Meeting documents

The Planning Officer introduced the report and with the aid of slides and photographs summarised the details of the application as set out in the agenda report.  Particular reference was made to the impact on the setting of the Conservation Area as referred to in the agenda report by the Landscape Officer.  The key considerations were harm to heritage assets – the character and appearance/setting of the Merriott Conservation Area, Case Law – Reinforces the statutory duty to "preserve or enhance" heritage assets and precedent for future development of the open space.  The Planning Officer advised that an email had been received from County Councillor Le Hardy in support of the application.  A second email in support of the application had also been received from a nearby neighbour.

The Conservation Officer referred members to Section 72 of the Act that requires special attention to be paid in the exercise of planning functions to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a conservation area.  He referred to NPPF guidance which stated that harm did not have to be publically visible.  He was of the view that the proposed development would cause serious harm.

The Planning Officer advised that Merriott was classed as a rural settlement and that Policy SS2 would apply, which strictly seeks to control development.

In response to questions from Members, the Planning Officer confirmed that:

·         The blue area shown on the site location plan was land in the applicants ownership;

·         The Planning Officer gave information of a recent appeal decision where Policy SS2 had been tested;

·         The Planning Officer was of the view that the proposal did not provide community benefit;

·         Verbal pre-application advice had been given to the applicant;

·         The Parish had recently adopted a village plan and weight could be given to it;

·         SS2 did make reference to development being in accordance with village plans;

·         The footpath ran in a southerly direction and was adjacent to Merriott Social Club;

·         The Ward Member confirmed that approximately 2,000 people lived in Merriott;

·         Any individual proposals for development were assessed against the NPPF and development plan priorities;

·         The Conservation Officer commented that the green area in the village added to the setting of the conservation area.

The Committee was addressed by Martin David in objection to the application.  His comments included the following:

·         The applicant had achieved a lot in the village but this should have no bearing on the application;

·         The application site was a huge field and was one of four fields that joined each other.  The fields made the area unique;

·         A Surveyor had already been seen on the site;

·         Granting permission would be of benefit to very few and would be detrimental to the people of the village.

The meeting was adjourned for 5 minutes in order for the Chairman to seek legal advice from the Legal Services Manager.

Following advice from the Legal Services Manager, Councillor Angie Singleton declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the application and left the meeting, as the mother of her son-in-law was part owner of the land adjoining the proposed application site.  As the Vice Chairman was the Ward Member for the application, Councillor Nigel Mermagen was proposed and seconded as Chairman for the remainder of the meeting.

(Councillor Nigel Mermagen in the Chair)

The Committee was then addressed by Mr Watts and Mr Hasler in support of the application.  Their comments included the following:

·         The applicants were a huge part of the local community and the proposal was well supported by the villagers;

·         The field had been an eyesore in the village until the applicant had purchased it;

·         It was felt that one property would not impinge on the countryside and would preserve the area.

The Applicant, Philip Venn, clarified that Clapper Hay was a dwelling house and not a workshop.  He referred to there being no objections from neighbouring properties and that it was only the driveway that was located within the Conservation Area.  He advised that the Parish Council vote had been close.  The proposed dwelling would cause no loss of privacy, was not visible from the road and would improve the appearance of the streetscene. 

The Applicant’s Agent, Mr Smith referred to the conservation area issue and advised that he had sought further opinion from a qualified consultant who had reached a different view.  He read a summary of the heritage report conclusions to the Committee.  The Applicant’s Agent confirmed that the applicant was willing to enter into a legal agreement for a single dwelling.  He commented that the development would not be visible or intrusive and urged members to approve the application subject to a legal agreement.

The Ward Member, Councillor Paul Maxwell, commented that the application was a revised application and that as a result of a site meeting, the proposed development was now more in line with Gappers Pool. He felt that the proposed development would hardly be visible and there would be little effect on the landscape, conservation area, listed buildings and the Parrett Trail.  The entrance to the development was small and the gateway was sufficient. He further commented that more people in the village supported the application than not and that there had been a low response rate to the village plan.  He urged members to support the application.

The Legal Services Manager advised that members needed to consider whether the development would cause harm to the conservation area and listed buildings and also what public benefit the development would bring.  If members were of the view that the proposed development would cause harm, it raised a statutory presumption of refusal of the application.  However, the assessment of harm was a matter for the members having considered their officers’ advice.  The closeness of the Parish Council vote was not a relevant consideration and the applicant’s wish to provide his family with a dream home would not usually be a sufficient reason to approve an application.  She further advised that to restrict the site by a S106 agreement would suggest an issue of harm and impact.  She advised members to consider the issue of harm prior to any other issues.

During discussion, members made a number of comments which included the following:

·         A member was of the view that the proposed site was the heart of the village and that by allowing one dwelling would set a precedent for further development;

·         One member felt that the application should be considered by the Regulation Committee.  In response, the Development Manager felt that the application was not one that needed to be referred to the Regulation Committee.  Members had received the full report and the officer was clear on his opinion.  The summary of the recent appeal decision concluded that there shouldn’t be open market development unless there was a clear need;

·         A member failed to see how harm could come from a building facing away from the listed building and conservation area;

·         A member felt that there was a need for the development;

·         The Parish Council split decision could not be taken into consideration;

·         Personal circumstances should not be taken into consideration;

·         There were no issues with overlooking;

·         Granting one dwelling would not cause harm.

The Legal Services Manager advised that need for the development must relate to public benefit.  The application was not furthering the provision of village facilities – a business was not being produced on the site, nor did the applicants need to build a house on the proposed site in order to be able to continue their village business.    She reminded members that less weight should generally be given to open market housing development compared with affordable housing.

It was proposed and seconded to approve the application contrary to the Planning Officer’s recommendation subject to the details and conditions being agreed with the Ward Member.  The reasons given for approval were:

·         Sustainable location;

·         No demonstrable harm;

·         No adverse impact on the conservation area and listed buildings;

·         Development in accordance with relevant policy

On being put to the vote, the proposal was carried 6 in favour and 3 against.