27-home residential development at Land South Of Knightcott Road, Banwell

What was proposed

An outline application sought up to 27 homes, open space, landscaping, associated works and diversion of a footpath, with details reserved for later approval.

“Proposal: Outline planning application for residential development of up to 27 dwellings including footpath diversion, with all matters reserved for subsequent approval.”

“Outline planning permission is sought for the development of 27 dwellings, open space, landscaping and associated works on the site. All matters are reserved for subsequent approval, including appearance, landscaping, layout, and access.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site is 0.92 hectares of arable farmland on Banwell’s western edge, beside existing housing, with access proposed from Knightcott Road.

“The site comprises 0.92 ha of arable farmland on the western edge of Banwell, south of the A371 (Knightcott Road). The site adjoins the village of Banwell which lies to the east. The M5 motorway lies approx. 800m to the west of the site. The site slopes upward towards Banwell Hill to the south. Directly adjacent to the site’s north western border is a new residential development of c.20 homes on the site of a former car dealership.”

“The Wolvershill development proposal is to north and the western junction of the Banwell bypass (which will include Knightcott Road) will be to the north west.”

Officer report

Earlier planning history

A previous proposal for 155 homes was dismissed on appeal in 2016 because landscape harm outweighed its benefits.

“The development represents an unacceptable form and scale of development that will be out of keeping with the rural landscape character and quality of the…”

“The appeal was dismissed on 13/10/2016. The Inspector noted that the harm to the character and appearance of the area significantly and demonstrably outweighed the benefits, notwithstanding that a five year housing supply could not be demonstrated. The refusal reason that this was not a sustainable travel location was not supported in the Inspector’s reasoning however. Reference will be made to this appeal decision throughout the report.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval subject to a legal agreement and conditions, finding the housing, affordable homes, open space and highway measures outweighed landscape harm.

“With regard to harms, as acknowledged above there would be an adverse landscape impact, in particular the erosion of the open gap between Knightcott and Banwell. This was a concern in the Inspector’s reasoning in the previously dismissed appeal. Whilst appropriate mitigation measures are proposed, the landscape harm attracts moderate to significant weight against the proposal.”

“It is considered that the identified landscape impact, including the effect on the gap between Banwell and Knightcott, would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, which include the delivery of housing, including affordable housing, and public open space. The package of highway mitigation measures would also be of wider benefit. Approval is therefore recommended.”

Officer report

What residents said

Twenty-two objections cited housing numbers, infrastructure, wildlife, drainage, traffic, landscape effects, countryside encroachment and loss of Knightcott’s identity; two letters supported the scheme.

“The proposal would bring too many houses into the village and the infrastructure is not adequate to cope. The proposal would be damaging to wildlife. Surface water drainage will be problematic and lead to localised flooding. It will bring in more traffic and congestion will be aggravated. It will be damaging to the National Landscape. If approved further phases would follow. Not needed as a lot of development proposed locally anyway. 8.”

Officer report

Who addressed the committee

The applicant spoke in support, and a non-voting ward member addressed the committee about the application.

Members’ discussion

Members asked about the gap between Knightcott and Banwell and the proposed public open space; officers clarified that the gap was not designated strategic.

“Members debated the application and asked questions regarding the distance of a gap between Knightcott and Banwell, which officers clarified had not been designated a strategic gap, and the public open space within the proposal.”

Minutes

The vote

A proposal to refuse the application for conflict with Policy CS32 was defeated.

“Proposal: That the application be REFUSED contrary to officer recommendation due to conflict with Policy CS32 (Service Villages).”

“After a debate and a vote, the Proposal above was lost.”

Minutes

The final decision

The application was approved for the reasons in the report and update sheet, subject to a section 106 agreement and conditions.

“(A) The completion of a section 106 legal agreement securing financial contributions towards affordable housing and highway and transport improvements as follows; i. The provision of 30% on site affordable housing ii. Contribution of £47,958.75 to be provided towards delivering off carriageway cycling facilities to provide access to facilities to the west of the site. iii. Contribution to public transport of £25,000.00 per annum for a period of 2 years (£50,000.00 total) iv.”

“That the application be APPROVED (for the reasons stated in the report and the published Update Sheet) subject to the following conditions and any other additional or amended conditions as may be required in consultation with the Chairperson and Vice Chairperson and local ward member:”

Minutes