The meeting will include three planning applications, as well as information about recent planning appeal decisions. The most significant topic is likely to be the discussion of an application for 46 homes in Castle Cary. There will also be discussions of a planning application for 30 new homes in Keinton Mandeville, and a third application for 60 new homes on Tintinhull Road in Yeovil.

Planning Application 23/02258/OUT - Land West Of South Street, Castle Cary, Somerset. BA7 7NY

An outline planning application for up to 46 new homes on land to the west of South Street has been submitted by Mr James Tizzard. The application proposes the development be accessed from a single point on South Street with a secondary pedestrian and cycle access onto Cockhill Elm Lane.

The report pack says that the Council does not currently have a five year housing land supply and that this will be a significant factor in assessing the application.

The officer recommendation is to approve the application, subject to a number of conditions, including the signing of a Section 106 agreement.

Castle Cary Town Council have objected to the application. In their submission to the meeting, they raise concerns about the development's impact on local infrastructure, including roads, schools, and medical facilities. The Council's response to these concerns is that the application will include financial contributions to primary and early years education, which will be secured through the Section 106 agreement.

The Town Council are also concerned that the development will have a negative impact on the character of the town, saying:

The proposed planning application…for the erection of 46 dwellings adjoining the settlement boundary for Castle Cary, should be refused on the grounds that it is not sustainable development as defined by the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and lies outside of the designated town development boundary within open countryside.

This application relates to land outside of the allocation for development in the Castle Cary and Ansford Neighbourhood Plan.

There have also been 56 objections to the application from members of the public. Their concerns include:

• The number of houses already granted planning permission in Castle Cary/Ansford.
• The capacity of the existing infrastructure to cope with the development, particularly schools and medical services.
• The impact of the development on Grade 1 agricultural land.
• The development's impact on local ecology.
• Increased traffic on South Street and other local roads.

The report pack addresses each of the public's concerns and concludes that the benefits of the application outweigh the potential harms.

Planning Application 20/03613/FUL - Land off Queen Street, Keinton Mandeville, Somerton, Somerset

This application by Galion Homes Ltd is for the construction of 30 new homes on land off Queen Street in Keinton Mandeville. The report pack contains a recommendation for the application to be approved subject to the prior completion of a Section 106 legal agreement.

This application has already been considered by the committee on the 26th November 2024, but was deferred to allow time for a Landscape Visual Impact Assessment to be completed.

The site is bounded on three sides by existing residential development and is immediately adjacent to the Lunns Close development which was also built by Galion Homes Ltd.

The application was opposed by Keinton Mandeville Parish Council. Their concerns relate to the impact of the development on:

• Local roads, particularly Church Street, Queen Street and Common Lane.
• The setting of a Grade II listed building known as The Homestead.
• Local sewers, which the Parish Council say are inadequate.

There were also approximately 424 objections to the development from members of the public. The objections relate to a range of concerns including:

• The need for the housing at all, and the belief that there is no unmet need for housing in Keinton Mandeville.
• The impact of the development on the character of the village, including its appearance, density, and materials.
• The impact on existing residents, including potential overlooking and overshadowing.
• The impact of the development on ecology, particularly badgers, bats, and Bee Orchids.
• The impact on the local highway network, particularly the junctions of Church Street and Queen Street, and Queen Street and High Street. The report pack notes that Queen Street is used as a ‘rat run’ by those travelling to and from the A37.
• The impact of the development on existing local services, particularly schools and the sewage system.

The officer recommendation is for the application to be approved subject to a Section 106 agreement, and the report pack provides detailed responses to each of the public's concerns. It says that although the application is opposed by both local people and the Parish Council, it complies with the relevant planning policies and that the presumption in favour of sustainable development applies.

The Section 106 agreement will include financial contributions to early years and primary school provision, as well as provision for changing rooms, equipped play and playing pitches in the village. It will also include provision for phosphate mitigation, as the development lies within the catchment of the Somerset Levels and Moors RAMSAR site. The mitigation will take the form of woodland planting on Manor Farm in West Lydford.

Planning Application 23/02871/OUT - Land Off Tintinhull Road, Coppits Hill, Yeovil, Somerset, BA21 3PW

This is an outline planning application by Gladman Developments Limited for up to 60 new homes on land to the north of Tintinhull Road. The application includes proposals for open space, landscaping, a sustainable drainage system and a new vehicular access point onto Tintinhull Road.

This application was discussed at the committee's meeting on the 23rd of July 2024. It was deferred to allow more time to assess the highway safety of the proposed access, and the application documents have been updated since then.

The site lies to the east of the Yeovil Gospel Hall and is immediately adjacent to two sites that already have planning permission: a scheme for 185 homes to the east and the large Brimsmore Key Site, which has outline planning permission for 830 new homes.

Yeovil Without Parish Council have objected to the proposal. They raise a number of concerns, including:

• The ability of the drainage system to cope with the development.
• The sustainability of the development and its reliance on car travel. The Parish Council say that this is yet another development that piggy backs on to the infrastructure proposed for the Brimsmore Key Site .
• The impact of the development on traffic in the area.

Two representations were received from members of the public, one opposing the application on the basis that it is not included in the Local Plan and would have a negative impact on the local highway network.

The officer recommendation is for the application to be approved, subject to a Section 106 agreement. The agreement will include provision for affordable housing, financial contributions to education, sport, play and strategic facilities, as well as funds to upgrade a public right of way that runs close to the site.

The development lies within the catchment of the Somerset Levels and Moors RAMSAR site. The report pack includes a shadow Habitat Regulations Assessment (sHRA) that describes how the development will achieve nutrient neutrality. The sHRA recommends the use of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SuDS) and the purchase of phosphate credits to mitigate the impact of the development. The report pack also notes that the development could be delivered in two phases with an initial phase of 21 homes built while the site is fallowed to achieve nutrient neutrality. The remaining 39 homes could then be built after the purchase of phosphate credits.

Appeal Decisions

The report pack contains two appeal decisions for applications that were previously refused by the Council. The appeals relate to an application for a new home in Stowell and an application for 4 new homes in Wincanton. The first application was dismissed, and the second application was allowed.

The Stowell application was for a new home adjacent to Clare Farm. The application was refused because the village does not have access to two or more key services. This is a requirement of Policy SS2 of the South Somerset Local Plan. The applicant appealed the decision on the basis that the Council had approved similar applications in nearby villages, but the appeal was dismissed. The Inspector, Ms E Pickernell, concluded that the appeal site:

is not a suitable location for a dwelling, having regard to the access of future occupiers to services and facilities and local planning policies. It therefore conflicts with Policies SD1, SS1 and SS2 of the LP. Together these seek to ensure that rural housing is located in settlements that have good access to key services.

The Wincanton application was for four new homes in the grounds of the former Council Offices on Churchfield. The application was refused by the committee because it was felt that the development did not provide an adequate amount of parking.

The application was allowed on appeal. Mr A Shepherd, the applicant, argued that the committee had made their decision despite recommendations to the contrary from both the planning officer and the County Highway Authority. The Inspector, Mr R Cahalane, concluded that:

the proposed development and its surroundings would be provided with an appropriate level of parking for its location…The SCCPS standards forms optimum guidance only and allows for flexibility to account for more sustainable locations such as the appeal site…The extent of shortfall below the optimum SCCPS level is appropriate for the site and the proposal’s characteristics, location and accessibility level, and would not result in any detrimental impact in terms of safety or living conditions of nearby residents.

Mr Shepherd applied for costs to be awarded against the Council, but this application was refused. The Inspector concluded that:

my assessment of the proposal was ultimately a matter of planning judgment, and the LPA has set out its reasoning for reaching a different conclusion. Whilst I do not agree with that conclusion, I do not consider that the LPA acted unreasonably in refusing permission and defending this appeal.