24 homes at Butts Way, Milverton

What was proposed

The application proposed 24 dwellings, including six affordable homes, with access, parking, landscaping, open space, drainage and pedestrian links.

“The scheme proposes a new vehicular access connecting the site to Butts Way and a new footway along the site frontage on the south side of Butts Way. In addition, the scheme proposes an area of open space to the site frontage, including new tree planting and native species hedgerow planting as shown on the latest detailed site plan. To the south, there is an area of open space and planting buffer. Within this area the scheme proposes an underground SuDS drainage feature.”

“The proposal has been amended during the course of the application, including changes to the layout, house types, landscaping, open space, drainage and pedestrian links, together with the submission of updated ecological, nutrient neutrality and drainage information.”

Officer report

Site and surroundings

The site was agricultural land beside existing housing, with hedgerows, trees, a sloping layout and access from a narrow village lane.

“The application site comprises agricultural land on the western side of Milverton, to the south of Butts Way and adjoins more recent residential development at Tuckersmead and Courtfield to the east. The land is bounded by existing hedgerows, tree cover and neighbouring residential properties. The dwelling known as Marden adjoins the western boundary of the site. Restricted Byway WG7/48 also runs along part of the western boundary.”

“Butts Way is a narrow village lane with limited footway provision and is subject to a 20mph speed limit in the vicinity of the application site. It forms a route between the application site, existing residential areas and village facilities including the primary school, recreation ground and village centre.”

Officer report

Planning history

The site had no relevant planning application history but was allocated for residential development under the local plan.

“The site has no relevant planning application history. The land is, however, allocated for residential development under Policy MIN5 of the SADMP and this is an important planning consideration.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the allocated site would provide market and affordable housing, while identified harms would not significantly outweigh the benefits.

“Overall, officers consider that the benefits of delivering market and affordable housing on an allocated site carries substantial weight. The identified harms, including the Highway Authority's objection and the degree of departure from the Design Brief, do not, in officers' opinion, significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies of the NPPF taken as a whole.”

“For the reasons set out above, the proposal is considered acceptable in principle and subject to planning obligations and conditions, would not result in unacceptable harm sufficient to outweigh the benefits of development on an allocated housing site. Having regard to the development plan read as a whole, the proposal is considered to represent an acceptable form of development.”

Officer report

Who spoke

An objector, the Parish Council and the planning agent addressed the committee, while officers clarified bus services, construction controls and ecology.

Vote and decision

The committee unanimously refused permission against the officer recommendation, delegating the final wording of refusal reasons.

“Following the debate, Councillor Pugsley proposed that the application be refused planning permission against officer recommendation as the inadequate access would result in highways safety concern and because the scheme does not provide adequate, safe active travel routes and is, thereby, not in line with Policy TR6 in the National Planning Policy Framework.”

“Having been duly proposed and seconded the Planning Committee resolved that the Planning Application be refused planning permission against the officer recommendation with the final detailed wording of the refusal reasons being delegated to the Chair of the Planning Committee and the Lead Planning Officer, to also include reference to relevant Development Plan policies.”

Minutes