Hopkins Estates Devenish Lane

Stoke Trister with Bayford Parish Council

Minutes of a Site Planning Meeting of 

Stoke Trister with Bayford Parish Council held 16 November 2018 at 10.30 am

Present:  Cllrs: E Parsons (Chairman) T MacCaw (Vice Chairman) N Linsley, A Smith, J Macfarlane and M Grant. 

1. Apologies – None

2. Declarations of Interest – None

3. Planning 

Planning Application No: 18/03272/FUL

Applicant: Hopkins Estates Ltd

Location:  Land OS 3969 Part Devenish Lane, Bayford, Wincanton

Proposal:  The erection of three dwellings with ancillary works and new access.


With reference to planning application 18/032772 on Land 0S3969 Part, Devenish Lane, Bayford for the erection of 3 dwellings with ancillary works and new access.

The site is on a narrow single track lane which according to local residents already suffers traffic stress on a regular basis from large delivery vehicles with no passing bays (other than by pulling into other residents front drives) and the only turning place being at the end of this no through lane.  Local residents report that they already frequently have to back up as a result of meeting other traffic in the lane, and we would therefore challenge the assertions in the applicants’ Planning Statement  that “The probability of two vehicles using the narrowest section of Devenish Lane at the same time is 1 in 289” and that “There are at least 5 passing places where in the unlikely event two vehicles meet travelling in the opposite direction.”

Contrary to what is stated in the Planning Statement for this application the site is NOT within the boundary of the market town of Wincanton so all references on pages 11-24 of the planning statement are irrelevant.  The land is in the rural settlement of Stoke Trister with Bayford where different housing criteria apply.  

The development plan which applies to this application is one of a rural settlement (South Somerset Local Plan (2006-2028).  The policy most relevant to this application is:-

SS2 which states that developments will be strictly controlled and limited to that which:-

  1. Provides employment opportunities appropriate to the scale of the settlement, and/or
  2.  Creates or enhances community facilities and services to serve the settlement and/or
  3. Meets identified housing need, particularly for affordable housing.

This application fails to fulfil any of the above requirements.

Moreover the scale and design of the proposed dwellings are totally inappropriate in our rural settlement.

We also note that the recent Wincanton town plan which was adopted by referendum earlier in the year, and has been independently verified by an impartial planning inspector and has been formally adopted by SSDC, clearly states the direction of growth should be away from Bayford not towards it.

In an Appeal Decision APP/R3325/W/17/3180025 Land OS 1200, Bayford Hill dated 9th January 2018 the Inspector appointed by The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government dismissed the developer’s appeal stating “Notwithstanding that LP Policy SS5 provides for the consideration of housing proposals adjacent to the development area, the proposed development would conflict with LP Policies SS1 and SS2”. 

We would also maintain that it is not the responsibility of Stoke Trister with Bayford parish (STWB) to fulfil the wider housing needs of the district but only to fulfil the housing needs sufficient to sustain its rural settlement.

Further, we would contend that as Policy SS2 relates to the sustainable development of rural settlements not the wider housing needs of the district, it does NOT necessarily become “out of date” with the rest of the Local Plan.

In view of the above, and in particular having regard to the fact that the development is clearly within the parish of Stoke Trister with Bayford and therefore the criteria that should be applied are those for rural settlements, the unanimous opinion of the Parish Council was to recommend refusal of this planning application.  The boundary between Stoke Trister with Bayford and Wincanton should not be blurred.

…………………………………………………………… Date ………………