space provided, missing out both the quality and accessibility

standards.

3.3.9 In the event that evidence is provided to confirm the need for additional open space, Officers have

agreed that due to the size of the site it is appropriate for the applicant to provide a contribution

towards new or enhanced off site open space facilities.



4.0 Planning Considerations

4.1 Principle of Development

4.1.1 While Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 confirms that all planning

applications should be determined in accordance with the Development Plan, unless material

considerations indicate otherwise, we have established in Section 3 of this statement that the

Development Plan is out of date and that consequently the application proposals fall to be

considered principally on the basis of other material considerations. From a policy perspective, the

Framework carries significant weight as a material policy consideration. The emerging Local Plan is

also a material consideration.

4.1.2 The Framework confirms that there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development where a

Development Plan is not up to date. It is clear from the preceding sections of this statement that

this is the case in South Somerset where the application site is located. The existing Local Plan

period ended in 2011.

4.1.3 The Framework also confirms that where a Council cannot demonstrate a 5 year housing land

supply, relevant policies relating to the supply of housing should not be considered up to date.

Recent appeal decisions indicate that there is not an adequate 5 year housing land supply in South

Somerset. These decisions are considered later in this Statement. The emerging Local Plan confirms

that Chard will be expected to accommodate at least 102 new dwellings within the plan period to

2028. This figure is subject to change and given the current lack of housing supply could rise. The

proposed development will not prejudice the objectives of the Chard Regeneration Plan as it will

absorb part of the residual housing requirement for Chard. The areas identified within the

Regeneration Plan have been included within the committed sites. The requirement for 102

dwellings is within the reminder of the town,

4.1.4 The application site has been identified by the South Somerset Strategic Housing Land Availability

Assessment (SHLAA) as being suitable for housing.

4.1.5 Paragraph 14 of the Framework confirms that where relevant policies are considered to be out of

date, planning permission should be granted for sustainable development unless any adverse

impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits or where the

proposal would conflict with any other policies in the Framework.



4.2 Housing Supply

4.2.1 The following recent appeal decisions in South Somerset have found that the District Council cannot

demonstrate a 5 year housing supply.

Wincanton (APP Ref: APP/R3325/A/12/2170082)

4.2.2 The appeal decision for an outline application for a residential development at land to the rear of

Wincanton Community Hospital was issues in August 2012, a copy is attached at Appendix 2. The

appeal was dismissed however, the Inspector found that South Somerset can only demonstrate

approximately a 3 year housing supply and therefore have a significant shortfall.

4.2.3 The Inspector determined that the housing requirement over the next five years to be 5,171. In

terms of housing supply, the Inspector states that:

" Having regard to my reservations above about delivery, I am not in an position to

determine the position precisely but it is clear the supply is substantially less than this figure

and is probably in the order of a three year supply. I therefore conclude the Council cannot

demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites and that the shortfall is

substantial'.

Chard (APP Ref: APP/R3325/A/12/2176355)

4.2.4 This later appeal decision relates to a proposal by Redrow Homes for 61 residential dwellings at

Land at Mitchell Gardens, Chard. The appeal was allowed on 29th November 2012, a copy is

attached at Appendix 3.

4.2.5 Paragraph 8 of the Inspector's report states that;

"It is common ground between the main parties to this appeal that the Council have only

about a three year housing supply. It follows that any housing supply policies should be

considered out of date".

4.2.6 On this basis, the Inspector determined the appeal as set out in paragraph 14 of the Framework

that there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development where the relevant policies of a

development plan are out of date. The Inspector applied substantial weight to the lack of a five year

housing supply in accordance with paragraph 14 of the Framework, and states that permission

should be granted unless any adverse impact of doing so would significantly and demonstrably

outweigh any benefit (paragraph 14).



4.2.7 An additional 20% requirement for housing is considered to be required in this case as the annual

delivery of housing (completions) has fallen below the annual housing requirement since at least

2006, as evidenced by the Council’s AMR’s from 2006 to 2011. When the additional 20% is added

only a 3.89 year supply is achieved, resulting in a shortfall of 1,011 dwellings.

4.2.8 It is therefore evident that there is a significant shortfall in housing land supply when the

requirements of the Framework are taken into account.

4.3 Suitability of the Site for Housing

4.3.1 Having established that the relevant policy framework is such that there should be a presumption in

favour of sustainable development in this location, the following paragraphs now turn to consider

the credentials of the proposals within this context. In assessing the suitability of the site for

housing, it is necessary to consider the location of the site relative to the existing settlement form of

Chard, its proximity to local services and facilities and whether or not the proposals would harm any

interests of acknowledged importance.

Sustainable Development

4.3.2 Paragraphs 3.1.2 to 3.1.4 of this statement sets out in full the constituent characteristics of a

sustainable development as defined by the Framework, which consist of economic, social and

environmental roles, and guidance on the Government’s view of the role of the planning system in

contributing to the achievement of sustainable development.

4.3.3 One of the key objectives of the Framework is to boost significantly the supply of housing, to enable

the creation of sustainable communities. This key housing objective seeks to enable a more

sustainable society by securing an adequate supply of decent, high quality homes which enable the

wellbeing of current and future communities. The proposals contribute positively towards widening

the number and choice of homes in Chard. In particular, it provides a mix of open market and

affordable homes, with a mix of sizes and types. The new homes will enable Chard to better sustain

its existing business and services by meeting a need for growth.

Economic Role

4.3.4 The importance of employment provision is clearly set out in the Framework, the Growth and

Infrastructure Acts and also echoed in the government statement “Laying the foundations: A

housing strategy for England”. The strategy states that for every new home built, up to 2 new jobs



are created for a year, and without building new homes economic recovery will take longer than it

needs to. On this basis the development will create 46 direct jobs.

4.3.5 The government Statement also confirms that 3 people are indirectly employed per new home.

Therefore it is clear that the proposed development would have a significant and beneficial impact

upon the local and wider employment market. For this development, this equates to the following:

• Construction jobs (1 year duration): 46

• Indirect jobs: (1 year duration) 69

• Total: 115 jobs

4.3.6 The proposals will therefore have a positive impact upon the local and national economies which is a

very important benefit of the scheme and an equally important material consideration weighing in

favour of the proposals. The development will also enable Chard to grow and better sustain its local

facilities and services. The proposals contribute positively towards economic growth and help meet

this core principle of sustainable development in the Framework.

Social Role

4.3.7 The provision of housing to meet the needs of present and future generations is an important social

sustainable development role identified by the Framework. The development would also provide

approximately 7 affordable homes that again will contribute towards addressing an additional

identified shortfall.

4.3.8 The description of the site and surroundings earlier in this Statement demonstrates that Chard is a

sustainable location for growth since it benefits from a good range of services and facilities. This

position is reflected in the emerging Local Plan which recognises that Chard is an appropriate

location to accommodate significant housing growth and that a proportional.

4.3.9 The site is located adjoining the urban edge of Chard. The site provides strong pedestrian and cycle

linkages to the town and is also easy access to the public transport network. The proposals will also

create a high quality built environment. The key sustainability features of the proposals would

include the following:

• a mix of dwelling sizes, a mix of open market and affordable homes (including a mix of

tenures).

• The development will strive to deliver at least 10% of its energy demand from on–site

renewable or low carbon technologies.



• Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) would be incorporated where possible.

• Energy and water efficient fixtures and fittings would be incorporated within the design

of new buildings.

• Provision would be made for cycle storage and safe walking routes to discourage the use

of private cars for short journeys.

• Consideration would be given to responsible sourcing of materials and to their

environmental impact throughout their lifecycle.

• Recycling space and composting would be provided for each dwelling.

• Private gardens and communal spaces would be incorporated into the development.

• Existing boundary landscape features would be retained and enhanced where required.

4.3.10 The proposals therefore contribute significantly towards helping the planning system achieve

sustainable development through its social role, by supporting strong, vibrant and healthy

communities.

Environmental Role

4.3.11 The technical reports accompanying the application proposals and summarised in the following

section demonstrate that the site is not located within a sensitive area; it is not within an Area of

Outstanding Natural Beauty, a Site of Special Scientific Interest, a National Park, a County Wildlife

Site or within an area at high risk of flooding. It is therefore an environmentally sustainable location

for growth.

4.3.12 The submitted evidence demonstrates that the environmental footprint of the proposal can be

comprehensively mitigated to ensure the proposal can proceed without significant and demonstrable

adverse impacts. Indeed, the proposals will result in enhanced landscaping and enhanced

biodiversity and habitat creation. Accordingly, the proposals are fully sustainable in terms of

environmental impact.

4.3.13 Given the above, the proposed development is considered to perform an important economic, social

and environmental role and is considered a sustainable development as defined by the Framework.

4.3.14 A series of investigations and studies have been undertaken so that the constraints and

opportunities presented by the site can be fully understood. This work has informed the proposed

scheme and is summarised below.



Transport and Highways

4.3.15 The submitted Transport Statement (TS) has assessed the predicted level of traffic arising from the

development once it is completed and has assessed the impact of this additional traffic on the

capacity of surrounding roads and junctions.

4.3.16 Vehicular access will be provided via Touchstone Lane. The proposed access will achieve a 2.4 x

25m visibility splay. Footways will be provided on the eastern side of the proposed access. A public

bridleway runs adjacent to the north of the site which can be used as an alternative route for

pedestrians and cyclists.

4.3.17 Vehicle trip generation from the residential development is expected to be minor and has been

calculated at 12 vehicles during the AM peak hour and 13 vehicles during the PM peak hour.

4.3.18 The TS examines the variety of pedestrian links and proximity of the site to shops and services. The

majority of facilities within Chard are within 2km, with many within 1km of the development site,

these include a school, leisure centre, doctors surgery, convenience store and the town centre.

4.3.19 Access from the site to the centre on-foot is provided by either travelling along Touchstone Lane,

Crimchard and Combe Street. The A30 provides footways on both sides of the road and a number of

crossing points.

4.3.20 The existing highway (Touchstone Lane) is currently at 5% of its capacity and the development is

only likely to increase this to 6%, meaning that even after the development the highway will still

have 94% capacity remaining (figures derived from traffic count data).

4.3.21 The main bus stop in Chard is within reasonable walking distance from the site and provides links to

other major settlements such as Taunton, Crewkerne, Axminster and Yeovil.

Ecology

4.3.22 The Ecological Impact Assessment confirms that the proposed development and suggested

mitigation would not have any significant overall impacts upon species, based upon the surveys

undertaken to date. The impact upon reptiles, nesting birds, bats (foraging and roosting) and hazel

dormouse will be confirmed in an Addendum Report once the surveys are completed.

Landscape & Visual Impact Assessment

4.3.23 The Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment confirms that the layout of the proposed residential

scheme is physically well-contained by the retention of the existing hedgebanks along the north and



west boundaries and includes additional native hedgerow planting and management to reinforce this

traditional feature of the local landscape.

4.3.24 The site is visually well-contained within the landscape, adjoining existing housing on the south and

east boundaries where additional planting is proposed as a buffer. Hedgebanks provide visual

containment along the north and west boundaries. Views into the site will change, but will not be

out of character with the adjoining area.

Flood Risk and Drainage

4.3.25 The site is less than 1ha in area and is located with flood zone 1 which means that it is at the lowest

risk of flooding. Residential development is classed as a 'more vulnerable' use in the Framework,

which is acceptable in flood zone 1.

4.3.26 The preferred method of disposal of surface water drainage is to soakaways and percolation test

have confirmed that this is a viable option for the majority of the site. The surface water discharge

from the remaining units and adopted highways will be attenuated within oversized pipes beneath

the proposed and will be conveyed to the public surface water sewer located in Touchstone Lane.

Wessex Water Authority have confirmed that sufficient spare capacity is available for the Greenfield

discharge subject to a survey of the downstream system. It is also proposed to utilise the existing

public sewer network located in Touchstone Lane to dispose of foul water drainage.

4.4 Layout and Design

4.4.1 The Design and Access Statement submitted with the planning application explains the design

principles underpinning the layout and design of the proposed development, which responds to the

policy considerations identified above, the physical constraints of the site and the desire to provide a

development with its own identity but one which promotes local distinctiveness and engenders a

high quality of design having regard to the characteristics of the local area.

4.4.2 The layout has evolved following detailed discussions with key stakeholders including the Local

Planning Authority.

4.4.3 The proposed scheme comprises two storey dwellings and a mix of detached and semi-detached

houses. The development will retain the existing hedgerows to the boundary of the site and provide

additional planting which will comprise predominantly native species.



4.4.4 There is no policy requirement to provide formal open space on the site as there are less than 25

dwellings proposed. However, the application proposals include the provision of informal open space

throughout the site.

4.5 Affordable Housing

4.5.1 The application proposes a policy compliant level of affordable housing, i.e. 35%. This is proposed

to be provided as social rented properties and low cost housing, to be agreed with the Council’s

Housing Officer. Annex 2 of the Framework introduces affordable rented housing into the definition

of affordable housing and states that affordable rented housing is housing that is let to households

who are eligible for social rented housing. The Framework definition of intermediate housing then

states that it does not include affordable rented housing. The proposed tenure mix reflects the

identified need within the district.

4.6 Planning Obligations

4.6.1 The applicant will enter into a Section 106 Agreement to provide a mechanism for securing

appropriate infrastructure contributions and the delivery of affordable housing required as a result of

the proposed development. The heads of terms for the Agreement are expected to be as follows:

Affordable Housing:

• 7 of the total number of dwellings proposed will be delivered as affordable homes to

meet local needs. Of the 7 units, approximately two-thirds will be affordable rented

properties and approximately one third will be low cost properties.

Education:

• Education contributions will be provided upon the provision of evidence of any specific

need identified by Somerset County Council to offset the impact of the development.

Open Space:

• Open space contributions will be provided upon provision of evidence of local need, to offset

the impact of development.



5.0 Conclusions

5.1.1 The following provides a summary of the key points arising from this statement:

• The relevant Development Plan is out of date and so the National Planning Policy Framework

(the Framework) carries significant weight in respect of the application.

• The Framework confirms that where a Development Plan is out of date there is a presumption

in favour of sustainable development where there is no conflict with any other of its policies and

where any adverse impacts of a development do not significantly and demonstrably outweigh

the benefits.

• Recent appeal decisions indicate that a five year housing land supply, as required by the

Framework, cannot be demonstrated. The emerging Local Plan also confirms that Chard is a

suitable location for new housing and at least 102 new dwellings will be required. The

application site has been identified within the Council's SHLAA as being a suitable site for new

housing.

• The development proposals are considered to be a sustainable form of development on the

basis that they will deliver a mix of housing to meet a local and identified need.

• The proposals would not conflict with any other policies in the Framework and would not give

rise to any impacts that would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.

• The proposed development will not prejudice the objectives of the Chard Regeneration Plan as

it will absorb part of the residual housing requirement for Chard.

• The submitted technical reports that accompany the application and planning reasons

identified in this statement demonstrate that the proposed development is acceptable in

planning terms

• The Framework confirms that planning permission should be granted for sustainable

developments, such as that proposed, given the fact that the Council cannot demonstrate a

five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. Using the definition of sustainable development



within the Framework, the development performs strongly in respect of social and economic

environmental roles.



Appendices



Appendix 1 – Wincanton Appeal Decision

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate

Appeal Decision Inquiry held on 3, 4, 5 and 6 July 2012

Site visit made on 5 July 2012

by J M Trask BSc(Hons) CEng MICE

an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Decision date: 29 August 2012

Appeal Ref: APP/R3325/A/12/2170082

Land to the rear of Wincanton Community Hospital, Dancing Lane,

Wincanton BA9 9DQ

• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990

against a refusal to grant outline planning permission.

• The appeal is made by Hopkins Developments Ltd against the decision of South Somerset District Council.

• The application Ref 11/02835/OUT, dated 8 July 2011, was refused by notice dated 12 October 2011.

• The development proposed is the erection of residential dwellings, access works, relocation of NHS parking, provision of public open space and other ancillary works.

Decision

1. The appeal is dismissed.

Preliminary Matters

2. The application was for outline planning permission with matters of principle

and details of access and layout to be determined as part of the application and

details of scale, appearance and landscaping reserved for future determination.

3. Following the refusal by the Council, the appellant has amended the proposal.

Layout has been reserved for future consideration and there is an amended

Design and Access Statement. Also drawings 17083.9900 RevC and IMA-11-

002-010 now accompany the application, although, except insofar as they

cover matters of principle and access, I regard the details shown as being for

illustrative purposes only in my assessment of the scheme.

4. All consultees and parties that showed an interest at the application stage were

advised of these changes and I do not consider any party would be

disadvantaged by these modifications. I shall therefore consider the appeal on

the basis of the modified proposal.

Main Issues

5. The Council’s decision notice contained six reasons for refusal. As a result of

the withdrawal of the layout aspect of the application from consideration at this

time, the Council no longer has objections in terms of reasons two and three.

The Council has also confirmed reason for refusal four no longer applies as the

revised masterplan has shown that the pumping station could have an

exclusion zone of at least 15m. I have no reason to disagree with the Council

on these matters. The Council also considers the Unilateral Undertaking

Appeal Decision APP/R3325/A/12/2170082

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 2

submitted by the appellant takes account of the concerns in reason for refusal

six.

6. Having regard to the remaining reasons for refusal, the evidence submitted and

the representations made at the inquiry, I now consider the main issues in this

appeal are:

i) housing supply;

ii) the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area;

iii) whether the site is in a sustainable location; and

iv) the effect on highway safety and the safe running of the hospital.

Reasons

7. The appeal site is at the end of Dancing Lane, to the rear of Wincanton

Community Hospital. It is an agricultural field that is used as rough pasture

together with a strip of land immediately to the side of the hospital which is

currently used for access to the hospital. The hospital provides services

normally expected from a community hospital, including day care services. The

proposal includes the construction of approximately 55 dwellings on the field,

and a road to provide access from Dancing Lane to the proposed housing

development.

Housing supply

Housing Need

8. The starting point for consideration of whether there is a five year supply of

deliverable housing sites is the target set in the development plan. The

development plan comprises the saved policies of the Somerset and Exmoor

National Park Joint Structure Plan review (April 2000) and the saved policies of

the South Somerset District Local Plan (April 2006). The local plan is the most

up-to-date of these and sets an initial target of 3425 dwellings for the five

years up to 2011, but it is common ground between the parties that this target

is now out-of-date for the purposes of assessing supply over the next five

years.

9. A number of other target figures have been suggested and these include those

from the draft revised Regional Spatial Strategy for the South West (RSS),

which is the appellant’s position, and those in the emerging Local Plan, which is

the Council’s position.

10. The draft RSS was subject to Examination in Public and the Secretary of State’s

(SoS) proposed changes have been incorporated in the most recent version

which was published for public consultation in July 2008 (Doc 16). This

document has been independently tested in public by the SoS and it therefore

carries substantial weight. The RSS was not adopted initially due to the need

for further sustainability appraisal work and subsequently as a result of the

Government’s intention to revoke RSS’s. The draft RSS gives an initial

requirement of 4925 dwellings over a five year period. The figures were based

on evidence that included projections from 2003 and 2004, but they were

intended to cover the period from 2006 to 2026. The anticipated growth rates

were higher than has been achieved recently but, given the Government’s aim

to improve growth by promoting development, including housing, it is not clear

whether this would result in an increase or decrease in the target figures. In



any event, the SoS considered the RSS would need to be refined to ensure the

South West maximises its contribution to the national house building target.

11. The Council has prepared the Proposed Submission South Somerset Local Plan

2006-2028 which includes the Council’s current view of the housing

requirement. An independent firm of consultants was employed and, based on

2008 Office of National Statistics (ONS) projections, consideration of

demographic projection, economic factors and a delivery based approach, a

figure of 16,000 dwellings for the period 2006-2026 has been proposed. This is

to be compared with the figure of 19,700 in the draft RSS. The figure was

subsequently revised to take account of ONS and Business Register and

Employment Survey (BRES) projections for 2010 and the Council’s

recommended figure in the emerging local plan is 15,590. This equates to 3625

over a five year period. Nevertheless, the emerging plan is the subject of pre-

submission consultation, which is a very early stage of preparation, and so it

carries little weight.

12. In a recent appeal decision1 my colleague considered the most reliable

indication of the future housing requirement was to be found in the emerging

core strategy for that area, rather than the draft RSS described above. Some

aspects are similar to this case, including that the growth rate on which the

draft RSS forecasts relied ”now appears to be so aspirational as to be

unrealistic” and that the local household projections were considerably lower

than the projections on which the draft RSS figures were based. However, in

that case, the emerging core strategy appears to have been further advanced

than the emerging local plan in this case. In any event, housing requirement

figures should be taken from the most up to date and tested plan.

13. I have had regard to the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework

(the Framework) in terms of encouraging neighbourhood planning and reducing

reliance on centrally imposed top down targets. I acknowledge that the

emerging plan includes the most recent assessment by the Council and that the

figures were prepared in association with a firm of independent consultants and

thus have an element of objective assessment. Also, that the draft RSS figure

is expected to be revised, although, despite recent lower assessments, it is not

clear whether this would be higher or lower. Nevertheless, the emerging plan

has not yet completed the pre-submission consultation or been subject to

testing in public and the housing figures cannot be considered to be as robust

as those in the draft RSS. The detailed assessment of the housing requirement

for the area will be undertaken at the forthcoming examination. However, for

the purposes of this appeal, I consider the draft RSS target is the one most

suitable to use, as it is the most up-to-date, tested in public and objectively

assessed figure.

14. My attention has been drawn to the recent appeal decision concerning a site at

Riviera Way, Torquay 2 where the Inspector included an allowance for

vacancies and occupation as second homes. However, this was to translate the

number of projected households into the number of dwellings and so a similar

allowance is not appropriate in this case.

__________________________

1 Ref APP/Y3940/A/11/2159115

2 Ref APP/X1165/A/11/2165846



15. In addition to the RSS target the Framework sets out the requirement for an

additional buffer to ensure choice and competition in the market for land, of

5% or 20% depending on past performance. 3435 dwellings were completed

between 2006 and 2011. Although completions were less than target in three

of the five years, this is slightly more than the adopted plan five year target,

which was the target in place at the time of delivery. I acknowledge the

number of completions is less than the recently emerging plan target, less than

the draft core strategy target and considerably less than the draft RSS target.

Nevertheless, for the purposes of assessing the shortfall, it seems to me the

most up-to-date adopted development plan target in place at the time of

delivery is the most appropriate target, and this was reached. Therefore, based

on the evidence before me, I do not consider there has been a shortfall for the

purposes of determining the buffer. Accordingly, it cannot be the case that

there has been a persistent under delivery of housing and so the 5% buffer is

appropriate in this case.

16. I conclude the housing requirement for the area is 4925 plus 5% which is

5171. At the beginning of the inquiry, the Council’s assessment of housing land

supply was that there is sufficient for 4796 dwellings but this was reduced

during the course of the inquiry to 4634 to take account of an overestimate of

production at Crewkerne. The appellant considers the supply is considerably

less.

Housing delivery

Larger Sites

17. The differences between the parties in terms of housing supply relate primarily

to the length of time required to deliver housing. The appellant’s assessment of

the time usually taken for the preparation, submission and approval of outline

planning permission, reserved matters and applications to discharge conditions,

the site establishment, infrastructure, construction of show house complex,

marketing and house construction seem to me to be reasonable. However, I

would expect some overlap of activities, including the execution of any

planning obligation. Thus I would expect the appellant’s suggested period of 40

to 54 months for the entire process, or 28 to 38 months from grant of full

planning permission or approval of reserved matters to meaningful delivery of

homes, to be somewhat longer than would normally be achieved.

18. The Council regularly consults developers to determine progress on sites.

Nevertheless, I concur with the Inspector who stated that the number of

developers on larger sites affected completion rates and that caution should be

exercised where the delivery rates suggested by developers are out of step

with the figures in the trading statements of those developers 3. The appellant

has produced evidence to show that developers’ trading statements indicate a

build rate of 30 to 35 homes per annum per developer per site. The appellant

has confirmed that in the last five years they have completed 35 dwellings with

40 in the preceding two years 4. While this may have been due to increased

involvement with commercial developments, it is an indication that the

appellant’s suggested build rates are not unreasonable. ______________________________

3 Ref APP/X3025/A/10/2140962 4 Inquiry Document 18



19. The Council have presented figures that show that on some local sites delivery

has been at a higher rate 5. However, this is a small sample when compared to

developers’ trading statements and includes the spike in deliveries that is likely

to have been a result of the final availability of affordable housing grant

monies. Therefore these figures are of limited weight. I conclude that the

historical delivery rates given in developers’ trading statements provide a fair

benchmark which takes account of all relevant factors, including commercial

considerations.

20. Having regard to the delivery times described above I shall consider the main

sites included in the housing supply figures. An application for outline planning

permission for 525 dwellings has been made for the Crewkerne Key Site and

the Council has indicated that this is likely to be granted. This proposal requires

significant infrastructure improvements but the link road is not required until a

substantial proportion of houses have been completed. Even so, and even if

planning permission were granted soon, it is unlikely that meaningful delivery

of housing would commence before 2014-2015. It is not yet clear how many

developers would be involved in the development but at the inquiry the Council

accepted that their delivery rates were probably optimistic and reduced their

assessment by 162 dwellings. In my view, the later commencement of delivery

indicates that the total would be considerably less than even this figure.

21. The Lufton Key Site, Yeovil benefits from outline planning permission and

reserved matters permission. However, a number of pre-commencement

conditions are outstanding and a significant amount of infrastructure is

required before the delivery of housing can commence. It is likely that four

developers will be involved in developing the site. Thus, although the build

rates seem reasonable, given the likely programme outlined above, the

Council’s expectation of delivery commencing in 2013-2014 is optimistic.

22. The site at Brimsmore, Yeovil has outline planning permission for 820 dwellings

and a reserved matters application for 298 dwellings was permitted earlier this

year. A limited number of conditions are outstanding but there is some

infrastructure to be constructed and, allowing for the construction of show

homes and marketing, it is likely that delivery will commence considerably later

than in 2012-2013 as suggested by the Council. This would reduce the number

of homes delivered over the five year period. Only one developer is involved at

this time but it is likely that others will be active by the end of the five year

period and delivery could be at the rate suggested by the Council by that time.

23. The site at Yeovil Cattle Market does not have the benefit of planning

permission. The owner of the site went into administration in 2010 and there

are no outstanding applications for planning permission. Therefore it does not

seem to me that there is a realistic prospect that housing will be delivered on

the site within five years and it has not been shown that the development is

viable. Thus it cannot be included in the housing supply figures.

24. The original planning permission for the site at the BMI Factory, Castle Cary

has lapsed, there has been no further application and it has not been

demonstrated that there is a firm intention to develop the site. Therefore the

site cannot be considered to be available now and viable and cannot be taken

as deliverable. ______________________________

5 Inquiry Document 4



25. Construction is underway by one developer at the site at New Barns Farm,

Wincanton. There is no indication that another developer will be involved so I

consider the build rates anticipated by the Council are high.

26. Drawing these matters together, I conclude that the housing supply from the

larger sites would be about two thirds of that anticipated by the Council.

Other sites with planning permission

27. The appellant contends that a 10% reduction should be made to take account

of the non-implementation of planning permissions. The research undertaken

by the Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG) indicates

that in South Somerset the percentage delivery in 09/10 and 10/11 was 71%

and in the recent appeal decision at Riviera Way, Torquay 6, the parties agreed

that a 30% discount should be applied, which my colleague accepted.

28. While the Framework requires at least a 5% buffer, this is to ensure choice and

competition in the market for land and not to take account of under supply or

unimplemented permissions.

29. Historically, a widely practised approach has been to apply a 10% discount to

take account of unimplemented permissions. This was the approach followed by

the Inspector in the Moat House Farm appeal decision 7. Since then the

Framework has been published and this advises that sites with planning

permission should be considered deliverable unless there is clear evidence that

schemes will not be implemented within five years. Despite the general

statistics, I have seen no site specific clear evidence that the schemes will not

be implemented within five years and so it seems to me that no discount is

required.

Sites without planning permission

30. The Framework advises that to be considered deliverable, sites should be

available now. Accordingly, sites without planning permission should not be

included in the supply, except as described below.

Windfalls

31. The Framework specifically states that an allowance may be made for windfall

sites. The Council has calculated the historic numbers of windfall sites per

annum by subtracting the key sites and those on residential garden plots from

the number of completions. An allowance for windfalls has then been made

taking account of the existing windfall supply which is already included as sites

with planning permission. This results in a total number of 717 windfalls which

represents about 15% of the Council’s total supply and so does not seem to me

to be an excessive contribution. However, with no significant changes in

circumstances, the number of opportunities for windfall developments coming

forward, by definition, decreases in time. While I conclude the historic trend

provides compelling evidence that there would be a reliable source of supply in

the future, in my opinion a moderate reduction should be made to ensure the

allowance is realistic.

______________________________

6 Ref APP/X1165/A/11/2165846

7 Ref APP/Q4625/A/11/2157515



Sites under 10 dwellings in size

32. The Council includes 294 dwellings on smaller sites in their calculation for

housing supply. Suitable reductions have been made in the calculations for

windfalls to take account of sites already coming forward so I do not consider

this to be double counting.

Conclusions on housing land supply

33. I have found that the housing requirement for the area is 5171 over the next

five years. The Council confirmed at the inquiry that, taking account of recent

adjustments, their current revised assessment of housing land supply for the

next five years is 4634. Having regard to my reservations above about

delivery, I am not in a position to determine the position precisely but it is clear

the supply is substantially less than this figure and is probably of the order of a

three year supply.

34. I therefore conclude the Council cannot demonstrate a five year supply of

deliverable housing sites and that the shortfall is substantial.

35. The Framework advises that housing applications should be considered in the

context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. I have found

that the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five year supply of

deliverable housing sites and in this circumstance the Framework advises that

relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date.

Saved Policy ST3 of the South Somerset District Local Plan aims to place strict

controls on development of land outside settlement boundaries. In so doing it

constrains the locations available for the development of housing and insofar as

it is a relevant policy imposing restraint on housing supply, has to be

considered out-of-date.

36. This approach is in accord with a recent appeal decision in the Blaby District

Council area 8, where the Inspector found that, although a policy had the

objective of ensuring the separation of settlements, nevertheless, it acted as a

policy of housing restraint. There was no five year supply of deliverable housing

sites and my colleague found that housing applications fell to be considered in

the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

37. The Framework also advises that where relevant policies are out-of-date

permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would

significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against

the policies in the Framework taken as a whole or specific policies in the

Framework indicate development should be restricted. I take this into account

in my conclusions below.

Character and appearance of the area

38. The appeal site is adjacent to the settlement boundary on the northern side of

the town. There is a housing estate of predominantly semi-detached and

detached homes to the south, the community hospital lies to the west and there

are trees along the northern and eastern boundaries with some large properties

beyond. The site is an agricultural field that slopes downwards to the north and

east. It provides a tranquil rural setting to the edge of the town, which is of

particular significance for the hospital, but also the properties in Cale Way.

______________________________

8 Ref APP/T2405/A/11/2164413



39. The introduction of a housing estate onto the site would result in the loss of an

open field. The houses would be prominent when seen from the properties to

the south and from the hospital grounds and would dominate the setting of

those developments. The man made structures and activities associated with a

housing estate would disrupt the tranquil and rural setting and would be

detrimental to the rural character and appearance of this area.

40. There are two protected trees close to the edge of the proposed road near the

junction with the existing road. These are substantial trees that have grown

together and provide screening of the hospital service area. They make a

significant contribution to the character and appearance of the area. Although

this is an application for outline planning permission and provisions to protect

trees can be controlled by the imposition of conditions, I need to be satisfied

that any protection measures would be possible and not give rise to other

unacceptable adverse impacts.

41. While the Council has accepted that provisions could be made to protect the

trees, and a possible method of minimising any root damage has been shown

in the Arboricultural Feasibility Assessment, no dimensions or levels are shown

and this method would depend on a relatively high finished road level, which is

likely to result in other adverse effects such as restricting access to Verrington

Lane. However, other solutions are possible; including some suggested by the

appellant, and the most appropriate solution could be determined following

further investigation of existing below ground services. The final method

chosen would need to take account of existing services as well as the tie-in

with the Dancing Lane and Verrington Lane, including achieving suitable road

levels. While potentially costly, I am content that this could be achieved. I

conclude that this matter could be satisfactorily addressed and controlled by

the imposition of suitable conditions.

42. No details of the location of lighting columns have been provided and the effect

on trees and landscaping cannot be assessed. On this constrained site, this

adds to my concerns. However, the removal of trees near the kitchen to

provide a delivery bay and footpath would be unfortunate but not a matter of

substantial weight as they do little to screen the hospital.

43. Although some concerns in respect of the protected trees, character and

appearance of the area carry little weight or could be addressed by the

imposition of suitable conditions, the introduction of a housing estate onto the

site would unacceptably detract from the tranquil and rural character and

appearance of the area and the setting of the hospital and settlement. I have

found that saved local plan Policy ST3 is not up-to-date. However, the proposal

would not contribute to protecting or enhancing the natural and built

environment which would be contrary to the provisions of the Framework which

considers this to be part of the environmental role of the planning system

which is aimed at achieving sustainable development.

Location

44. While not a specific reason for refusal by the Council, the Town Council and the

County Council have raised concerns about the sustainability of the proposal in

terms of the location and the need to travel by private car. Wincanton provides

a range of services and facilities and is also a centre for the surrounding rural

community. Although there are limited public transport links, the site was



previously considered developable and was included in the Strategic Housing

Land Availability Assessment.

45. The need to travel to work is a key consideration. Wincanton has had a high

level of self containment and a high ratio of jobs to economically active persons

in the past; this is shown in the results from the 2001 census. However, since

then two major employers have either left the town or reduced the size of their

operations. The cheese packing factory is currently operating but it was

confirmed at the inquiry that, while the appellant had been informed there would

be expansion; the Council understood operations will only continue until the end

of this year. Despite the introduction of other businesses, including those on the

business park such as Lidl Foods, the Business Register and Employment Survey

show that there has been no net growth in jobs over the last seven years.

Nevertheless, there has been a growth in population as a result of considerable

housing development and the Council estimates that this has generated a need

for more than 500 jobs. Although the Council’s Proposed Submission South

Somerset Local Plan 2006-2028 attracts little weight, it should be noted that this

plan seeks to improve the population to jobs ratio by supporting the development

of employment land, particularly at New Barns Farm, while supporting the

addition of only 11 dwellings in Wincanton over the next five years.

46. I have taken account of the development of a Travelodge and Marston’s Inn in

the town, but while these will create jobs, I have seen no details and would not

expect them to make a sufficiently large contribution to employment

opportunities to meet the existing demand. While the construction of the

proposed development would provide jobs in the short term, in the long term the

proposal is likely to increase the demand for jobs and the appellant accepted

that it is likely that about 86 jobs would be needed to meet the long term

demand from the development itself. The Town Council has calculated 9 that the

land necessary to provide employment for the additional workers would cost

about £240,000, but there is no indication that sum would be forthcoming or, if

it was, that the site would be developed. Thus, despite a limited growth in home

working, it is likely most jobs would require some degree of travelling to and

from work and the lack of jobs in the immediate area would result in the

requirement to commute to other centres for work. In order to do this by public

transport, future occupiers would need to travel to the town centre.

47. The site is reasonably close to the town centre with its shops, services and public

transport links but there is little provision for public transport from the site to the

town centre. During the inquiry I walked from the town centre to the site and

back and found that the gradient of the footpaths and limited provision of road

crossing points made it unlikely that the route would be attractive for use on a

regular basis, either on foot or by bicycle, or for anyone who was less mobile or

had a push chair, wheel chair or significant amounts of shopping to carry.

48. I conclude that, given the location and lack of realistic alternative modes of

travel, future occupiers of the proposed development are likely to be unduly

dependent on the private car for access to employment and for many of their

daily needs. Apart from Policy ST3, which I have found to be not up-to-date, no

reliance is placed on development plan policies in relation to this issue by the

parties and nor do I. However, the proposal is contrary to the provisions of the

Framework, which aims to minimise the need to travel. I conclude that the site is

not in a particularly sustainable location. _____________________

9 Inquiry Document 27



Highway safety and the safe running of the hospital

49. The proposed access road would pass between the hospital and its plant rooms

and bin stores which are accessed frequently by hospital staff. Also, the

hospital intends to use mobile screening vehicles in the future and these would

be located in the northern car park on the opposite side of the proposed access

road to the hospital. While the appellant has drawn my attention to other

hospitals where there are much higher levels of traffic than expected in this

case, these are large urban hospitals which generate a significant volume of

traffic in themselves and do not have access to a residential estate that is not

associated with the hospital passing between hospital facilities. Consequently, I

shall consider this case in the light of the site specific concerns.

50. The proposed access to the site would be on land currently used for access to

the hospital. A safety audit has been commissioned by the appellant and a

safety audit 10 of the proposed access has been carried out by Somerset County

Council, the Highway Authority. These reach different conclusions on various

matters which I discuss below.

51. There would be a double change in direction of the estate access road close to

the junction with the access to the hospital northern car park. The slight

changes in direction are likely to lead to vehicles cutting across the carriageway

and cars entering and exiting the proposed development meeting each other

head on. This hazard would be compounded by varying carriageway widths and

traffic entering and exiting the northern car park. I accept that the double bend

feature can be used as a traffic calming measure but, without provisions to

prevent traffic leaving its appointed lane; it seems to me that the proposed

access would put highway users at an unnecessarily high level of risk.

52. Visibility splays would be required at the junction of the existing main hospital

access and the proposed continuation of Dancing Lane. The design speed for an

access road serving residential development would normally be 20mph, but the

proposed access would not be within a residential development. Although,

based on the appellant’s surveys, visibility splays suitable for 25 mph may be

appropriate in the current conditions, the proposed extension of Dancing Lane

as a well defined public road, rather than part of the hospital, may well lead to

increased speeds. The speed limit is 30mph and in these circumstances this

seems to me to be the appropriate design speed.

53. Manual for Streets 2 (MfS2) indicates that where circumstances make it

unlikely that vehicles will cross the centreline, visibility can be measured to the

centreline. While MfS2 also advises that research has shown no evidence that

reduced visibility increases the risk of injury collisions, it continues to

recommend that visibility splays are provided. Although visibility to the west

could be achieved to the centreline, there is no provision for ensuring vehicles

do not stray over the centreline and in this case I have seen no other

acceptable justification for reducing the visibility envelopes recommended in

MfS2. The splay providing visibility to the kerb to the west, even if designed for

a 25 mph speed, would pass across the frontage of No 62 and, while this is

currently free of obstructions to visibility, I have seen no mechanism for

maintaining this situation and I must reach the conclusion that this is not

within the appellant’s control and therefore visibility could not be maintained by

the imposition of a suitable condition. ___________________ 10 Inquiry Document 6



54. Other junction arrangements were referred to at the inquiry but these do not

form part of the proposal before me and, without due consideration of potential

adverse effects, I do not consider they could be required by condition.

55. Provisions for adequate visibility for vehicles exiting the northern car park may

require restrictions on the delivery bay serving the plant rooms. Also, visibility

when exiting the small north east car park would be limited when cars were

parked in the southernmost spaces and the intricate manoeuvres required to

park in the small car park may result in vehicles overrunning the footpath.

These factors would represent a risk to highway users, particularly pedestrians

using the footpath.

56. There is a section of Dancing Lane, known locally as Verrington Lane, which

has been closed off to vehicles and is now used by pedestrians and cyclists.

This narrow lane descends steeply. No proposed finished levels are given and

the highway authority is concerned that once provisions to protect trees are

made, it is likely that the finished level of the road would be much higher than

the existing lane, resulting in difficulties in maintaining suitable access along

Verrington Lane. However, I have found that it is likely that provision could be

made to protect the trees without unduly raising the road level.

57. There are existing hospital buildings on the north side of the proposed estate

access road and there would be no space for a footpath so pedestrians using

Verrington Lane to access the hospital would need to cross the proposed access

road. However, these pedestrians would be agile if they have used the lane

and, given the reasonable visibility and limited amount of traffic using the road,

while not ideal, this would not represent any unacceptable increased risk.

58. The proposed pedestrian crossing would be some distance from the most direct

route to the bin store and the junction with Verrington Lane but would align

with an existing pedestrian access in the hospital grounds. The crossing would

be close to the access to the main north car park and the small parking area

which would increase the complexity of movements in the area, adding to the

risk to users of the crossing. The appellant’s safety audit recommends the

removal of the crossing, which the appellant has offered to do, but I agree with

the highway authority that, given the high proportion of elderly or less mobile

persons using the area, a formal crossing point would be an advantage. While

not ideal, given the constraints of the site and the limited number of vehicles

expected to use the estate access road, on balance I conclude the proposed

pedestrian crossing would provide acceptable pedestrian access.

59. I have seen no proposed provisions for highway drainage, which is known to be

a problem in the area, and, given the constraints of the site, particularly the

limited space available, it is not clear that adequate provision can be made.

Provisions for the turning of large vehicles are based on the use of car parking

spaces and it is not clear how this could be controlled. Given the lack of clarity

on measures to ensure adequate drainage and parking provision, it has not

been demonstrated that these concerns could be overcome by the imposition of

conditions.

60. However, I am satisfied that concerns regarding the provision of suitable road

markings, suitable tactile landings at the entrance to the southern car park,

traffic regulation orders, emergency access, level of the pedestrian crossing

and other details could be overcome at detailed design stage and controlled by

the imposition of suitable conditions.



61. There are service connections that link the plant rooms to the hospital and

these would cross under the proposed estate access road. However, access to

these and continuous supply could be ensured by suitable construction

management procedures and I have no reason to believe a detailed technical

solution that would meet the highway authority’s requirements could not be

found. Also, while the northern car park is currently used to rehearse car

transfers, I have seen no reason why this could not be done in parking areas

on the south side of the proposed access road.

62. The appellant has addressed some outstanding issues by showing some revised

road layouts. These include the possibility of retaining the existing build out

between Verrington Lane and the access road. However, there are insufficient

details to provide sufficient comfort that the concerns identified above could be

overcome or that necessary modifications would not give rise to other adverse

effects. I acknowledge that in other cases conditions have been deemed a

suitable way of addressing these types of matters but I have seen no evidence

of that in a comparable situation where existing development and other factors

provide such severe constraints to development as in this case. Therefore,

apart from the exceptions I have identified, I am not content that for this

proposal the matters of concern could be satisfactorily addressed by the

imposition of conditions or as part of the agreement required to construct the

access under section 278 and section 38 of the Highways Act.

63. The proposed scheme would improve access and highway safety in some ways,

for example there would be separate footways, a pedestrian crossing and more

formalised arrangements for deliveries. I also acknowledge the appellant’s

Stage 1 Safety Audit concluded that the proposed access arrangements

represented a very low risk even though that was not the conclusion reached

by the Highway Authority’s audit. Nevertheless, these factors do not outweigh

the significant harm I have identified and I conclude the proposal would

prejudice highway and pedestrian safety and would not facilitate the safe

running of the hospital. The proposal conflicts with saved Policy 49 of the

Somerset and Exmoor National Park Joint Structure Plan Review and Policy ST5

of the South Somerset Local Plan which require the provision of safe access.

These policies are consistent with the policies in the Framework, particularly

paragraphs 32 and 35 which say that safe and suitable access must be

achieved for all people and that layouts should be safe and secure.

Other Matters

64. A Unilateral Undertaking has been provided by the appellant and includes for

the provision of affordable housing, landscaping and open space and

contributions towards local facilities, strategic facilities and education provision.

However, as the appeal falls to be dismissed on the substantive merits of the

case, it is not necessary for me to consider the Unilateral Undertaking, given

that the proposal is unacceptable for other reasons.

65. The appellant has a number of other sites in the area including two with

planning permission for 27 dwellings and 8 flats where there has been a

technical commencement but no further work. Another site, Bayford Hill, has

planning permission for 15 dwellings and a further 45 are expected. While the

appellant contends the types of dwellings to be built on these sites would be

less attractive to the market than those proposed in this scheme, the existing

development sites are in a more central location and would provide for a range

of types of dwellings. Also, they do not require consideration of the access



difficulties associated with the appeal site. Potential conditions were agreed at

the inquiry that would reduce the period for which the planning permission

would be extant but that would not prevent commencement and then

postponement of substantial construction. While I do not consider it has been

demonstrated that the appellant would intentionally fail to progress with the

scheme, given the past rate of delivery and the appellant’s current involvement

in commercial schemes, I consider that there must be some doubt about

whether the appellant is likely to deliver the appeal scheme in Wincanton in the

next five years. However, this has not been a significant factor in my decision.

66. The Strategic Housing Market Assessment11 shows there is a net annual

affordable housing need in South Somerset of 659 dwellings. The proposal

would help to meet this need.

67. While the scheme includes suggested additional disabled parking spaces that

would be more conveniently located than those currently on the north side of

the road, these would be on hospital land and therefore not within the control

of the appellant. Nevertheless the appellant has also proposed an additional 17

car parking spaces within the appeal site for use by the hospital and some of

these could be allocated for disabled drivers.

68. I have taken account of all other matters raised including the better provision

for mobility scooters but they are not sufficient to outweigh the considerations

which have led me to my conclusion.

Overall Conclusions

69. I am required to determine this appeal in accordance with the development

plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. I have found conflict

with the development plan in respect of safe access. However, there is a

substantial shortfall in the five-year housing land supply and I attach significant

weight to this factor. The Framework states that housing applications should be

considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable

development. As there is not a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites,

relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date.

I shall therefore consider whether the proposal represents sustainable

development and whether any adverse impacts of granting permission would

significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against

the policies in the Framework taken as a whole.

70. I have considered the three dimensions of sustainable development,

environmental, economic and social, as set out in the Framework. The proposal

would help meet the shortfall in housing land supply, contributing to the quality

and choice of housing and providing market and affordable housing. I have also

found that there is a district wide need for housing land and the provision of

housing would support the Government’s agenda for growth.

71. However, there are substantial environmental and social disbenefits, such as

the harm to the character and appearance of the area, the lack of opportunity

to travel other than by use of the private car and the unacceptable effect on

highway safety and the safe running of the hospital.

72. I have weighed the factors in opposition to the proposal against the

___________________ 11 Core Document 18



contribution the proposal would make towards meeting the substantial shortfall

in the five-year housing land supply and other benefits. I find that the adverse

impacts of the proposal would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the

benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole

and that the appeal proposal would not represent sustainable development.

73. For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.

J M Trask

INSPECTOR



APPEARANCES

FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY:

Mr J Burns, of Counsel Instructed by Ms A Cater, Solicitor to South

Somerset District Council

He called

Ms E Arnold BA PGDip Strategic Monitoring and Appraisal Officer, South

Somerset District Council

Mr C Brinkman I Eng

FIHE

Principal Planning Liaison Officer, Somerset

County Council

Mr A Collins BA(Hons)

BTP MRTPI

Planning Officer, South Somerset District Council

Ms A Cater assisted in the discussion about the Unilateral Undertaking

Mr A Noon assisted in the discussion about conditions

FOR THE APPELLANT:

Mr J Cahill QC Instructed by Mr M Kendrick, Barton Willmore

He called

Mr M Kendrick

BA(Hons) MSc MRTPI

Planning consultant, Barton Willmore

Mr P Greatwood

BEng (Hons)

Traffic matters, IMA Transport Planning Ltd

INTERESTED PERSONS:

Cllr Winder Chairman Wincanton Town Council, Ward

member South Somerset District Council

Mr Downton Local resident

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED AT THE INQUIRY

1 Statement of Common Ground

2 Revised pages 68 to 100 of Ms Arnold’s Appendices

3 Council’s Housing Figures for draft South Somerset Local Plan 2006-2028

4 Council’s calculation of delivery rates

5 Appeal decision Ref APP/R3325/A/09/2093947, Bayford Hill

6 Somerset County Council Audit Report, email dated 29 June 2012 and 2

emails dated 11 June 2012

7 Drgs IMA-11-002-018, 019, 020 and 021A

8 Email dated 10 April 2012



9 Extracts from Manual for Streets 2

10 Email dated 3 July 2012 containing e mail dated 29 March 2012

11 Email dated 3 July 2012 containing e mail dated 3 April 2012

12 The Draft Regional Spatial Strategy for the South West 2006 – 2026, 2 The

context for the spatial strategy

13 The draft revised Regional Spatial Strategy for the South West incorporating

the Secretary of State’s proposed changes – for public consultation July 2008.

p 118

14 CLG household projections

15 Panel Report - South Somerset HMA Sub-Regional Strategy pp 179 to 183

16 The draft revised Regional Spatial Strategy for the South West incorporating

the Secretary of State’s proposed changes – for public consultation July 2008.

pp 125 to 131

17 Number of vacant dwellings based on council tax

18 Hopkins Developments Ltd output last five years and residential dvelopments

five to seven years ago

19 Location of Cale House and Bellfields sites in Wincanton

20 Pre-Application Surgery 27 April 2010, agenda and supporting documents

21 Application for planning permission dated 28 February 2005 (the Brimsmore

development)

22 Planning Permission for application No 05/00753/OUT (the Brimsmore

decision)

23 E mail dated 4 July 2012 re second homes

24 South Somerset Sustainable Community Strategy 2008-2026 Goal 9: Homes,

vacancies

25 Empty Homes Strategy – South Somerset empty homes

26 Unilateral Undertaking

27 Calculation of cost of employment land - Cllr Winder

28 E mail dated 5 July 2012 re condition for highway adoption

29 Opening submissions - Council

30 Opening submissions - appellant

31 Closing submissions - Council

32 Closing submissions - appellant

CORE DOCUMENTS

1 The planning application and certificates submitted

2 The Planning Application Drawings

3 The technical reports and statements submitted as part of the application

4 The County Highways Department’s consultation response

5 The Planning Officers report presented to the Area East Planning Committee

on the 12th October 2011

6 The South Somerset Adopted Local Plan (2006)

7 Secretary of State’s Saving Direction dated 22nd April 2009

8 The Somerset and Exmoor National Park Joint Structure Plan Review (2000)

9 The South Somerset Draft Core Strategy (2010)

10 South Somerset Local Development Framework – Annual Monitoring Report

(April 2009 – March 2010), 31st December 2010

11 SSDC Detailed Assessment of supply that supports the AMR Five Year Supply

Assessment

12 The National Office for Statistics 2008 Based Household Projections

13 Conveyance dated the 4th November 1992 – See appendix A of Rebuttal

Poof of Mr Matthew Kendrick



14 Council Relevant Appeal Decisions

15 DCLG - Land Supply Assessment Checks (May 2009)

16 South Somerset’s settlement hierarchy workshop discussion paper (April

2011)

17 Baker Report 2011

18 South Somerset Strategic Housing Market Assessment

19 Letter from Steve Quartermain to LPA’s dated 6th July 2010

20 DCLG - 5 Year Land Supply for Housing in England as at April 2009

21 Appeal decision in relation to Picket Piece, Andover, Test Valley District

(PINS Ref: PP/X3025/A/10/2140962)

22 Appeal decision in relation to Todenham Road, Moreton in Marsh, Cotswold

District (PINS Ref: APP/F1610/A/10/2130320).

23 Appeal decision in relation to Land at Moat House Farm, Elmdon Rd,

Marstons Green (Ref: APP/Q4625/A/11/2157515)

24 DCLG - ‘Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessments: Practice Guidance’

(June 2007)

25 South Somerset 2010 SHLAA

26 SSDC Letter from Andrew Collins dated the 29th May 2012

27 Ministerial Statement ‘Planning for Growth’ dated 23rd March 2011

28 South Somerset’s scale of growth workshop discussion paper 29 March 2011

– Consideration of the scale of growth for Wincanton

29 Removed

30 Housebuilder Trading Statements

31 Removed

32 South Somerset Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report

April 2010 - March 2011 (31st December 2011)

33 Appeal in relation to land at Sellers Farm, Hardwicke, Gloucestershire (Ref:

APP/C1625/A/11/2165865)

34 South Somerset Settlement Role and Function Study Final Report April 2009

(Baker Report 2009)

35 Estate Roads in Somerset Design Guidance Notes (June 1991)

36 South Somerset District Council - Proposed Submission. South Somerset

Local Plan 2006 - 2028 (June 2012)

37 South Somerset Proposed Submission Local Plan 2006-2028 Consultation

Statement (June 2012)

38 The National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012)

39 Appeal decision in relation to Land off Park Road, Malmesbury, Wiltshire

(Ref: APP/Y3940/A/11/2159115)

40 Appeal decision in relation to Land at Willoughby Road, Countesthorpe,

Leicestershire (Ref: APP/T2405/A/10/2135068)

41 Appeal decision in relation to Land West of Sapcote Road, Sapcote LE9 4DW.

Blaby District Council (Ref: APP/T2405/A/11/2164413)

42 Appeal decision in relation to Land at Area 4 South, Riviera Way,Torquay,

Devon (Ref: APP/X1165/A/11/2165846)

43 Feasibility Report in respect of Chard Eastern Development Area (February

2012)

44 Letter to Chief Planning Officers from Steve Quartermain dated 31 March

2011



Appendix 2 – Chard Appeal Decision

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate

Appeal Decision Inquiry held on 16, 17 and 18 October 2012

Site visit made on 18 October 2012

by John Wilde C.Eng M.I.C.E.

an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Decision date: 29 November 2012

Appeal Ref: APP/R3325/A/12/2176355

Land at Mitchell Gardens, Chard, Somerset, TA20 1QU

• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission.

• The appeal is made by Redrow Homes Southwest against the decision of South Somerset District Council.

• The application Ref 11/04212/FUL, dated 17 October 2011, was refused by notice dated 26 April 2012.

• The development proposed is sixty one residential dwellings, with associated vehicular

and pedestrian access, landscaping, site re-grading and related infrastructure and engineering works.

Decision

1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for sixty one

residential dwellings, with associated vehicular and pedestrian access,

landscaping, site re-grading and related infrastructure and engineering works

at Land at Mitchell Gardens, Chard, Somerset, TA20 1QU in accordance with

the terms of the application, Ref 11/04212/FUL, dated 17 October 2011, and

the plans submitted with it, subject to the conditions contained within the

attached schedule.

Application for costs

2. At the Inquiry an application for costs was made by Redrow Homes Southwest

against South Somerset District Council. This application is the subject of a

separate Decision.

Procedural matters

3. The proposed development was amended between the submission of the

planning application and the Council’s decision. The description of

development given in my decision is therefore that given in the Council’s

decision letter, which was the subject of the Inquiry, and not that given on the

planning application form.

4. During the Inquiry it became clear that the highway witness for the Council was

unable to appear. The Council therefore requested an adjournment. This was

contested by the appellant who offered instead to withdraw his highway

witness such that the two highway proofs of evidence could be taken ‘as read’.

I accepted this as the fairest and most efficient course of action.



Main Issues

5. The main issues are whether or not the proposed development:-

(a) Would accord with current national and local (extant and emerging)

planning policy regarding development in the open countryside.

(b) Would provide well designed high quality homes that would create an

inclusive and mixed community.

Reasons

6. The appeal site lies to the west of Chard town centre and is outside of the

development boundary of the town. It is however only about 500m from the

central area of the town and therefore in transport terms can be considered to

be in a sustainable location. The proposed development would result in the

building of sixty one dwellings accessed from the existing Mitchell Gardens

development to the south-east of the site.

Policy issues

7. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) makes clear in

paragraph 47 that local planning authorities (LPAs) should provide five years

worth of housing against their housing requirements with an additional buffer

of 5% moved forward from later in the plan period. Paragraph 49 of the same

document states that where an LPA does not have a five year housing supply

then relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered to be

up to date.

8. It is common ground between the main parties to this appeal that the Council

have only about a three year housing land supply. It follows that any housing

supply policies should be considered to be out of date.

9. The Framework also makes clear in paragraph 14 that there is a presumption

in favour of sustainable development and that where a development plan is

absent, silent or relevant policies are out of date, permission should be granted

unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably

outweigh any benefits, when assessed against other paragraphs in the

Framework taken as a whole. I will return to the issue of sustainability later in

my decision.

10. The development plan documents most relevant to the present case consist of

the South Somerset Local Plan 1991-2011 (LP) and the Somerset and Exmoor

National Park Joint Structure Plan Review 2000-2011 (SP). Both plans are

therefore time expired. However, various policies of both plans were saved by

direction of the Secretary of State, in 2007 for the SP and 2009 for the LP.

11. In their decision letter the Council refer to only one policy in respect of the first

reason for refusal. This policy is policy ST3 which states that outside the

defined development areas of towns, rural centres and villages, development

will be strictly controlled and restricted to that which benefits economic

activity, maintains or enhances the environment and does not foster growth in

the need to travel.

12. Had this policy been purely a housing land supply policy then under

paragraph 49 of the Framework it would be considered to be out of date, a



conclusion arrived at by the Inspector in a recent appeal at Wincanton1. It also

forms part of a time expired development plan publication that began life over

twenty years ago. However, as the Council have pointed out, the policy has

sustainability aspects which are in line with the general thrust of the

Framework, and consequently I consider that it should be afforded some

weight. It follows that as the proposed development is outside of a defined

development area, some conflict with this policy exists.

13. Notwithstanding any limited weight that can be afforded to this policy however,

it is clear that in light of the age of the development plan and lack of a five

year housing supply, paragraph 14 of the Framework is a material

consideration of substantial weight.

14. This paragraph, as outlined above, makes clear that permission should be

granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and

demonstrably outweigh any benefit. In respect of adverse impacts the Council

have pointed to the effect that the proposed development would have on their

regeneration strategy for Chard, which is enshrined in the emerging local plan,

entitled the Proposed Submission South Somerset Local Plan 2006-2028

(PSLP). Policies PMT1 and PMT2 are the relevant ones within the PSLP with

respect to the regeneration of Chard. The former of these confirms that land at

Chard is allocated for 3237 dwellings, employment land, neighbourhood

centres, two primary schools and highway infrastructure improvements, whilst

the latter details the phasing, with 1861 houses being built within the plan

period and 1376 beyond that period.

15. The Chard Regeneration Strategy (CRS) is underpinned by a number of

documents including A Vision for Chard (September 2010), The Chard

Regeneration Plan (September 2010) (CRP), the Chard Implementation Plan

(October 2010) and the Strategic Transport Appraisal Report (August 2010).

The CRS has been the subject of collaborative working between, amongst

others, the Council, Somerset County Council, Chard Town Council and a

Community Forum and Town Team, although I acknowledge the appellant’s

comments that they have not been invited into a formal consultation process,

only a public meeting that appeared to them as a fait accompli.

16. The CRP presented four options for growth in the town. Option three was

considered to be the most sustainable and comprises a full build out of the

eastern growth area (the Chard Eastern Development Area CEDA) that would

include over 1800 houses within the plan period as well as land for employment

purposes and also new highway links. This would be accomplished in several

phases and would be designed to ensure that each phase could be completed

whilst at the same time ensuring that road and other infrastructure was

implemented to support the growth. The appeal site would not be included

within option three as it is on the west side of the town centre.

17. The approach the Council have taken in formulating a clear growth strategy is

in line with one of the central tenets of government policy as stated in

Paragraph 1 of the Framework, where it makes clear that the National Planning

Policy Framework provides a framework within which local people and their

accountable Council’s can produce their own distinctive local and

neighbourhood plans, which reflect the needs and priorities of their

communities.

1 APP/R3325/A/12/2170082



18. As I have stated above the CRS has informed the PSPL. The PSLP has been the

subject of consultation and the objections are now being considered. I note

that there are several objections to policies PMT1 and PMT2. The Council

intend to submit the document for Examination in Public towards the end of

this year and it was agreed by them during the Inquiry that there is a fourteen

week period from submission to the likely examination. There would then have

to be the consideration of the objections and possible modifications. The

Council consider that the PSPL could be adopted by summer 2013, but given

the stages yet to be undertaken, I consider that to be optimistic, and

consequently the weight I can afford to the PSPL is limited. It was also

accepted by the Council during the Inquiry that the CRS is most unlikely to

provide any significant level of housing until 2016/17.

19. I also note that whilst a verbal agreement between the developers involved in

the CEDA has been forthcoming, there are still significant hurdles to be

overcome before implementation can occur. Amongst these are the need for a

comprehensive masterplan and implementation programme and the potential

need for compulsory purchase orders to be undertaken. These matters may

well delay the start of house building.

20. I am also aware that the appeal site was identified as suitable for housing in

the Council’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) where it

was considered as suitable and available, although it had been put back due to

access difficulty and trees on frontage. These latter anticipated problems have

however been overcome in the proposed development. I accept that a SHLAA

is not a development plan document and cannot be afforded weight as such,

but it is nonetheless an indication that the site has previously been considered

and found suitable for residential development.

21. My attention has been directed to The Planning System: General Principles

2005 which in paragraph 17 states that in some circumstances, it may be

justifiable to refuse planning permission on grounds of prematurity where a

DPD is being prepared or is under review, but it has not yet been adopted.

This may be appropriate where a proposed development is so substantial, or

where the cumulative effect would be so significant, that granting planning

permission could prejudice the DPD by predetermining decisions about the

scale, location or phasing of new developments which are being addressed in

the policy in the DPD.

22. However, the proposed development is for only 61 houses as compared to over

1800 proposed within the emerging plan period. I cannot therefore accept the

proposed development as being so significant that it could prejudice the DPD.

As regards a cumulative effect, any other proposals that may come forward

prior to the adoption of the PSLP would have to be considered on their own

merits in terms of their size, sustainability and other factors.

23. My attention has also been directed to a number of cases decided in the High

Court, where the Judges agreed with Inspectors’ decisions to dismiss appeals

based on prematurity considerations. One of these concerned an appeal in Earl

Shilton2, Leicestershire, where an Inspector found that the harm caused by a

proposed development in respect of undermining an emerging policy would not

be outweighed by the need for housing. The Inspectors decision was upheld in

2 APP/K2420/A/10/2136529



a judgement in the High Court. I note however that this development

consisted of 200 units.

24. A second judgement concerned Fox Strategic Land and Property Ltd v

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. Here the proposed

scheme comprised of 280 dwellings. Thirdly, I have been directed to

Wainhomes (South West) Holdings Limited v Secretary of State for

Communities and Local Government. This was however for 1300 homes with

associated development including a school, transport hub and care home. All

of these schemes involved housing on a different scale to that which is before

me, and I also note that the decisions were made prior to the introduction of

the Framework. I cannot therefore take these as compelling precedents for

dismissing the current appeal.

25. One of the major factors in the consideration of the CRS was the limited traffic

capacity at the junction of the A30 and the A358 which is situated just to the

east of Chard town centre. This factor has had a significant influence on the

Council’s consideration of the appeal proposal, and its conclusion that the site

should not be developed. The capacity of this junction, known as the Convent

Junction, is seen as a major factor in the regeneration of Chard. Recently a

MOVA3 signal control system has been incorporated into the traffic lights at this

junction as a way of increasing capacity. The Council’s contention is that the

traffic generated by the appeal site would have such a detrimental effect on the

capacity of this junction that it would prejudice the CRS.

26. A survey undertaken at the Convent Junction on the same day of the year in

2011 and 2012 of queue lengths before and after the introduction of MOVA has

been supplied by the appellants. The survey shows a reduction in overall

queuing in both morning and afternoon peak periods of about 30%. The

highway authority have more recently (5 September) taken a further survey of

queue lengths that they have then compared to the 2011 queue lengths

supplied by the appellants. The recent survey shows an 8.6% increase in the

average maximum queue length in the morning peak period and a 20.5%

reduction in the afternoon peak period.

27. I note however that the two surveys utilise differing techniques in terms of the

measurement of the queue lengths. This means that comparing the highway

authority’s recent queue lengths to those taken in 2011 by the appellant is not

necessarily comparing like with like. I have also been supplied with

information that indicates that the figures given in tables 3.1 and 3.2 of the

recent survey have not been transposed accurately from the graphs of the

minute by minute survey results shown in appendix A. In light of this I can

give only limited weight to the recent survey results and their interpretation.

28. The highway authority conclude in their recent survey that the Convent

junction is operating within capacity, although they then add the caveat that

with the available data it is difficult to show how far within capacity. In this

respect I note that Transport Advisory Leaflet 03/97 (TA 3/97) states that

MOVA reduces delays by an average of 13% compared to vehicle actuated

systems. It seems to me therefore that based on the above figures, it can be

concluded that the Convent Junction, with the introduction of MOVA, currently

has a reasonable amount of spare capacity. This is confirmed in the evidence

given by the Council where they state that, with respect to the Convent

3 Microprocessor Optimised Vehicle Actuation



Junction, that the MOVA has the potential to add capacity for between a further

100 and 240 vehicles in peak times, which gives an average of 170 vehicles.

29. The Council have used figure 6.2 of the appellants’ Transport Assessment to

show that the proposed development would generate 36 trips in the A.M. peak

hour and 37 in the P.M. peak hour through the Convent Junction. This would

therefore represent about 20% of the average capacity increase taking their

mid point figure given above.

30. The appellant has used a SATURN traffic model to show that initially with the

introduction of the proposed scheme and phase one of the Chard Regeneration

Scheme there would be an increase in the peak hour total traffic flows through

the Convent junction of only 15 to 16 vehicles, which equates to only about

0.9% of the overall flow, and 9% if the above figure of 170 vehicles is

accepted.

31. It would seem therefore that in the worst scenario, the proposed development

could remove 20% of the increase in capacity generated by the installation of

MOVA. Whilst this would undoubtedly remove some of the capacity the Council

see as destined for the CRS, I am not persuaded that such a decrease in

capacity would seriously jeopardise the overall future of the CRS to such an

extent that the appeal should be dismissed on this ground.

32. In arriving at this conclusion I note the Council’s point that any small increase

in traffic through the junction would be significant if the junction was currently

running at or very near capacity. However, I cannot accept the premise that

this is the case. I also note that phase 1 of the CRS, the town centre

improvement, and other extant planning permissions may take some further

capacity. However, any extra trips generated by the town centre improvement

have not been accurately quantified, and there is no guarantee that the extant

sites will come forward. In relation to MOVA I have also noted that the

introduction to TA 3/97 states that on-going research should deliver further

improvements in the future.

33. I now return to the matter of sustainability. I have already indicated that the

appeal site is in a sustainable location in transport terms. However the

Framework makes clear in Paragraph 7 that sustainable development has two

other dimensions, namely economic and social. The proposed development

would provide both market housing and Affordable Housing which would to an

extent fulfil a social role. With respect to the provision of Affordable Housing I

note that in a Council Executive Bulletin dated 13 April 2012 it is stated that

Chard has consistently been the location of greatest housing need in the

district outside of Yeovil. However, the opportunities for new affordable

housing schemes in Chard have been constrained and in the past three years

only ten new homes for rent have been completed. There is therefore an

identified need for Affordable Housing in the town.

34. Any economic role would be afforded by the jobs provided in the construction

phase and in the amount of money spent in the community by future residents.

I accept that these latter aspects are not highly significant but nonetheless

overall consider that the proposed development could be described as

sustainable. I will now move on to the second main issue before arriving at an

overall conclusion.



Design

35. The Councils second reason for refusal related to the design of the proposed

development in terms of both its layout, the distribution of the Affordable

Homes and the appearance of several of the proposed houses. I will deal with

each of these matters in turn.

36. The layout of the estate would be that typical of mid-late twentieth century,

comprising of a winding cul-de-sac with branches off. The Council consider

that this would not promote legibility or permeability and they would rather see

a more gridded network, an example of which is given on page 59 of the Chard

Regeneration Plan. This example is however very diagrammatic. It shows

houses right at the top of the appeal site impinging upon the trees that are

subject to preservation orders, and curves in the road network that would be

un-driveable. Whilst this form of layout could be construed to be more

permeable for drivers I am not persuaded that it would be any advantage to

cyclists or pedestrians, as it would be likely to create a more car dominated

environment. Furthermore, it is a fact that winding cul-de-sac layouts are part

and parcel of the character and appearance of Chard at the start of the twenty

first century, and there are many such examples to the south-east of the

appeal site.

37. As regards some of the Council’s more specific points with respect to legibility

and permeability, I accept to an extent that the walking routes through and

into and out of the development are not as easily read as perhaps they could

be due to their placement and the presence of parking areas. I am not

persuaded however that these matters would impinge upon the future

residents in such a detrimental way as to justify dismissing the appeal.

38. The Council also had concerns with the fact that fenestration detail would differ

between the front and other elevations of many of the proposed houses, and

that in a few cases the finishing to a front elevation would not wrap around to

side elevations that would be seen from the public realm. The principle of

more ornate fenestration to a front elevation is not however uncommon, and it

was shown during the Inquiry that the number of properties without the wrap

around feature whose side elevations would be visible would be very small.

These matters are to my mind not of sufficient magnitude such that they can

be instrumental in my overall decision.

39. The proposed development would contain 21 Affordable Homes which would be

located predominately in four blocks on the north-west and east boundaries of

the site. The Council would prefer that these homes were ‘pepper-potted’

around the site and to justify this they point to several policies within the

Framework, including paragraph 50 which requires the creation of mixed and

balanced communities.

40. The proposed Affordable Houses are however located in prime positions nearest

to pedestrian routes into the town centre. There are other examples of similar

clustering in Chard and the relevant housing association has confirmed that the

proposed arrangement is preferable in respect of management and

maintenance. Furthermore, I have not been directed to any specific policies

that require Affordable Homes to be ‘pepper–potted’. I consider therefore that

the relatively small number of Affordable Homes proposed, in the location that

they are proposed, would not go against the ethos of the creation of mixed and

balanced communities.



41. In addressing the issues of design and layout of the site I have been mindful of

the advice given in various publications such as By Design, Better Places to

Live4 and Manual for Streets, which have raised the bar for the design of

residential estates. I am also conscious however that there are many aspects

of the design of the proposed development that have been accepted by the

Council and which point to good design. These include the areas of open

space, the design of the front elevations of the houses, the change in density

through the site with the north-east and east terraces respecting the adjacent

townscapes, the lack of identified harm to the adjacent conservation area and

the retention of the trees subject to TPOs.

42. I am also aware that paragraph 59 of the Framework makes clear that design

policies should avoid unnecessary prescription or detail and that paragraph 60

states that planning policies and decisions should not attempt to impose

architectural styles or particular tastes.

43. Overall, none of the various design issues identified above, taken either

individually or cumulatively, lead me to a conclusion that the proposed

development would be in conflict with the aims and objectives of chapters 6

and 7 of the Framework.

Conclusion on main issues

44. The Council do not have a five year supply of housing land and the LP is dated.

The Framework makes clear in paragraph 14 that there is a presumption in

favour of sustainable development and that where a development plan is

absent, silent or relevant policies are out of date, permission should be granted

unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably

outweigh any benefits. I have also found that the proposed development

would be sustainable, would not be in conflict with the Framework on design

issues, and that the appeal site formed part of the SHLAA.

45. Against this has to be balanced the fact that the Council have developed a

regeneration strategy for Chard in cooperation with the local residents and

other interested parties, and that in light of my conclusion regarding policy

ST3, some conflict with the development plan still exists. Importantly

however, the CRS is unlikely to produce significant numbers of dwellings until

2016/17 at the earliest. Furthermore, I have found that the traffic generated

by the appeal development in relation to the capacity of the Convent junction

would not be likely to be so harmful as to disrupt the introduction of the CRS.

It follows that there are no adverse impacts that would significantly and

demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the new market and Affordable Homes

that would be delivered by the proposed development. Nor do I consider that

the limited conflict with policy ST3 outweighs the benefits of the proposed

development. Consequently I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.

Other matters

46. The Council requested a range of contributions to mitigate the effects of the

proposed development on local infrastructure. These contributions can broadly

be divided into two categories, local and strategic. The appellant has raised no

objection to the request for contributions towards local infrastructure but has

questioned the required contributions towards strategic infrastructure. I have

4 Published by the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment/Department of Transport, Local

Government and the Regions



therefore been supplied with two signed and dated Unilateral Undertakings

(UU), one of which includes the strategic contributions and one which does not.

The local infrastructure includes equipped play space, youth facilities, playing

pitches and changing room provision. The strategic infrastructure includes

theatre and arts, synthetic turf pitches, swimming pools, indoor tennis centre

and sports hall provision.

47. Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy regulation (CIL) 2010

makes clear that it is unlawful for a planning obligation to be taken into

account in a planning decision on a development that is capable of being

charged CIL if the obligation does not meet all of the following tests. These are

that the obligation is necessary to make the development acceptable in

planning terms, is directly related to the development, and is fairly and

reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.

48. The Council have supplied me with a document from their Community Health

and Leisure Unit which shows the deficiencies in square metres within the

Council’s area for the various categories identified above, in both 2009 and as

projected for 2029. This document also shows the need that would be

generated by the proposed development and outlines the various relevant

policies. I have also been supplied with a document that shows the cost of the

various items of infrastructure that are being sought, which in turn provides a

cost of the provision per person.

49. It seems to me that in identifying deficiencies the Council have shown that

contributions are necessary to make the development acceptable in planning

terms and in showing a mechanism for the cost per person have shown that

the contributions would be fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind.

With respect to the required strategic contributions the appellant expressed

particular concern regarding the distance to the theatre which would be in

Yeovil.

50. However, Yeovil is only about half an hours car journey from Chard and I do

not think it improbable that future residents of the site would be prepared to

make this length of journey for an evenings entertainment, or for that matter

to access an indoor tennis centre. Other strategic facilities would involve the

improvement of facilities already within Chard or the provision of new more

centrally placed facilities. Overall, on the information before me, I conclude

that the required contributions for both local and strategic infrastructure

comply with the requirements of CIL Regulation 122 and that the UU which

contains these contributions can be taken into consideration in my decision.

51. I am aware that several local residents have expressed concern regarding the

impact of the proposed development on the wider highway network, and not

just on the Convent Junction signals. I note however that the highway

authority has raised no objections and that the junctions in the area of the site

all have good visibility. Overall I have been given no significant evidence to

suggest that there would be an adverse effect on the local highway network in

terms of safety or significant congestion. I accept that there would be an

increase in traffic using the existing Mitchell Gardens, but this road is wide

enough to accommodate two lanes of traffic as well as parking on one side.

This matter does not therefore lead me to a different conclusion to that which I

have outlined above.



Conditions

52. The conditions set out in the accompanying schedule are based on those

outlined by both parties at the Inquiry. Where necessary I have amended the

wording of these in the interests of precision and clarity in order to comply with

advice in Circular 11/95 - The Use of Conditions in Planning Permissions.

53. In the interests of the final appearance of the development I have imposed

conditions requiring further details to be submitted of the materials to be used

in the external surfaces of the houses; the rainwater goods and fascia boards;

the proposed boundary treatment, and hard surfacing materials and the soft

landscaping. For the same reason I have imposed a condition that will ensure

the protection and retention of existing trees.

54. To facilitate highway safety I have imposed conditions relating to the detailed

design of the proposed road layout. In the interests of the amenity of future

residents I have imposed a condition that ensures that parking and turning

areas are used solely for these functions, one that will ensure that roads are

developed to a given standard prior to occupation of individual houses, and one

that will see the installation of badger proof fencing. To prevent undue

nuisance to local residents I have imposed conditions relating to site working

hours and the submission of a construction method statement.

55. I have also imposed conditions relating to the provision of suitable storm and

foul drainage systems to prevent flood risk and a condition designed to ensure

the protection of protected species.

56. Otherwise than as set out in this decision and conditions, it is necessary that

the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans,

for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning. I have

therefore imposed a condition to this effect.

57. I have not however required the submission of further design details of the

proposed windows and doors as requested by the Council, as this matter has

been dealt with in my above reasoning. Neither have I imposed a condition

relating to further details of meter boxes, vents and flues as requested by the

Council. I consider such a condition would be unduly onerous.

58. The Council did however request a further condition relating to development in

the form of alterations to walls and pathways in the immediate vicinity of the

listed turnstile fronting High Street. Whilst I accept that the turnstile is listed,

which provides a level of protection, I nonetheless consider that such a

condition can be instrumental in ensuring an understanding of the relationship

between the proposed development and this important feature. I have

therefore imposed such a condition.

Overall conclusion

59. In arriving at my overall conclusion I acknowledge the strongly held views of

members of the local community. However, in light of my above reasoning,

and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should

be allowed.

John Wilde

Inspector



Schedule of conditions

1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years

from the date of this decision.

2) Development shall not begin until details of the estate roads, footways,

tactile paving, cycleways, verges, junctions, street lighting, sewers,

drains, retaining walls, service routes, surface water outfall, vehicle

overhang margins, embankments, visibility splays, accesses, carriageway

gradients, drive gradients, car parking and street furniture have been

submitted and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The

details shall be in the form of plans and sections and shall indicate as

appropriate the design, layout, levels, gradients, materials and method of

construction. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the

approved details.

3) No dwelling shall be occupied until that part of the service road and

footway which provides access to it from the existing public highway has

been constructed to at least base course level.

4) No development shall take place until details of works at the site

entrance to incorporate a traffic calming feature and provision for

pedestrians and cyclists have been submitted to and approved in writing

by the local planning authority. The works shall be completed in

accordance with the approved details prior to the occupation of any part

of the development.

5) The car parking spaces to be provided shall be kept available for the

parking of motor vehicles at all times. The car parking spaces shall be

used solely for the benefit of the occupants of the development hereby

permitted and their visitors.

6) No development shall take place until samples of the materials to be used

in the construction of the external surfaces of the buildings hereby

permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local

planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with

the approved details.

7) Prior to the construction of the external surfaces of the dwellings hereby

permitted details of all eaves/fascia boards, guttering, downpipes and

other rainwater goods shall be submitted to and approved in writing by

the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in

accordance with the approved details.

8) No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and

approved in writing by the local planning authority a plan indicating the

positions, design, materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected

and hard surfacing materials to be utilised. The details of hard surfacing

materials shall include the use of porous materials to the parking and

turning areas where appropriate. The boundary treatment and hard

surfacing shall be completed in accordance with a timetable agreed in

writing with the local planning authority. Development shall be carried

out in accordance with the approved details.

9) No development shall take place until full details of soft landscape works

have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning

authority. All planting, seeding, turfing or earth moulding works shall be



carried out in accordance with the approved details and in accordance

with a programme agreed with the local planning authority.

10) If within a period of five years from the date of the planting of any tree or

plant, that tree or plant, or any tree or plant planted in replacement for

it, is removed, uprooted or destroyed or dies, or becomes, in the opinion

of the local planning authority, seriously damaged or defective, another

tree or plant of the same species and size as that originally planted shall

be planted at the same place, unless the local planning authority gives its

written approval to any variation.

11) No development, demolition, site vegetation clearance, lighting of fires,

ground works, storage of heavy materials or use of heavy machinery

shall take place until a tree protection and arboricultural method

statement (TPAMS)has been submitted to and approved in writing by the

local planning authority. The TPAMS shall provide details of all existing

trees and hedges to be retained on the site and shall conform to British

Standard 5837 2012: Trees in relation to design, demolition and

construction. The approved Statement shall be adhered to throughout

the construction period. The TPAMS shall also include:

i) A plan showing the location of tree protection fencing,

ii) A method statement detailing special protection and engineering

measures for required access, installation of built structures, below

ground services, drainage and hard surfacing within the root

protection areas of retained trees.

iii) A schedule of compliance monitoring for the duration of the

construction phases of the development (inclusive of landscaping

and the dismantling of the tree protection fencing) by a qualified and

experienced arboricultural consultant.

12) Demolition or construction works or deliveries to the site shall not take

place outside 0800 hours to 1800 hours Mondays to Fridays and 0800

hours to 1300 hours on Saturdays nor at any time on Sundays or Bank

Holidays.

13) No development shall take place, including any works of demolition, until

a Construction Method Statement has been submitted to, and approved

in writing by, the local planning authority. The approved Statement shall

be adhered to throughout the construction period. The Statement shall

provide for:

i) the parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors

ii) loading and unloading of plant and materials

iii) storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development

iv) measures to control the emission of noise, dust and dirt during

construction

v) routing of construction vehicles

vi) phasing of construction

14) No development shall take place until a surface water drainage scheme

for the site, based on sustainable drainage principles and an assessment

of the hydrogeological context of the development has been submitted to

and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved

scheme shall be implemented in accordance with a programme agreed

with the local planning authority.



15) None of the dwellings shall be occupied until works for the disposal of

sewage have been provided on the site to serve the development hereby

permitted, in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in

writing by the local planning authority.

16) No development shall take place until a scheme for the provision of

badger proof fencing has been submitted to and approved in writing by

the local planning authority. The scheme shall include the details of

materials, height above ground and depth below ground, and a plan of

the location and extent of the fence. The fencing shall be installed in

accordance with the approved details and in accordance with a

programme agreed with the local planning authority, subject to any

amendments required by Natural England in association with their

licensing requirements.

17) The main access to the site shall not be created, including any removal of

hedging, until a Dormouse mitigation plan and method statement has

been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning

authority. The works shall be carried out in accordance with the

approved details and timing of the mitigation plan and method

statement, as modified to meet the requirements of any European

Protected Species Mitigation Licence issued by Natural England.

18) No development shall take place until details of the alteration to walls

and paths in the setting of the listed turnstile fronting High Street have

been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning

authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the

approved details.

19) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance

with the approved plans listed in schedule 1 below.



Schedule 1

1 Location Plan LP.01

2 Site Layout SL.01 Rev M

3 Dwelling Materials Layout DML.01 Rev C

4 Boundary Materials Layout BML.01 Rev C

5 Street Elevations – Sheet 1 of 2 SE.01 Rev C

6 Street Elevations – Sheet 2 of 2 SE.02 Rev C

7 Slab Levels Layout SLL.01 Rev C

8 Adoptable Areas Plan AAP.01 Rev C

9 Public Open Space Layout POS.01 Rev B

10 Affordable Housing Layout AHL.01 Rev C

11 Site Levels Plan SLP.01 Rev C

12 House Type CAM (floor plans and elevations) HT.CAM.pe Rev D

13 House Type CAM – Variation A (floor plans and elevations) HT.CAM-

A.pe Rev D

14 House type CAN (elevations) HT.CAN.e Rev C

15 House type CAN (floor plans) HT.CAN.p Rev C

16 House Type CON (floor plans and elevations) HT.CON.pe Rev B

17 House Type LET (floor plans and elevations) HT.LET.pe Rev C

18 House Type OXF (floor plans and elevations) HT.OXF.pe Rev C

19 House Type PEM (floor plans and elevations) HT.PEM.pe Rev C

20 House Type SHR (floor plans and elevations) HT.SHR.pe Rev C

21 House Type WAR (floor plans and elevations) HT.WAR.pe Rev D

22 House Type WAR – Variation A (floor plans and elevations) HT.WAR-

A.pe Rev C

23 House Type WAR – Variation B (floor plans and elevations) HT.WAR-

B.pe Rev D

24 Plots 12-15 (Type 2B4P/3B5P)- Elevations P.12-15.e Rev B

25 Plots 12-15 (Type 2B4P/3B5P) – Floor Plans P.12-15.p Rev B

26 Plots 37-41 (Types 2B4P/3B5P) – Elevations 1 P.37-41.el

27 Plots 37-41 (Types 2B4P/3B5P) – Elevations 2 P.37-41.e2



28 Plots 37-41 (Types 2B4P/3B5P) – Floor plans P.37-41.p

29 Plots 42-47 (Types 2B4P/3B5P) – Elevations 1 P.42-47.e1 Rev A

30 Plots 42-47 (Types 2B4P/3B5P) – Elevations 2 P.42-47.e2 Rev A

31 Plots 42-47 (Types 2B4P/3B5P) – Floor plans P.42-47.p Rev A

32 Plots 48-52 (Types 2B4P/3B5P/CON) – Elevations 1 P.48-52.e1 Rev

A

33 Plots 48-52 (Types 2B4P/3B5P/CON) – Elevations 2 P.48-52.e2 Rev

A

34 Plots 48-52 (Types 2B4P/3B5P/CON) – Floor plans P.48-52.p Rev A

35 Garages – sheet 1 – single garage GAR01.pe Rev D

36 Garages – sheet 2 – twin garage GAR02.pe Rev D



APPEARANCES

FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY:

Mrs R Meager of Counsel

She called Mr A Duckworth

Mr A Gunn

Mrs J Wilkins

FOR THE APPELLANT:

Mr S White of Counsel

He called Mr G Williams

Mr C Pullan

INTERESTED PERSONS:

Mrs R Davis Local resident

Mrs S Fox Local resident

Mrs Atkinson

Mrs M Hannam

Mrs E Quantrell

Mr B Sams

Councillor B Halse

Local resident

Local resident

Local resident

Local resident

Local resident

DOCUMENTS

1 Letter dated 25 September 2012 from SSDC giving details of the date, time

and venue for the Inquiry.

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

Opening statement by the appellant.

Opening statement by SSDC.

High Court Judgement Wainhomes (South West) Holdings Ltd v Secretary of

State for Communities and Local Government.

Email exchange between Angela Watson of SSDC and John Galliford of SCC.

Statement from Mr B Sams.

Statement from Councillor B Halse.

Statement from Mrs E Quantrell.

Statement from Mrs R Davies.

Statement from Mrs S Fox.

Statement from Mrs M Hannam.

Document from SSDC to justify the required strategic contributions.

Capacity review of the Convent signals.

Letter dated 14 September 2012 from SSDC to the Planning Inspectorate.

Appeal decision APP/Y3940/A/11/2159115.

Letter dated 11 September from SSDC to Nathaniel Litchfield and Partners.

Council’s suggested amendments to list of conditions.

Closing statement on behalf of SSDC.

Closing statement on behalf of the appellant.

Application for costs from the appellant.

Observations of SSDC on the Convent signals capacity review survey.



22

23

Observations of the appellant on the Convent signals capacity review survey.

Two copies of a signed and dated Unilateral Undertaking by the appellant.

summerfield homes (sw) ltd land at touchstone lane, chard planning...

Documents