Agenda, decisions and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence and notification of substitutions.

It was noted that Councillor Helen Kay was on a leave of absence. Councillor Michael Dunk sent apologies as her usual substitute.  Councillor Susannah Hart had sent apologies and Councillor Philip Ham was her substitute. Apologies had also been received from Councillors Adam Boyden, Martin Lovell, Tony Robbins and Claire Sully.

To approve the minutes from the previous meeting.

The Committee was asked to consider the Minutes of the meeting held on 4 June 2024. Councillor Dawn Denton proposed and Councillor Edric Hobbs seconded that they be accepted as a true and accurate record and were approved.

To receive and note any declarations of interests in respect of any matters included on the agenda for consideration at this meeting.

(The other registrable interests of Councillors of Somerset Council, arising from membership of City, Town or Parish Councils and other Local Authorities will automatically be recorded in the minutes: City, Town & Parish Twin Hatters - Somerset Councillors 2023 )

Although there was no requirement to do so, Councillor Dawn Denton wished it to be minuted that, regarding Agenda Item 5, she knew the landowner’s brother in a business capacity.

The Chair to advise the Committee of any items on which members of the public have requested to speak and advise those members of the public present of the details of the Council’s public participation scheme.

For those members of the public who have submitted any questions or statements, please note, a three minute time limit applies to each speaker.

Requests to speak at the meeting at Public Question Time must be made to the Monitoring Officer in writing or by email to democraticservicesteam@somerset.gov.uk  by 5pm on day, date, year – usually Weds before.

There were none.

To consider for the construction & operation of a solar photovoltaic farm with battery storage & associated infrastructure, including inverters, security cameras, fencing, access tracks & landscaping.

That planning application 2023/2183/FUL be APPROVED in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation.

Votes – 6 for, 1 against, 1 abstention

The Officer’s Report stated the application relates to the construction and operation of a solar photovoltaic farm with battery storage and associated infrastructure, including inverters, security cameras, fencing, access tracks and landscaping. This application had been considered by the Planning Committee on 7th May 2024 when the application was deferred. Members asked the applicant to give further consideration to the following:

1. Access arrangements on Monkley Lane.

2. The scale of the development in terms of the quantum of the application scheme and its impact on the landscape and heritage assets, in particular the conservation area and listed buildings.

Members also requested a site visit for Planning Committee Members be arranged.

Following the May Planning Committee, the following updated information had been received from the applicant:

·       Cover letter confirming proposed changes.

·       Updated access strategy statement

·       Revised landscape and ecology overarching plan

·       Revised proposed layout plan

·       Revised development zone plan

·       Revised plans for proposed inverters

Reconsultation with all consultees and neighbours also took place.

The Officer’s Report continued that Monkley Lane was no longer proposed to be used for any construction traffic. Also, that the applicant had submitted updated plans showing that panels would be moved further away from Flexham Farm (GII listed), and there would be enhanced landscaping on the southern side of the A361. This has resulted in the Conservation Officer removing the former objection on heritage grounds. Amendments to the proposed inverters were also proposed.

Rode Parish Council continued to object to the scheme.

The Officer’s Report concluded that considering all the harms and benefits in the overall planning balance, the benefits outweighed the harms and the application was recommended for approval.

The Planning Officer explained the application to the Committee with the aid of a PowerPoint presentation and also advised that there had been an update to the report on the soft landscaping plan.

There were 3 speakers in objection to the application including representatives from the Mendip Bridleways and Byways Association and CPRE (Campaign to Protect Rural England). Their comments included:

·       The siting of the storage batteries is too close to residents, on prime farmland and pose a danger to life should a fire break out.

·       Relieved that Monkley Lane will no longer be used during construction phase, however, concerned that access road within the site is only temporary.

·       Emergency vehicles would have to use Monkley Lane which is too narrow and would be unsafe for vulnerable road users as it links the local bridleways and rights of way.

·       Hedge removal would mean that residents would clearly see the solar panels. Want any existing and new hedging to be protected.

·       Drainage on Monkley Lane needs to be improved and should be a planning condition.

·       The proposed changes since the deferment from the May 2024 Committee are extremely minor and have not addressed the proximity of the solar farm to the village, the conservation area and the 75 listed buildings in the vicinity.

·       No work has been done by the applicant to see if a smaller site  ...  view the full minutes text for item 179.

To consider an application for the erection of 1no. detachted dwelling and relocation of parking for host dwelling.

That planning application 2023/0385/FULbe REFUSED in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation which was updated verbally at the meeting to remove the 2^nd reason for refusal regarding residential amenity.

Votes – 5 for, 4 against

The Officer’s Report stated that the application had been referred to the Planning Committee as the Parish Council had raised no objection to the scheme, but the Officer Recommendation was for refusal.

The application related to a site which formed part of the residential curtilage of 31, Stockhill Road, and included access to the highway. Access to the proposed dwelling would utilise the existing access to number 31.

The Parish Council had no objections but there had been one letter of objection from local residents.

The Officer’s Report concluded that the proposal represented a cramped form of development which was not in keeping with the existing pattern of development in the immediate vicinity of the site It would cause harm to the character and appearance of the area and result in amenity loss for future occupiers of an adjacent property.

Although the Council is unable to demonstrate a 5 year housing and therefore the tilted balance comes into effect, the design and amenity harms as identified would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the very modest benefits of bring forward one additional dwelling. The application was therefore recommended for refusal.

The Planning Officer explained the application to the Committee with the aid of a PowerPoint presentation and also gave a verbal update that, following amendments to the proposal, the 2^nd reason for refusal regarding visual amenity had been withdrawn from the refusal reasons.

The applicant’s agent was the only speaker. He made the following points:

• The application is for a very modest, highly energy efficient family home, the size and type of which is in great demand across the county.
• The only objection remaining relates to the size of the rear garden of the proposed dwelling, however it is in keeping with the size of the proposed dwelling.
• Gardens nearby are larger as the properties they are attached to are much larger.
• There are no objections from statutory consultees and the Parish Council supports the application and recommends approval.

In the discussion which followed Members raised concerns regarding lack of parking but the Officer confirmed that there was sufficient for all 4 houses along the drive. There was also discussion about the cramped nature of the development and the potential harm on future occupiers and to the character and appearance of the area.

At the conclusion of the discussion, Councillor Edric Hobbs proposed approval, contrary to the Officer’s recommendation, as the application would not result in overcrowding nor would the amenity of the neighbouring house be affected. This was seconded by Councillor Dawn Denton.

On being put to the vote, there were 4 votes in favour, and 4 votes against the proposal. Councillor Nick Cottle, as Chair, had a casting vote and he voted against the proposal.

It was then proposed by Councillor Bente Height and seconded by Councillor Barry Clarke to refuse the application in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation.

On being put to the vote the proposal was carried with 5 votes for (including the Chair’s casting vote) and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 180.

To consider an application for the erection of an accessible and adaptable Whole Life Dwelling.

That planning application 2020/1513/FUL be APPROVED contrary to the Officer’s recommendation as it was deemed that the site was in a sustainable location and that it would not be harmful to the rural character of the area. That delegated authority be given to Officers to impose necessary planning conditions, to be agreed in consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair.

Votes – Unanimous

The Officer’s Report stated that the application had been referred to the Planning Committee as the Parish Council had recommended approval whereas the Officer recommendation was for refusal.

The application related to a site within the grounds of Ashmount in a village called East Horrington which does not have a development boundary. However, the village is near Wells, and is outside defined development of this principal settlement. It was within the Somerset Levels and Moors Ramsar Risk Area and the application was for the erection of an accessible and adaptable whole life dwelling.

The Parish Council had recommended approval and there had been two letters of support from local residents.

The Officer’s Report concluded that planning permission should be refused because the proposal was unjustified unsustainable development, where the harms to the character and appearance of the area and biodiversity generated by the proposal significantly and demonstrably outweighed the benefits.

The Planning Officer explained the application to the Committee with the aid of a PowerPoint presentation. She also gave an update regarding the priority habitat stating that the system mapping of the trees seemed to be incorrect, but that it was not possible to say for certain what was the actual situation.

The first speaker in support of the application was a neighbour. He made the following comments:

• He had 30 years of experience as a forester and 10 years in climate change and biodiversity.
• The arboreal report is incorrect and in fact the proposal is to remove just 2, alien, non-native trees which had been planted to gain quick canopy cover years earlier.
• The village has older properties to one side of Frome Road, and more modern properties on the side where Ashmount is located. The character on this side is more modern with a mix of bungalows and houses and therefore the proposed house would be in keeping with the character of properties on this side the road.
• The whole life dwelling proposal will take pressure off the NHS and social care services.

St Cuthbert Out Parish Council had provided a written statement which the Chair read out. It gave reasons for supporting the application as follows:

• The house was well designed for the use of family member with disabilities.
• It would not been visible from the road and fitted into the landscape very well.
• There was no risk to loss of privacy to neighbours and the design incorporated established trees to soften and disguise the dwelling and garage.
• The phosphate concerns have been successfully mitigated and would not adversely affect the integrity of the of the Somerset Levels and Moors Ramsar site.
• It met all the requirements for disabled living and achieved all the guidelines set out by the Government for Accessibility and Adaptable Whole Life Dwelling.

The final speaker was the applicant. She made the following points:

• The proposal for an adaptable whole life dwelling had come about due to the families experience when caring for a parent with Motor Neurone Disease.
• The design would incorporate  ...  view the full minutes text for item 181.

To consider an application for the partial demolition and redevelopment of an existing building to retirement living accommodation, 45no. retirement apartments and 11no. retirement cottages with communal facilities, access, car parking and landscaping.

That planning application 2023/2369/FULbe REFUSED in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation.

Votes – Unanimous

The Officer’s Report stated that the application had been referred to the Planning Committee because the recommendation was to refuse but the Parish Council had supported the application.

The application related to a site in Street which has a number of planning constraints.

The Parish Council had supported the application. However, there were objections from the Highways Development Officer, Nutrient neutrality, Heritage Conservation and the Tree Officer.

The Officer’s Report concluded that overall, the harms associated with the development were concluded to be significant and demonstrable. Despite pre application discussions, the applicant had disregarded the majority of the Officer advice offered. The applicant had failed to respond to consultee issues raised during the lifetime of the application, or to work positively and proactively with the Local Planning Authority to deliver an acceptable scheme at this site. The application was therefore recommended for refusal for the reasons outlined in the Officer’s Report.

The Planning Officer explained the application to the Committee with the aid of a PowerPoint presentation.

The first speaker objected to the proposal and made the following points:

• She was one of 7 neighbours that would be overlooked by the retirement building and was speaking on behalf of them all.
• They did not have an issue with the site being developed, but they had concerns with what was proposed and how it would be built.
• Overlooking was a main concern as the tallest part of the development would be at the back of their properties and their gardens would all be overlooked.
• The demolition of the existing buildings would cause noise, dust and vibration for many months.
• The removal of trees will mean there will be a clear line of site to the new building.
• If the issues can be resolved, would support re-development as currently it is a magnate for anti-social behaviour.

The next speaker supported the proposal and made the following points:

• He was the director of the company that owns the Crispin Centre which was acquired by them in 2022.
• It was already dilapidated and the tenants moved out. Subsequently, it was closed.
• Residents of Street regard the redevelopment of the site as a top priority.
• It is a complex and challenging brownfield site which needs a large investment to bring it back into use.
• The homes would provide much needed retirement properties in a sustainable location.
• If not approved, the site will likely remain dilapidated as there are no other competing proposals on the table.

The representative of Street Parish Council was the next to speak. He said the Parish Council supported the application, stating it was an ugly monstrosity which would only decline further if the application was not approved by Members. In addition, the developer would repair three flats located above some High Street shops, bringing them back into use as low-cost housing. Overflow car parking would be available less than a quarter of a mile away.

The Divisional Members were then invited to speak. Their comments included the following:

• There  ...  view the full minutes text for item 182.

To consider an application for the conversion of agricultural building to residential dwellinghouse, conversion of agricultural building to ancillary accommodation, conversion and minor works to redundant agricultural buildings to form incidental outbuildings (garaging, garden store, home office and utility), extension of the approved residential curtilage and formation of new access track to link existing access provision to an existing residential entrance.

That planning application 2023/2342/FUL be APPROVED in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation, with an informative regarding the prohibition of water draining onto the highway.

Votes – Unanimous

The Officer’s Report stated that the application had been referred to the Planning Committee as the Parish Council had recommended refusal whereas the Officer recommendation was for approval.

The application related to a site which was a yard consisting of a collection of redundant agricultural buildings of mixed construction styles and materials, that formed a horseshoe shaped courtyard. It was located outside of the development limits and within the Somerset RAMSAR.

The Parish Council had recommended refusal due to the extension of domestic curtilage, loss of agricultural land and drainage onto the road.

The Officer’s Report fully assessed the application and how it accorded with the local plan. As such it concluded that the application was recommended for approval.

The Planning Officer explained the application to the Committee with the aid of a PowerPoint presentation.

The Chair read out a statement from Batcombe Parish Council which included the following points:

• The application would represent creeping development into open countryside and onto agricultural land.
• There would be further loss of agricultural land due to the additional access track.
• The new access track would result in additional water runoff onto Hincombe Hill where there is already serious safety concerns during icy weather conditions.

The final speaker was the applicant. He stated the following:

• The proposal represented a small addition to the curtilage, none of which would go anywhere near to Hincombe Hill.
• The principal of a residential dwelling in this location has already been established.
• The application would accord with local plan policy DP22 which allows for residential conversion of buildings in the countryside.
• The Planning Officer has confirmed that the matters are satisfied or can be secured by conditions.

In the discussion which followed included comments as follows:

• Hincombe Hill is the main entry point to the large village. The applicant has proposed a drainage scheme that will ensure no water flows onto the road and down the hill.
• Unable to see a problem with the proposed track.
• As it is law that there should be no water runoff from a development onto the highway, suggest an informative would be sufficient which says that no water must drain onto the highway.

It was proposed by Councillor Bente Height and seconded by Councillor Edric Hobbs to approve the application in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation.

On being put to the vote the proposal was carried unanimous.

RESOLVED

That planning application 2023/2342/FUL be APPROVED in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation, with an informative regarding the prohibition of water draining onto the highway.

Votes – Unanimous

To consider an application to change the use of 16, High Street from a café to a hot food takeaway, including the installation of an extractor.

That application 2024/0086/LBC be APPROVED in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation.

Votes – Unanimous

The Officer’s Report stated that the application had been brought to Committee at the request of the Divisional Member who was concerned about possible damage to the listed building and impact on residential amenity.

The application related to a site in the High Street of Shepton Mallet, which was a 3-storey building comprising retail on the ground floor with residential properties above, with separate access. The building is Grade II listed and permission had already been granted for the change of use.

The Town Council had supported the application as it would have a positive impact on the economy of the town.

The Officer’s Report concluded that the proposal would have less than substantial harm to the significance of the designated heritage asset.  In line with the NPPF it was necessary to weigh this harm against any public benefit. In this instance the harm to the significance of the designated heritage asset was outweighed by the public benefit and therefore the application should be approved.

The Planning Officer explained the application to the Committee with the aid of a PowerPoint presentation.

There were no speakers registered so the Chair invited Members to discuss the application. The Divisional Member was very concerned that the application for the change of use to the fast-food outlet had already been granted and was very much against this proposal due to the smells that would emit from the outlet affecting nearby residences. She subsequently left the meeting. Another Member added that it was important to keep buildings such as these in use, even if they are Listed.

It was proposed by Councillor Edric Hobbs and seconded by Councillor Martin Dimery to approve the application in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation.

On being put to the vote the proposal was carried unanimously.

RESOLVED

That application 2024/0086/LBC be APPROVED in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation.

Votes – Unanimous

The appeals decisions made by the Planning Inspectorate between 22 May and 30 June 2024.

The report of decisions made by the Planning Inspectorate between 22 May and 30 June 2024 was noted.