Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence and notification of substitutions.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Adam Boyden, Martin Dimery, Edric Hobbs and Alex Wiltshire.  Councillor Heather Shearer substituted for Councillor Hobbs and Councillor Michael Dunk substituted for Councillor Dimery.

To approve the minutes from the previous meeting.

The Committee was asked to consider the Minutes of the meeting held on 6 June 2023. Councillor Martin Lovell proposed and Councillor Tony Robbins seconded that they be accepted.

These Minutes were taken 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.)

All Councillors declared a personal but non-prejudicial interest in Agenda Item 5 - 2022/1945/REM - Land Northeast of Tor View, Top Road, Westbury Sub Mendip. This was because one of the objectors to the application was an elected Somerset Councillor and was known to them all.

Councillors Martin Lovell and Bente Height declared a personal but non-prejudicial interest in Agenda Item 9 - 2022/0258/FUL - Blostins Restaurant, 29 - 33 Waterloo Road, Shepton Mallet. Both said that they had eaten at the restaurant and knew the applicant.

All Councillors advised that they would participate in the discussions and vote on these agenda items.

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 Thursday 29 June 2023.

There were none.

To consider an application for approval of reserved matters following outline approval 2020/0364/OTA for the erection of a single dwelling. Matters of access/appearance/landscaping/layout/scale to be determined.

Application for the approval of reserved matters following outline approval 2020/0364/OTA for the erection of a single dwelling. Matters of access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale to be determined.

The Officer’s Report stated that this application had been referred to the Planning Committee by the Chair as the Officer Recommendation was contrary to the Parish Council’s. The Recommendation was for approval.

The Report continued that the site was set within a slope in the land surrounded by agricultural land and vineyard.  The proposed development was set within the cut out in the slope and was accessed via an existing farm gate enclosed on either side by hedgerow.

The site was located within the Mendip Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) on its southern edge. 

There was an extant permission, reference 2020/0364/OTA, for a dwelling on this site, although there were outstanding pre-commencement conditions. When planning permission was granted all matters were reserved for future consideration.  Since outline permission was granted the application site has been included within the phosphate catchment area which affects the Somerset Levels and Moors Ramsar.

Following the outline approval, a reserved matters application reference 2020/1678/REM, was submitted and refused for one reason, which was due to phosphates and foul drainage issues. The current application seeks approval of all the reserved matters for the erection of a dwelling and it seeks to overcome the previous single reason for refusal.

Westbury Sub Mendip Parish Council had recommended refusal. The reasons given were:

• Dwelling is too tall.
• Window design is inappropriate in terms of light pollution in the AONB
• Dwelling is not sympathetic to the needs / existing character of the village.

Other consultees such as Contaminated Land, Land Drainage, Ecology and Natural England had no objections, subject to various conditions. There had been one letter of objection received and 6 letters of support.  Objections included:

• The reserved matters application has not overcome our concerns which were raised at the outline stage and on the previously refused application.
• Objection in principle to the location of the site in the AONB outside the settlements.
• It is detrimental to the character of the area and will result in light pollution.

Comments from the letters in support included:

• The development is in keeping with surroundings.
• The Ph of the land stands at 0.02 the development will be for 2 people and as such it will not change.

In conclusion, the Officer’s Report said that subject to a legal agreement to secure the provision of phosphate mitigation habitat comprising of woodland planting and a landscape and ecological management plan (LEMP), the application was recommended for approval.

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

The Committee was then addressed by 2 objectors to the application. Their comments included:

• The development is outside the development boundary of the village in inside the AONB.
• The countryside and views of the Somerset Levels will be affected.
• The application has many changes to the original proposal and alter  ...  view the full minutes text for item 27.

To consider an application for the change of use from agricultural land to residential garden. Creation of driveway, hardstanding, turning and parking area.

Application for the change of use from agricultural land to residential garden. Creation of driveway, hardstanding, turning and parking area

The Officer’s Report stated that this application had been referred to the Planning Committee as it was a departure from the Local Plan. The Recommendation was for approval.

The Report continued that Batcombe Parish Council had recommended approval subject to Highways not raising any objection. There had been no letters of support or objection from local residents.

In conclusion, the Officer’s Report said although the development would be outside development limits, it would abut an existing residential property. The proposed use was not considered to have a detrimental impact on the adjoining land uses or highway safety and was considered to represent a sustainable form of development.  It was therefore recommended that planning permission be granted as a departure from the development plan.

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

There were no speakers on the application.

After a brief discussion some Members noted the possibility of the parking area being developed in future and wondered if permitted development rights should be removed to prevent this. The Planning Officer advised that the permission was for a parking area for private domestic use and it was not possible to know what applications may come forward in the future. However, removal of Permitted Development rights would be a possible condition.

Another Member raised concerns about increased run-off from the new driveway and requested that permeable paving be used.  The Planning Officer confirmed that this was already recommended as a condition. It was noted that road safety on the lane was an issue and permitting the property to have its own parking area would alleviate some highway safety risks.

At the conclusion of the debate, it was proposed by Councillor Claire Sully and seconded by Councillor Heather Shearer that the application be approved in accordance with the Officer’s Recommendation set out in the Report. On being put to the vote the proposal was carried with 10 votes in favour and 1 abstention.

RESOLVED

That planning application 2023/0411/FUL be approved in accordance with the Officer’s Recommendation.

To consider an application for change of use from land in the open countryside to residential garden.

Application for change of use from land in the open countryside to residential garden.

The Officer’s Report stated that this application had been referred to the Planning Committee as it was a departure from the Local Plan. The Recommendation was for approval.

The Report continued that the Development Limit of Coleford lay along the existing southern boundary of the curtilage of the property and therefore the application site lay outside of the development limits of Coleford.

Coleford Parish Council had originally objected to the application as they misunderstood the requirement for the applicant to complete a bio-diversity checklist. They subsequently withdrew the objection. There had been no letters of support or objection from local residents.

In conclusion, the Officer’s Report said that, although the development would be outside development limits, it would abut the existing residential property and would provide garden similar in size to neighbouring properties. The proposed use was not considered to have a detrimental impact on the adjoining land uses or ecological habitat and was therefore recommended that planning permission be granted as a departure from the development plan, subject to conditions.

The Planning Officer explained the application to the Committee with the aid of a PowerPoint presentation. She also advised that she was minded to amend condition 3 which related to hard and soft landscaping, as the applicant had submitted a more organic plan. Also, there was a contractual covenant which meant the fencing must be open to allow for wildlife.

The applicant was then invited to address the Committee. He made the following comments:

·        The proposed boundary of the garden would align with the neighbour’s garden boundary.

·        The land is totally hidden from road and is only visible from neighbouring properties.

·        The intention is to protect the current view and land from being developed. It was an old hay meadow and intend to introduce a water meadow.

·        Intend to further conserve and protect existing wildlife.

In the discussion which followed, Councillor Barry Clarke, although a little concerned that the field would be turned into a water meadow, proposed that the application be approved in accordance with the Officer’s Recommendation outlined in the Report, but with delegation to the Planning Officers to amend Condition 3. This was seconded by Councillor Susannah Hart.

One Member wished to add an additional reason given to Condition 4 regarding the removal of permitted development rights to include the words “bio-diversity loss,”. There was discussion as to whether this was necessary. Councillor Helen Kay proposed an amendment to the substantive motion to add these additional words and this was seconded by Councillor Michael Dunk. On being put to the vote the amendment was carried by 5 votes to 4, with 2 abstentions.

The substantive motion was then put to the vote to approve the application in accordance with the Officer’s Recommendation with the additional wording “biodiversity loss,” in the reasons for Condition 4. This was carried unanimously.

RESOLVED

That planning application 2023/0431/FUL be approved in accordance with the Officer’s Recommendation but  ...  view the full minutes text for item 29.

To consider an application for residential development comprising 25 dwellings, new vehicular access, landscaping, sustainable urban drainage and other associated infrastructure works.

Application for residential development comprising 25 dwellings, new vehicular access, landscaping, sustainable urban drainage and other associated infrastructure works.

The Officer’s Report stated that this application had been referred to the Planning Committee as the recommendation was to approve with conditions, but the Divisional Councillors had objected and called for a referral to the Planning Committee. 

The Report continued that, through the life of the application, consultation comments were received from the Urban Design Officer who recommended the attenuation pond originally proposed in the southern corner of the site, adjacent to the vehicular entrance, be replaced with an area of public open space.  The applicant followed this recommendation and submitted revised plans and drainage details accordingly. 

As revised plans and information had been received through the life of the application, consultation with the local community and statutory consultees had been undertaken as necessary. 

The Divisional Councillors had objected to the applications.

Frome Town Council had not objected to the application. Other consultees such as the Local Flood Authority, Highways and Environmental Protection had no objections subject to various conditions. However, Frome Civic Society had objected for reasons such as poor design, insufficient pedestrian and cycle links and affordable housing not dispersed throughout the site.

There had been 5 letters from local residents with neutral comments and 3 letters of objection. Comments included:

·        Highways safety concerns

·        Insufficient parking

·        Pedestrian and cycle connections into Printworks site required

·        Amenity – there should be 21 m distances required between properties

·        Insufficient planting

·        Insufficient biodiversity net gain

In conclusion, the Officer’s Report said that, as the Council could not demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply, the ‘tilted balance’ set out NPPF was engaged. This meant that residential proposals should only be refused if they would result in ‘significant and demonstrable harm’ which outweighed the benefits of the proposal. The scheme would be acceptable (subject to the inclusion of relevant conditions and obligations) in relation to impact on the character of the area; affordable housing provision; housing mix; education; highways, access and parking; contaminated land; refuse and recycling; trees; landscaping; carbon reduction; and ecology.  The Report went on to say that considering the application under the ‘tilted balance’. The harms were not considered ‘significant and demonstrable’ and therefore the Officer Recommendation was for approval, subject to planning conditions and the prior completion of a S106 legal agreement.

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

Councillor Shane Collins then spoke. He advised he was one of the Division Members. He made the following points:

·        Heat pumps require electricity and proper insulation to be effective.

·        Developers should be building houses to exceed the requirements of the national regulations, not just meet them.

·        Would like to see houses built to Passivhaus standards. They may be more costly to build but running costs would be reduced.

·        Provision of an electric bicycle per household rather than just EV charging points would be preferable.

·        Car parking provision was too high – on average  ...  view the full minutes text for item 30.

To consider an application for part change of use from restaurant Class E(b) to residential Class C3.

Application for part change of use from restaurant Class E(b) to residential Class C3.

The Officer’s Report stated that this application had been referred to the Planning Committee as requested by the Chair and Vice Chair of the previous Planning Board at Mendip District Council as they disagreed with the Officer’s proposal to refuse the application.

The Report continued that the proposal was for the change of use of the restaurant to residential with the overall result being two dwellings.  The site was located within a Conservation Area and was within the development limits of Shepton Mallet.  The site was also located within the Somerset Levels and Moors Ramsar catchment.

Shepton Mallet Town Council had supported the application but there had been no letters of support or objection from local residents.

Regarding phosphates, the Report stated that the application site fell within the catchment flowing into the Somerset Levels and Moors Ramsar, designated for its rare aquatic invertebrates.  There was a major issue with nutrients entering watercourses and any new housing, including single dwellings, would result in an increase in phosphates contained within foul water discharge. As the designated site was in 'unfavourable' condition, any increase, including from single dwellings, was seen as significant.

The applicant had not provided a Nutrient Neutrality Assessment and Mitigation Statement (NNAMS) and based on the information available, it was not possible for the Council to determine whether the proposal would have an acceptable effect in relation to the Somerset Levels and Moors Ramsar site, and as such it failed Regulation 63 of the Habitat Regulations 2017. The Report continued that it was also not possible to determine the effect on protected species and as such the Recommendation was for refusal.

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

The Chair invited the agent for the applicant to speak on their behalf. He made the following points:

• The owners of the restaurant had been trying to sell it for a considerable amount of time but have been unsuccessful. They would like to convert the restaurant to a residence and make two properties, one of which they would sell.
• The Phosphate calculator was flawed as it did not take into account the loss of the restaurant business and how that would result in an overall reduction in phosphates emitted.
• As a restaurant, the water usage was between 400 and 600 litres per day. As a dwelling this would reduce to 150 litres per day. This was an obvious benefit to the Somerset Levels and Moors Ramsar site.

Before the Committee debated the application the Legal Advisor re-iterated that the proposal failed Regulation 63 of the Habitat Regulations 2017, which prohibits the Council from granting planning permission unless it is sure beyond reasonable doubt that the development it will not adversely affect the integrity of the Ramsar Site. He urged Members not to make an unlawful decision by granting permission for the development without the necessary evidence to demonstrate  ...  view the full minutes text for item 31.