Meeting documents

Application proposal: Erection of 3 dwellings and ancillary works

The Planning Officer presented his report to members with the aid of a PowerPoint presentation. He advised members that he had received a late letter of objection which raised concern over constant foul drainage problems and an access gate.

He also advised members that he had revised the second reason for refusal following advice from the Rights of Way Officer and displayed this amendment on the PowerPoint presentation. He continued to read out a copy of a letter which he had sent to the applicant in response to a letter which had been sent to the members of the Committee by the planning agent which clarified that the applicant was not seeking the removal of the hedgerow, but to move the hedgerow.

Tim MacCaw, a representative of the Parish Council addressed the Committee. He advised members that he wanted to see the hedgerow retained as this historic hedgerow formed the parish boundary. He pointed out that the footpath along the site was now inaccessible and that a hedgerow which ran along the adjoining site had been removed without permission. He felt that the close board fencing was inappropriate and the gravel path meant that if was difficult to walk on.

Mr Keattch and Mr Durant addressed the Committee. Their comments included that;

·         They did not want the ancient hedgerow to be removed

·         They would like the footpath reinstated

·         A manhole cover for foul waste has been covered and the position of which cannot now be located.

·         The site is not in a sustainable location

·         The dwellings would be detrimental to the surrounding area

Matthew Kendrick, the agent, addressed the Committee. He explained several points to members including;

·         The site was an easy walking distance to the town and that the site was in a sustainable location.

·         The fence was erected to secure the site and to prevent fly-tipping and that this could be painted and removed once the hedgerow was established.

·         It was proposed that the hedgerow be translocated and not removed.

·         The footpath was 1.8 meters wide and that any problems with the accessibility of the site are due to the maintenance of the hedge. It was his view that this problem would be alleviated by a condition to ensure the removal of the fence.

·         No disruption would be made to the drainage and water supplies to existing properties.

Councillor Mike Beech advised the Committee that he had concerns over the fence, footpath and amenity of residents.

During the discussion, the Planning Officer explained that the tree officer had little confidence that the hedgerow could be translocated successfully and further advised that he had found a very rare orchid growing within the hedgerow.

He also confirmed that a condition could be added to ensure that the fence is removed once the hedgerow is established, should the planning application be approved. 

Following the discussion, it was proposed and seconded that planning permission 16/00677/FUL be approved, contrary to the officer report, subject to conditions as suggested by the planning officer.

On being put to the vote, this was not carried with 3 votes in favour, 5 against and 1 abstention. 

It was then proposed and seconded that planning permission 16/00677/FUL be refused as per the officer report, with amendment to reason for refusal 2.

On being put to the vote, this was carried 4 votes in support, 3 against and 2 abstentions.

RESOLVED: that planning permission 16/00677/FUL be refused as per the officer report, with amendment to reason for refusal 2.

Reasons for refusal

01.   The loss of the significant Parish hedgerow boundary would result in adverse harm by virtue of the historic and ecological interests associated with this historic landscape feature contrary to the aims and objectives that seek to preserve existing landscape character, appearance and local distinctiveness contrary to Policy EQ2, EQ4 and EQ5 of the South Somerset Local Plan 2006- 2028.

02.  The proposal would result in the unacceptable narrowing of the historic cart-way (ref: WN30/13) to the barns, now known as Hillside Barn, which, by reason of the means of enclosure and lack of width, would result in a significantly less attractive and accessible right of way to the detriment of users. As such the proposal is contrary to Policy EQ2 of the South Somerset Local Plan 2006- 2028, and para.75 of the NPPF.

03.  The proposal lacks any outward landscaping to soften the impact of the development being detrimental to character and appearance, local distinctiveness and visual amenity, contrary to Policy EQ2 of the South Somerset Local Plan 2006- 2028.

(Voting:4 in favour, 3 against and 2 abstentions)