Agenda, decisions and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence and notification of substitutions.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Adam Boyden, Barry Clarke, Helen Kay and Tony Robbins. Councillor Philip Ham substituted for Councillor Clarke and Councillor Shane Collins substituted for Councillor Helen Kay. Councillor Alex Wiltshire was also absent.

To approve the minutes from the previous meeting.

The Committee was asked to consider the Minutes of the meeting held on 6 February 2024.

Councillor Edric Hobbs proposed and Councillor Bente Height 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: 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 day, date, year – usually Weds before.

There were none.

Erection of 37 no. dwellings (Use Class C3) and a cafe/work hub (Use Class E) with associated access, parking and landscaping (resubmission of 2020/2674/FUL).

That planning application  2021/2413/FUL be APPROVED in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation with amendments to revise Conditions 4 (Surface Water Drainage) and 16 (Construction Management Plan) and additional Condition 17 regarding access visibility, Condition 18 regarding construction of the access, Condition 19 regarding visibility at the pedestrian access, Condition 20 regarding cycle and storage parking and Condition 21 regarding the lighting scheme for the protection of bats.

Votes – 5 in favour, 3 against and 2 abstentions

Erection of 37 no. dwellings (Use Class C3) and a cafe/work hub (Use Class E) with associated access, parking and landscaping (resubmission of 2020/2674/FUL).

The Officer’s Report stated that this application proposed a new residential development (major application) outside of settlement limits. The officer recommendation was for approval and, therefore, the application was referred to Planning Committee as a departure from the local plan.

The Report continued that the 11.8-hectare site was land in agricultural use (grade 3b, not best and most versatile) and consisted of a field located on the north-eastern side of the village of Butleigh. The village was identified as a primary village and therefore included a development boundary. The site was outside this boundary and separated from the village by a hall and recreation field. Also noted within the Officer’s Report were the following points:

• The proposed development would deliver 37 homes, of which 11 would be affordable.
• It would also deliver 205sqm of café and work hub units and an uplift in biodiversity.
• The site was located in “open countryside” for the purposes of the spatial strategy, an area where development is to be strictly controlled.
• The Council was unable to demonstrate a five-year supply of housing site in the Somerset East area with a shortfall of 1,201 homes against the requirement of 3,414.
• Highways, phosphates, odour and flood risk issues had been addressed through the planning application process.
• There are both benefits and harms to this application, which had been weighed up.

In conclusion, the Planning Officer stated that the overall benefits arising from the proposed development were considered to be significant. This is largely due to the contribution to the overall supply of housing, including both market and affordable housing and accounting for the shortfall in supply that currently exists in the Somerset East area. The benefits from the provision of a large amount of public open space was also considered to be significant. The high-quality design & materials and the economic development and biodiversity benefits have also been factored in.

Overall, the harms arising from the proposed development were considered to be moderate. The ‘tilted balance’ was engaged which meant that the application should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. This is despite the fact that the proposed development does not accord with the local plan.

In conclusion, the Officers considered that the adverse impacts were not considered to significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. Therefore, the recommendation was that planning permission should be granted.

The Planning Officer explained the application to the Committee with the aid of a PowerPoint presentation. He then gave a verbal update on 4 further planning conditions that were to be added into those in the report pack.

The Committee was then addressed by an objector to the application. She made the following comments:

• The tilted balance is subjective and Members should make their own decision on this.
• The housing numbers within the village have already been met  ...  view the full minutes text for item 123.

Proposed garage extension to replace existing lean-to car port. Proposed infill rear extension joining workshop to dwelling.  New roof over existing workshop and lean-to.

That planning application 2023/2277/HSE be APPROVED in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation.

Votes – Unanimous in favour

Proposed garage extension to replace existing lean-to car port. Proposed infill rear extension joining workshop to dwelling.  New roof over existing workshop and lean-to.

The Officer’s Report stated that the applicant was an employee of Somerset Council and, as the recommendation was for approval, the application had been referred to the Planning Committee for probity reasons.

The application sought consent to construct a garage extension replacing the existing lean-to car port to the front elevation of the property and to construct an infill extension (joining workshop to dwelling) to the rear elevation and adding a new roof over existing workshop and lean-to conservatory.

In summary, the Planning Officer stated that the proposal was considered acceptable in visual terms, it did not harm the amenities of the adjoining residential neighbours and the means of access and parking were acceptable to maintain highway safety standards. The recommendation was therefore for approval.

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

There were no speakers registered for this application.

In the brief discussion which followed, it was noted that the Division Member had no issues with the application and that it had only been brought to Planning Committee for probity reasons.

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

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

RESOLVED

That planning application 2023/2277/HSE be APPROVED in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation.

Votes – Unanimous in favour

Following the conclusion of this item, the Chair agreed to amend the order the agenda but for ease of reference, the minutes remain in the original agenda number order. The revised order of the agenda items was 12, 13, 10, 11, 15, 7, 8, 9 and 16.

Two-storey rear extension (retrospective).

That planning application 2023/2217HSE be APPROVED in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation, subject to no new issues being raised from the ongoing consultation process (expiring 19.03.2024)

Votes – 7 in favour, 2 against and 1 abstention

Two-storey rear extension (retrospective)

The Officer’s Report stated that the applicants were relatives of an elected member of Somerset Council and, as the recommendation was for approval, the application had been referred to the Planning Committee for probity reasons.

The Report continued that the application was for retrospective consent for a two-storey extension to the rear of the property. The application form stated that the work had commenced on this extension on 01.11.23.

In summary, the Planning Officer stated that the proposal by reason of its design, siting, scale, massing, layout and materials was acceptable and contributed to the local context and maintained the character and appearance of the surrounding area. Also, it would not cause significant harm to the amenities of any occupiers or adjacent occupiers through overshadowing, overbearing impact, loss of privacy, noise, or other disturbance and was therefore recommended for approval.

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

The Team Leader – Development Management then advised the Committee that 2 local residents had made representations to the Council, but that consultation was ongoing. Therefore, any decision made at the Committee today would be dependent on no new issues being raised from the current consultation process, which was due to expire on 19.03.23.

There were no speakers registered for this application.

Some Members commented  that it was regretful that the application was for retrospective planning permission, but it was proposed by Councillor Susannah Hart and seconded by Councillor Shabe Collins to approve the application in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation.

On being put to the vote the proposal was carried with 7 votes in favour, 2 against and 1 abstention.

RESOLVED

That planning application 2023/2217HSE be APPROVED in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation, subject to no new issues being raised from the ongoing consultation process (expiring 19.03.2024)

Votes – 7 in favour, 2 against and 1 abstention

Erection of advertisement/sponsorship 4no. hoarding signs on roundabout.

That planning application 2023/1679/RE3 be REFUSED contrary to the Officer’s recommendation due to concerns for public safety for users of the highway  and the resulting visual clutter caused by the installation of the signs

Votes – 7 in favour, 1 against and 1 abstention

Erection of advertisement/sponsorship 4no. hoarding signs on roundabout.

Before this agenda item was discussed, Councillor Claire Sully left the meeting.

The Officer’s Report stated that the applicant was the Council and that the land on which the proposed signage was to be erected was in the control of the Highway Authority (i.e. the Council). For these reasons and in accordance with the scheme of delegation, the application was referred to Planning Committee for consideration.

The application site comprised a traffic roundabout on Marston Road leading into Frome and permission was being sought to erect of 4 advertisement /sponsorship hoarding signs on roundabout.

In summary, the Planning Officer stated that the proposed signs raised no adverse public safety nor amenity concerns and, therefore, the application was recommended for approval.

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

There were no speakers registered for this application.

Members discussed the visual clutter that the addition of the advertising boards would cause. They considered these would also cause distraction to motorists trying to negotiate the roundabout and, therefore, highway safety was at risk.

At the conclusion of the debate, it was proposed by Councillor Shane Collins and seconded by Councillor Bente Height to refuse the application contrary to the Officer’s recommendation due to the impact on visual clutter and highway safety.

On being put to the vote the proposal was carried with 7 votes in favour, 1 vote against and 1 abstention.

RESOLVED

That planning application 2023/1679/RE3 be REFUSED contrary to the Officer’s recommendation due to concerns for public safety for users of the highway  and the resulting visual clutter caused by the installation of the signs.

Votes – 7 in favour, 1 against and 1 abstention

Erection of a single advertisement/sponsorship hoarding signs on the triangle junction between the A37 and A39.

That planning application 2023/1851/RE3 be REFUSED contrary to the Officer’s recommendation due to concerns for public safety for users of the highway  and the impact on the visual amenity.

Votes – Unanimous

Erection of a single advertisement/sponsorship hoarding signs on the triangle junction between the A37 and A39.

The Officer’s Report stated that the applicant was the Council and that the land on which the proposed signage was to be erected was in the control of the Highway Authority (i.e. the Council). For these reasons and in accordance with the scheme of delegation the application was referred to Planning Committee for consideration.

The application site comprised a triangular parcel of land at the junction between the A37 and A39. This application sought permission to erect an advertisement/sponsorship hoarding sign on this parcel of land.

In summary, the Planning Officer stated that the proposed signage raised no adverse public safety nor amenity concerns and therefore the application was recommended for approval.

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

There were no speakers registered for this application.

In the discussion which followed Members noted the following:

• There were no speed cameras at this junction and vehicles including HGVs travelled very fast along the road.
• Advertisements at fast junctions such as this should be avoided as they are a distraction to drivers.
• The visual amenity of the area would be affected as the junction is in a very rural location.

At the conclusion of the debate, it was proposed by Councillor Susannah Hart and seconded by Councillor Edric Hobbs to refuse the application contrary to the Officer’s recommendation for highway safety and visual amenity reasons.

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

RESOLVED

That planning application 2023/1851/RE3 be REFUSED contrary to the Officer’s recommendation due to concerns for public safety for users of the highway  and the impact on the visual amenity.

Votes – Unanimous

Internal alterations and the conversion of 3 associated outbuildings to ancillary residential use.

That planning application  2023/0152/FUL be APPROVED in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation.

Votes – 8 in favour, 1 against and 1 abstention

Internal alterations and the conversion of 3 associated outbuildings to ancillary residential use.

The Officer’s Report stated that this application had been referred to the Planning Committee at the request of the Chair. It related to a Grade II listed farmhouse and the application site consisted of an L-shaped farmhouse, an attached annex/carport building, and ancillary buildings (the barn and stables). The application sought full planning permission for internal alterations and the conversion and alteration of 3 associated outbuildings to ancillary residential use. The Report continued that, during the lifetime of the application, the plans had been amended in light of concerns regarding conservation. Most of these concerns had been addressed in the amended plans.

In summary, the Planning Officer stated that they considered that the amended proposals were consistent with the aims and requirements of the primary legislation and planning policy and guidance. The proposals would preserve the significance of the listed building, thereby resulting in less than substantial harm to the significance of the designated heritage asset. Therefore, both this, and the Listed Building application 2023/0153/LBC, were recommended for approval.

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

The Committee was then addressed by the planning agent. He said that the Planning Officer had provided a very comprehensive report and he welcomed the recommendations to approve. There was an extant permission for the previous owners which had had officer support and approval and hoped the Committee would also approve.

In the discussion which followed Members noted that there was extant permission. One Member said the roof lights should not be permitted and another was concerned about making alterations to existing walls. 

At the conclusion of the debate, it was proposed by Councillor Edric Hobbs and seconded by Councillor Shane Collins to approve the application in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation.

On being put to the vote the proposal was carried with 8 votes in favour, 1 vote against and 1 abstention.

RESOLVED

That planning application  2023/0152/FUL be APPROVED in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation.

Votes – 8 in favour, 1 against and 1 abstention

Internal alterations and the conversion of 3 associated outbuildings to ancillary residential use.

That planning application  2023/0153/LBC be APPROVED in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation.

Votes – 8 in favour, 1 against and 1 abstention

Internal alterations and the conversion of 3 associated outbuildings to ancillary residential use.

This application was discussed with the previous agenda item 10, as it was the Listed Building Consent application for the same location.

At the conclusion of the debate, it was proposed by Councillor Edric Hobbs and seconded by Councillor Shane Collins to approve the application in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation.

On being put to the vote the proposal was carried with 8 votes in favour, 1 vote against and 1 abstention.

RESOLVED

That planning application  2023/0153/LBC be APPROVED in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation.

Votes – 8 in favour, 1 against and 1 abstention

Demolish Barn B and erection of 4 x 1-bed residential dwellings.

That planning application 2023/2304/FUL  be APPROVED in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation.

Votes – 9 in favour and 1 abstention

Demolish Barn B and erection of 4 x 1-bed residential dwellings.

The Officer’s Report stated that this application was for a new residential development outside of settlement limits. The officer recommendation was for approval and, therefore, in accordance with the scheme of delegation the application was referred to Planning Committee as a departure from the local plan.

The application sought full planning permission to demolish the barn and to erect 4 one-bed dwellings.

In summary, the Planning Officer stated that whilst the site was located outside the settlement limits it had the benefit of an extant approval to form four dwellings under LPA case ref: 2022/1619/PAA. The height, scale and massing of the proposed new dwellings was reflective of the approved scheme. The new build development was considered acceptable and raised no new amenity, highway or ecological impact issues over and above the scheme already approved. The application scheme had not identified any demonstrable harm and, given the fallback position, the proposals were considered to be acceptable as a departure from the development plan. The application was therefore recommended for approval.

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

The Chair then read out a statement from an objector to the application. In it he made the following comments:

• If approved, the site will have developed from a single farmhouse to a hamlet of 8 dwellings in 15 years.
• The proposed access and refuse bin collection point on Ham Street will greatly affect his property.
• The speed and volume of traffic on Ham Street is greater than the alternative access point onto Tilham Street.
• It would make more sense for the domestic waste storage to be at the Tilham Street access point rather than Ham Street as it is much closer to the proposed development.
• The development would cause noise and pollution which would impact the amenity of his property.

Next to speak was the agent. He made the following points:

• The proposal would provide 4 sustainable, low energy dwellings.
• Conversion had been carefully considered but it was felt that a new build would provide greater benefits in terms of energy performance and a lower lifetime carbon footprint.
• The existing steel frame is over-engineered for a single storey building and would be recycled. Renewable timber framing would be used instead.
• As the principle for 4 new dwellings had already been granted, there were no reasons for refusal that could not be addressed by the fallback position.
• Somerset Council Waste Services had raised no concerns.

In the discussion which followed Members noted:

• The application site was outside the development limits.
• Somerset Council Waste Services had recommended a storage area be provided near the roadside on Ham Street to prevent blocking the entrance and visibility to the highway.
• Ham Street is a wider road than Tilham Lane and would be a better access point for the site.

In response to questions raised, the Planning Officer advised that it had been agreed with the applicant  ...  view the full minutes text for item 130.

Erection of a temporary rural workers dwelling and associated works.

That planning application 2023/1884/FUL  be APPROVED contrary to the Officer’s recommendation as it was considered that the functional need for a rural worker to be resident on the site had been demonstrated and that the means of access to and from the public highway that had been created would operate safely in terms of the visibility that could be achieved for the drivers of vehicles  entering and exiting the site. 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 in favour

Erection of a temporary rural workers dwelling and associated works.

The Officer’s Report stated that this application had been referred to the Committee at the request of the Chair. It related to a site located outside the development limits and had existing access onto the highway and was opposite a small industrial estate.

The dwelling would be a 2 bedroomed lodge which would be delivered in two halves. The proposed site would be to the east of the existing hay barn and a patio area and path would be formed next to the lodge to enable ease of access.

In summary, the Planning Officer stated that the proposal would result in an isolated dwelling in an unsustainable location where development is strictly controlled. The need for a rural worker dwelling had not been justified. The adverse impact of an isolated dwelling in an unsustainable location significantly and demonstrably outweighed any benefits and because a need has not been demonstrated, there were no identifiable benefits in planning terms.

Also, that insufficient detail had been provided to satisfy the Council that the proposal provided safe access to the highway or adequate parking and turning. Therefore, the recommendation was to refuse the application.

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

The Committee was then addressed by the applicant. He made the following comments:

• Planning Policy DP13 states that applications for temporary accommodation can be supported. The proposed dwelling can easily be dismantled and removed.
• Wants to grow his business but has struggled to find a house with land.
• Has the land but needs to live onsite to look after the animals and poultry. 
• There is ample parking space.

In the discussion which followed Members made the following comments:

• A small, local business like this should be supported.
• Visibility splay seems good enough and  it would not present highway safety issues.
• There is a demonstrated need for the applicant to be on site to tend to the livestock and poultry.
• It will contribute to the growth of rural economy.
• It is an isolated site, not served by public transport. Living on site will remove the need for twice daily car journeys.
• Living on site will improve security.

At the conclusion of the debate, it was proposed by Councillor Edric Hobbs and seconded by Councillor Susannah Hart to approve the application contrary to the Officer’s recommendation as it was considered that the need for a rural worker to live on site had been demonstrated. Also, Members did not share the concerns for highway safety, as the visibility splays seemed sufficient. Conditions were to be delegated to officers in consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair, to include an agricultural worker’s tie, ensuring that the permission was temporary only for 3 years, the diversion of the public right of way and provision and maintenance and the access, parking, turning arrangements and visibility splays.

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

RESOLVED

That planning application  ...  view the full minutes text for item 131.

Demolition of existing Dutch barn and erection of new dwelling with associated parking (Shadow HRA submitted received 03.01.2024).

This application was withdrawn from the agenda.

Demolition of existing Dutch barn and erection of new dwelling with associated parking (Shadow HRA submitted received 03.01.2024).

This application was withdrawn from the agenda.

Redevelopment to form 47 No Retirement Living Apartments for Older People (Sixty Years of Age and/or Partner over Fifty-Five Years of age), Guest Apartment, Communal Facilities, Access, Car Parking and Landscaping.

That planning application 2023/1275/FUL  be DEFERRED for a maximum of 2 months to allow further negotiations regarding the level of car parking proposed and the quantum of  S106 contributions for off-site affordable housing delivery.

Votes – 8 in favour, 1 against and 1 abstention

Redevelopment to form 47 No Retirement Living Apartments for Older People (Sixty Years of Age and/or Partner over Fifty-Five Years of age), Guest Apartment, Communal Facilities, Access, Car Parking and Landscaping.

The Officer’s Report stated that this application had been automatically referred to the Planning Committee because the divisional Member and Wells City Council had objected, and the application was classified as a major application.

The application related to the redevelopment of a former police station. The proposal sought to demolish all buildings on site and construct a 47-unit age restricted retirement flat complex with associated communal facilities, landscaping, vehicular access, and car parking. The development would consist of 31 one-bedroom units and 16 two-bedroom units. It was a re-submission of planning application 2020/2234/FUL which had been approved in April 2023. The design of the new application was almost identical to the approved scheme with the main change being to viability, in particular, a reduction in the off-site affordable housing contribution from approx. £434k to £100k. 

The Report continued that the revised viability report, including the methodology and revised inputs, had been heavily scrutinised and subjected to an independent review by Stephen Blake Consultancy Ltd. The viability report concluded that the scheme could not support any financial contribution towards affordable housing (or any other section 106 financial contributions). As a result of this, the Officers were willing to accept the independent review recommendation to allow a reduced affordable housing contribution. The monies would support other affordable housing schemes in the Somerset East area as and when they were proposed. The contribution, albeit less than the amount agreed under the previous planning permission, was still seen as a significant benefit to the scheme.

In summary, the Planning Officer stated that the planning obligations would comprise of the following:

• £100,000 towards off-site affordable housing.
• £17,484 towards the cost mitigation of the pressures on the local healthcare facility.

• Purchase of 3.36 kg/year phosphate credits (on the basis that occupation of the development is delayed until after the upgrades to the Wells wastewater treatment works have occurred (post December 2024).

The application was therefore 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 planning agent. She made the following comments:

• Acknowledged the revised application was not an ideal situation.
• Since the original application was approved in 2021, there have been significant cost increases in purchasing off-site phosphate mitigation.
• Significant increase in build costs of around 17%.
• Additional costs relating to building regulation enhancements.
• All combined to affect the viability of the proposal.
• Development will meet the needs of older people in a highly sustainable location.
• Significant social benefits providing residents with a safe and friendly environment.

In the discussion which followed Members were disappointed with the reduction in S106 monies. Many felt the contribution for affordable housing should be earmarked for Wells. The Planning Officer confirmed that it was not possible to specify where it would be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 133.

Report of appeal decisions made by the Planning Inspectorate between 23^rd January 2024 and 21^st February 2024.

The report of decisions made by the Planning Inspectorate between 23 January 2024 and 21 February 2024 was noted.