Meeting documents

The Area Lead West with the aid of slides and photographs summarised the details of the application as set out in the agenda report including the key considerations.    He updated members that three further emails had been received expressing strong concerns about the application.  A further letter had also been received from Ashill Parish Council supporting local residents concerns.  The Area Lead West updated the report with an amendment to condition 11 to include the wording 6 pitches only.  He also recommended additional conditions to cover the development commencing within three years and details of foul sewage treatment to be agreed.  The Officer’s recommendation was for approval. 

In response to questions, the Area Lead West clarified points of detail raised by Members which included the following:

·         Policy SS2 in the emerging Local Plan provided for meeting the needs of communities in rural areas;

·         The Council did not have a policy in relation to the number of sites in any one area.

The Committee noted the comments of Brenda Pyle, representing Ashill Parish Council in objection to the application.

The Committee then noted the comments of Henry Best, Jeffrey Speke, Jane Simmonds, Dave Ellis, Pauline Ellis, Colin Martin, John Cunningham, Martin Hallam and Simon Smedley in objection to the application.  Concerns expressed included the following:

·         The area surrounding the proposed site was at risk of flooding;

·         There was no adequate provision for the disposal of surface water;

·         The application did not comply with planning policy;

·         There was no current demand for pitches;

·         The site was not located within a sustainable location;

·         The site would have an adverse effect on the grade 2 listed buildings in the area;

·         The size of the water treatment plant was key;

·         The site may be used for business use;

·         The site should remain in agricultural use;

·         There was inadequate provision for sewage;

·         The application was contrary to the local character of the area;

·         Lack of local facilities in the area;

·         Lack of monitoring on the site;

·         There would be an increase in traffic using Cad Road and the road was already extremely dangerous;

·         Concerns over road safety;

·         Reference was made to the historical importance of the area which should be protected.

(During the representations, members were shown photos of flooding in the area and a surface water flood map which had been submitted by an objector).

Maggie Smith Bendell speaking in support of the application informed members that she had held the position of Romany Gypsy Liaison Officer for the past 20 years based near Street.  She referred to the problems of site provision and lack of affordable land.  She commented that the family was known to her and explained about their lifestyle.  She commented that the site would be self-funded and referred to the need for pitches, as both Council sites were full.

The Applicant’s Agent, Angus Murdoch, referred to the impact of the site’s access in regard to the listed gateway and commented that an assessment had been produced and there were no longer objections.  The Highway Authority was now content with the access and a flood risk assessment had been produced.  He referred to the proposal being compliant with the development plan and that Policy HG11 had been fully met.  He also referred to the Council not having any allocated sites where the applicants could reside or a 5 year supply of deliverable sites.

The Area Lead North/East addressed a number of the comments raised during the public participation session.  Members were informed that:

·         With regard to enforcement, there were Government standard conditions in relation to the type of occupants permitted on the site;

·         Planning issues were only relevant to the application;

·         The Surface Water Flood Map had been considered by the Environment Agency and the Council’s Engineer and did not change their view on the application;

·         Policy HG11 was a key issue to be considered and the harm caused to the amenity of neighbouring dwellings;

·         The proposed site was 4km from Ilminster which was considered to be a reasonable distance;

·         There were no serious highway issues and the County Highway Authority did not object to the application;

·         The site included appropriate amenities for residents such as sewerage, hard standing and a safe play area;

·         The application complied with saved policies;

·         Members should be focussing on material considerations only such as the adverse impact on the character of the area and sustainability.

In response to a member comment, the Area Lead West confirmed that the raising of the pitch level to cope with flooding did not change the views of the Landscape Officer.

Ward Member, Cllr. Linda Vijeh referred to the concerns raised by the local residents and the Landscape Officer completing his report prior to the pitches being raised.  She felt that having to raise the pitches confirmed the unsuitability of the land.  She referred to the comments submitted by English Heritage and felt disappointed that they had underestimated the character of the area.  She believed that granting the application was the wrong decision and that caravans would have a much greater impact on the site.  She felt that the site was not suitable for this application.

The adjacent Ward Member, Cllr. Sue Steele referred to the various other sites within South Somerset and felt that the limit for sites had been reached.  Reference was also made to the issues of flooding, lack of local facilities and a footway to the site.  She also questioned whether a noise survey had been undertaken as the site was very close to Merrifield.

During the ensuing discussion, Members expressed various views which included the following:

·         SSDC was both a housing and planning authority and had a duty to provide and enable planning permission;

·         There were no issues with regard to flooding and highways;

·         The site would be subject to a site licence under the regulations of Environmental Health;

·         The site was not over dominate as there were only 6 pitches;

·         There were no valid planning reasons to refuse the application;

·         The site was not suitable for the application;

·         Concerns over the impact on the character of the area and listed buildings;

·         Concerns over the scale of the development;

·         Concerns over the risk of flooding;

·         The site was not located within a sustainable location.

It was proposed and seconded to approve the application as per the Planning Officer’s recommendation.  On being put to the vote the proposal was lost 4 in favour and 7 against.

The Area Lead North/East advised members that disregarding the advice of Statutory Consultees would be difficult to defend at appeal.  If members were minded to take this route they should consider deferring the application in order to seek independent advice.

It was proposed and seconded to refuse the application for the following reasons:

·         Scale of development;

·         Proximity to the listed gates;

·         Raised pitches;

·         Visual impact and setting;

·         Contrary to saved polices ST5, ST6, EC3 and EH5 of the Local Plan

On being put to the vote the proposal was carried 6 in favour and 5 against.

(Voting: 6 in favour, 5 against)