Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence and notification of substitutions.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Alex Wiltshire.

To approve the minutes from the previous meeting.

The Committee was asked to consider the Minutes of the meeting held on 4 July 2023.

Councillor Helen Kay proposed some amendments as follows:

On page 23, in the committee discussion, the 5^th bullet point to read “cost of running of the air source heat pumps and the noise emitted”. This was proposed by Councillor Helen Kay and seconded by Councillor Claire Sully. There were 5 in favour and 2 against this proposed amendment, therefore the proposal was carried.

She also proposed a change to the 6^th bullet point to add “which if found to be a problem might lead to ‘viability’ issues for the developer and result in them reapplying for permission with fewer affordable homes.” The amendments were proposed by Councillor Helen Kay and seconded by Councillor Susannah Hart. There were 8 votes in favour and none against.

Subject those amendments, the Minutes were approved as a true and accurate record of the meeting.

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 )

There were none.

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, 27 July 2023.

There were none.

This was noted.

To consider an application to outline Planning Permission for the erection of 6 dwellings with all matters reserved except access.

Application for Outline Planning Permission for the erection of 6 dwellings with all matters reserved except access.

The Officer’s Report stated that this application had been referred to the Planning Committee as the site was located outside the housing settlement limits so would be a departure from the existing adopted Development Plan. The Officer Recommendation was for approval.

The Report continued that the site was located adjacent to the Main Street (the A39) in Walton, Street and the application sought outline planning consent for 6 dwellings with only the means of access to be determined by this application.

The Divisional Member had requested the application be referred to the Committee. The Parish Council had objected to the application and there had been 3 letters of objection and 1 supporting comment from local residents. The concerns included:

• Development would be outside the development limits and would create urban sprawl
• Impact on the environment
• Highway safety
• Loss of privacy for neighbouring dwellings

In conclusion, the Officer’s Report said that significant weight should be given to the NPPF which encouraged delivery of sustainable development, and the lack of a five-year housing supply in the Somerset East area. The proposal would deliver economic, social and environmental benefits. The Report recognised the impact of living conditions and loss of privacy but said there was sufficient space within the site to accommodate the number of dwellings proposed. Overall, the development was sustainable and the application was therefore recommended for APPROVAL subject to conditions and planning obligations secured in a S106 legal agreement.

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

The Committee was then addressed by an objector to the application. His comments included:

• The proposed access is already used by 4 dwellings.
• Exit onto the A39 is on a blind bend. There had been 3 car accidents recently.
• A construction site opposite the exit where 9 further dwellings are being built will make it even more dangerous.
• The site is outside the development limits.
• The bat survey referred to was not done for this application but was carried out for a previous application and did not mention presence of bats, which are evident.
• Walton is a small village and has already had 44 new houses in the past year. It has had more than its fair share of new dwellings.

On behalf of Walton Parish Council, a speaker then made the following points:

• The development was outside the development limits of the parish and would spoil the entrance to the village and erode the green area.
• 54 homes had been completed or consented since March 2017 and anything proposed outside the development limits should now be refused.
• The proposal is to use existing access but this is on a dangerous curve in road and would increase the hazard.
• The biodiversity net gain had not been demonstrated.
•  

Councillor Ros Wyke then spoke. She advised that she was the Divisional Member. She opposed the application for reasons of highway  ...  view the full minutes text for item 37.

To consider an outline planning application with all matters reserved except for access for the erection of 1No. 4 bedroom dwelling house.

Application for Outline Planning Permission with all matters reserved except for access for the erection of 1 x 4-bedroom dwelling house.

The Officer’s Report stated that this application had been referred to the Planning Committee as the site was located outside the settlement limits so would be a departure from the existing adopted Development Plan. The Officer Recommendation was for approval.

The Report continued that the site was located outside, but adjacent to the southern boundary of the development limit of West Pennard, which was designated as a ‘secondary village’ in the Local Plan. Only the means of access was to be determined by this application.

West Pennard Parish Council had objected to the application for reasons of highway safety and inappropriate use of agricultural land. Three letters of objection had been received from local residents for reasons including:

• Site is outside development limits.
• It could set a harmful precedent.
• Loss of high-quality agricultural land.
• Highway safety concerns for road users and pedestrians.
•  

In conclusion, the Officer’s Report said that although the site was outside the development limits of West Pennard, the Council could not demonstrate a five-year housing land supply in the Somerset East area, meaning the tilted balance was engaged and a refusal could only be justified in the event that harms were ‘significant and demonstrable’.

The dwelling would sit immediately adjacent to the development limit and other residential development and would replicate the density and integrate to the spatial characteristics of the locality. Harms of the development would include increased traffic, including an access near an existing road junction, loss of an agricultural field and minor increased pressure on services including the local school. Overall, the harms in this case were not considered ‘significant and demonstrable’. Therefore, the principle of development and the impacts of development were concluded to be acceptable.

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 the applicant’s agent. He made the following points:

• The access proposed meets the highways requirements.
• The visibility splays are as per the limits required.
• The application includes current ecological reports and storm water management reports.
• The site adjoins the edge of the development limit and the land is grade 3 agricultural land, meaning minimum loss of high-quality farming land.

During the discussion which followed, Members made a number of comments including the following:

• The site is only just outside of the development limits and is really an infill site. Seems to be acceptable as a location for the development.
• Even if land is Grade 3 it is still agricultural land.
• Concern about removal of hedgerows – can replanting be conditioned?
• No comment from Highways appears on the planning portal.

In response, Officers made the following comments:

• There were no objections from Highways – standing advice applies as per the Officer’s Report.
• The ‘tilted balance’ applies and although there is harm recognised, it is not significant or demonstrable.
• Hedge  ...  view the full minutes text for item 38.

To consider an application for installation of 4no. floodlights at show tennis court.

Application for the installation of 4no. floodlights at show tennis court

This application, and applications 2022/1456/FUL - installation of 4no. floodlights at triple court and 2022/1521/FUL - installation of 6no. floodlights at hockey pitch, were presented by the Planning Officer and debated by the Planning Committee all together. The votes were taken individually for each application.

The Officer’s Report stated that these applications had been referred to the Planning Committee because the Town Council supported the applications whereas the recommendation by the Planning Officer was to refuse them all.

Three applications had been submitted for floodlights in close proximity to each other at this site. These were:

1. 2022/1521/FUL - 6 floodlights at hockey pitch

2. 2022/1456/FUL - 4 floodlights at triple court/netball courts

3. 2022/1455/FUL - 4 floodlights at show tennis court

The applications proposed to operate the lighting as needed between 7am and 8pm.

The Report continued that the sites were outside the development limits of Glastonbury. They were designated as Open Space (protected under LP1 policy DP16) and were within the Somerset Levels and Moors Ramsar catchment area. Glastonbury Tor was located approximately 1.2 km to the northwest of the proposed developments and was a Special Landscape Feature, scheduled monument and St Michael’s Church Tower was Grade I listed. There were various other heritage assets in proximity to the sites, including listed buildings scheduled monuments and the Glastonbury Conservation Area.

There had been objections to the applications from the Council’s Conservation and Ecology Officers and 1 letter of objection from a local resident had been received. Objections included:

• Harm to ecology
• Harm to landscape and rural character
• Inadequate mitigation proposed.

In conclusion, the Officer’s Report said that the benefits of these proposals included enhanced facilities and increased use of sports pitches. This may result in some increased sports provision to the local area. However, it was recommended that planning permission be REFUSED for all 3 applications due to the landscape harm identified, heritage harms which are not outweighed by public benefits and insufficient information submitted to demonstrate there would not be harm to protected species.

The officer informed the committee of additional information that has been submitted since the publication of the Officer Report. This included the submission of a community use agreement. The officer confirmed that this additional information did not alter the conclusions reached in the report.

The Committee was then addressed by the applicant’s agent who made the following points:

• The floodlights would enhance the sporting facilities.
• They will only be used during the winter at the timings specified, i.e. would be switched off by 8pm every evening.
• The applicant had commissioned a detailed ecology survey which found that the proposals were acceptable under current ecology legislation.
• The impact on the heritage asset would be minimal. There had been no objections by Historic England.
• The school is committed to encourage the use of the facilities the community.

During the discussion which followed, Members made a number of points, including the following:

• The site would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 39.

To consider an application for Proposed installation of 4no. floodlights at triple court.

Application for installation of 4no. floodlights at triple court

It was proposed by Councillor Susannah Hart and seconded by Councillor Bente Height to approve the application, contrary to the Officer’s Recommendation. On being put to the vote the proposal was not carried with 4 votes in favour and 8 votes against the proposal.

Councillor Helen Kay then proposed to refuse the application in accordance with the Officer’s Recommendation, with an additional reason being the effect on dark skies. This was seconded by Councillor Edric Hobbs. On being put to the vote the proposal was carried with 8 votes in favour and 4 votes against.

RESOLVED

That planning application 2022/1456/FUL be REFUSED in accordance with the Officer’s Recommendation with an additional reason for refusal being the impact on dark skies.

To consider an application for proposed installation of 6no. floodlights at hockey pitch.

Application for installation of 6no. floodlights at hockey pitch.

It was proposed by Councillor Susannah Hart and seconded by Councillor Bente Height to approve the application, contrary to the Officer’s Recommendation. On being put to the vote the proposal was not carried with 4 votes in favour and 7 votes against the proposal. There was 1 abstention.

Councillor Helen Kay then proposed to refuse the application in accordance with the Officer’s Recommendation, with an additional reason being the impact on dark skies. This was seconded by Councillor Edric Hobbs. On being put to the vote the proposal was carried with 6 votes in favour and 5 votes against. There was 1 abstention.

RESOLVED

That planning application 2022/1521/FUL be refused in accordance with the Officer’s Recommendation with an additional reason for refusal being the impact on dark skies.

Construction of driveway and change of use of land to garden.

Application for the construction of driveway and change of use of land to garden.

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

The Parish Council had recommended refusal for the following reasons:

• Not a conversion as the original barn is not being reused.
• The site is within the minerals safeguarding distance of Halecombe Quarry and objections were raised by Minerals and Waste Policy on a similar application nearby.
• Impact on the setting of the Grade 1 listed church.

 There had been 1 letter of objection and 2 letters of support received.

In conclusion, the Officer’s Report said that, whilst it was acknowledged that the development would be beyond the edge of the village and therefore would represent a departure from local plan, it could not be described as being in isolated open countryside. As the Council does not have a five-year housing land supply in the Somerset East area, the ‘tilted balance’ would apply. The additional 3 dwellings would make a modest contribution to housing in the t Somerset East area, which is of some weight. There would also be limited economic benefits through the construction period, and new occupants of the village result may use local services and facilities contributing to their long-term viability.

The application would not have any harm in terms of landscape and visual impact, impact on heritage assets and/or highway safety concerns. Overall, any harm arising from the application scheme were not considered to significant and would not demonstrably outweigh the benefits delivered. On balance, it was recommended that the application be APPROVED.

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

The applicant’s agent then addressed the Committee. She said that the proposal would improve highway safety given the very poor visibility from the existing access and improve the safety of vehicle movements to, from and within the site. The application would also provide increased garden space mainly to the rear of the property as there is currently very little.

The Vice-Chair, Councillor Edric Hobbs, said he saw no problems with the application and proposed that it should be approved in accordance with the Officer’s Recommendation. This was seconded by Councillor Helen Kay. On being put to the vote, the proposal was carried with 10 votes in favour and 1 abstention.

RESOLVED

That planning application 2023/0687/FUL be APPROVED in accordance with the Officer’s Recommendation.

Convert Barn to form terrace of 3no. single storey dwellings.

This application was deferred to a future meeting.