President Roger Martin

Chairman Prof. Chris Lewis

Please reply to:- Becky Collier – Branch Manager CPRE Somerset 8 Rowdens Road Wells Somerset BA5 1TU Tel: 0845 269 4206 Email: [email protected] www.cpresomerset.org.uk

David Kenyon Planning Case Officer South Somerset District Council Development Management Brympton Way Yeovil BA20 2HT 15th April 2019 [email protected]

Dear Mr Kenyon,

RE: 18/03298/OUT: 24 DWELLINGS, ACCESS VIA FOX AND HOUNDS PH, BROADWAY ROAD, CHARLTON ADAM , SOMERTON.

CPRE Somerset wish to comment on the applicant’s statement of 21 March 2019 (submitted by its planning agent, Wyg), regarding its responses to written representations.

1. In the first section of our letter of 12 November 2018 we explained why we do not agree that changing the lay-out, moving the access from the adjacent field or reducing the number of dwellings from 26 to 24 has overcome the first reason why the previous application was refused. These points have not been addressed in the applicant’s statement. Instead it refers back to the submitted planning statement, to which our letter was responding.

2. The applicant continues to misrepresent and/or ignore the planning officer’s observation regarding linearity in the previous application. The officer used the phrase ‘predominantly linear character’ to describe the village. While there are a few departures from the evidently linear arrangement in the village, notably the 1970s development at Neville Close, this does not mean that the essential linear form of the village has been lost (on this point we respectfully referred the Council in our 12 November letter to the Mudford appeal Inspector’s comments regarding linear character in APP/R3325/W/18/3201425 following the refusal of 17/04632/OUT).

3. We are baffled by the reference to the S. Morris site to the south which the applicant claims ‘further undermines any perceived linear pattern’ in Charlton Adam. This is an industrial site producing concrete blocks at a considerable distance away from the historic residential development along Broadway and the village centre, and in our view has no relevance to this argument. Furthermore the applicant is clutching at straws by arguing that the description on p.6 of the Charlton Community Plan (CCP) of the medieval occupation on four lanes around the church in some way amounts to an admission that the village does not have a predominantly linear pattern.

The Somerset Branch of the Campaign to Protect Rural England exists to promote the beauty, tranquility and diversity of rural England by encouraging the sustainable use of land and other natural resources in town and country.

A company limited by guarantee. Registered in England number 04755482. Registered Office: Sanctuary Cottage, Newtown Lane, West Pennard, Glastonbury BA6 8NL Registered Charity number 1100860

4. We do not accept the applicants’ contention that setting back the proposed development from the road and placing an orchard in front of it will be ‘sufficient’ to ‘maintain the key characteristic of openness of the view across the fields to the south’. The orchard would necessarily be a small one due to the amount of space taken by the large scale proposed development, and would not conceal the development. The existing open space will have been very substantially diminished by the large extent of the development and, as noted in our 12 November letter, the drivers’ main visual sense, as he enters the village from the east, would then be that he was driving past a pub car-park enclosed by development on both sides (i.e the proposed large scale development on the south side, and the 8 houses recently approved on the north side).

5. The statement does not address our concerns that the open aspect of the pub to the south is part of its historic setting. In our view it is undeniable that important local distinctiveness and character will be lost at this location if this open aspect is lost to development. The pub’s open aspect will be lost whether or not an orchard is placed in front of the proposed development.

6. We do not accept the applicant’s assertion that because the field to the north will be developed, and thus close the settlement gap on that side of the road, therefore it does not matter if the settlement gap is closed on the south side by this proposed development because ‘the impacts of this subsequent application in terms of coalescence of settlements are therefore limited’. In our view this kind of marginal analysis should not be applied either to the filling in of important open spaces in South Somerset historic villages that contribute to dispersed character, or to the coalescence of previously separated settlements. It is now more important, not less, that this southern side of Broadway is not built over, in order to prevent the complete effacement of the historic gap.

7. The applicant goes to lengths to argue why the CCP may conflict with the local plan. However this does not mean that considerable weight should not be given to those parts of the village plans (the CCP, and the Charlton Design Statement) that are not in conflict with the local plan, in particular the sections emphasising the particular importance of preserving the open spaces within the villages and hamlets( e.g CDS, p.16, Summary of Guidance, first paragraph; and CCP 2017, Guideline HD3). The applicant’s statement that ‘HD3 does not reflect the requirements of SSLP policy SS2 which allows development other than infill as part of meeting the required housing numbers of the district’ fails to go on to quote from SS2 that ‘Development will be permitted where it is commensurate with the scale and character of the settlement’. This proposal is not commensurate with the scale and character of the settlement, for the reasons set out in our 12 November letter.

8. It is evident that there is no general support for this proposal in the village, indeed judging from the written representations, there appears to be near unanimous opposition. The Parish Council, which represents the interests of villagers, is opposed. There is also the evidence of signage in the village (‘Save the Charltons’) erected in response to this application. This lack of general support is another reason why the application is not compliant with LP Policy SS2, which provides that ‘Development in Rural Settlements will be strictly controlled’. This is a straightforward policy, and CPRE respectfully requests SSDC to give effect to its provisions, and refuse this application.

Yours sincerely

Becky Collier Branch Manager