Agenda, decisions and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence and notification of substitutions.

No apologies were received.

The minutes of the previous meetings held on Tuesday 7 January 2025 will be considered at the next meeting.

The Committee were advised that the Minutes of the meeting held on 3 December 2024 at 2pm had been omitted in error from the agenda. These Minutes, along with the Minutes of the meetings held on Tuesday 7 January 2025 will be considered at the next 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.

We are now live webcasting most of our committee meetings and you are welcome to view and listen to the discussion. The link to each webcast will be available on the meeting webpage, please see details under ‘click here to join online meeting’.

Requests to speak at the meeting under Public Question Time must be made to democraticserviceseast@somerset.gov.uk  by 5pm on the Wednesday prior to the meeting.  For those wishing to speak on an application, requests must be made by 5pm on the Thursday prior to the meeting.

There were none.

To consider an application for the erection of up to 1,700 dwellings (Use Class C3), two care homes (Use Class C2), 6.7 hectares of employment land (Use Classes E, B2 and B8), a mixed-use local centre for primary school (Use Class F1), cafes/restaurant and convenience store (Use Class E) and other supporting social and physical infrastructure (Use Classes F1, F2 and E), provision of greenspace and other supporting ancillary works.

All matters reserved (Access (within the site), Layout, Scale, Appearance, Landscaping) other than four new vehicular site access points from the existing highway. 

RESOLVED

To NOTE that planning application 2021/1675/EOUT was called in by the Secretary of State on 3 February 2025.and that a further report will be brought back to the Committee (once the Inquiry timetable is published) for Members:

1. to determine the LPA’s position and the contents of its Statement of Case/Written Statement to the Local Inquiry; and

2. to address the specific matters referred to in Paragraph 7 of the Call-in Letter that the SoS/Inspector wishes to be informed about for the purposes of her consideration of the application.

Votes – 12 for, 1 abstention

The Team Leader – Development Management and the Legal Advisor updated the Committee that this application had been the subject of a call in by the Secretary of State, received on 3^rd February 2025. This meant that the jurisdiction for determining the planning application no longer rests with Somerset Council but would be decided by the Secretary of State, who would appoint a Planning Inspector to hold a Local Inquiry in due course.

The Officer Recommendation had therefore changed to be that the Committee  NOTE that the application had been called in by the Secretary of State.

After some discussion regarding the reasons for the call-in, where this request had originated and the specific matters raised by the Secretary of State, it was proposed by Councillor Adam Boyden and seconded by Councillor Edric Hobbs to note the amended recommendation.

On being put to the vote the proposal was carried with 12 votes in favour and 1 abstention.

RESOLVED

To NOTE that planning application 2021/1675/EOUT was called in by the Secretary of State on 3 February 2025.and that a further report will be brought back to the Committee (once the Inquiry timetable is published) for Members:

1. to determine the LPA’s position and the contents of its Statement of Case/Written Statement to the Local Inquiry; and

2. to address the specific matters referred to in Paragraph 7 of the Call-in Letter that the SoS/Inspector wishes to be informed about for the purposes of her consideration of the application.

Votes – 12 for, 1 abstention

To consider an application for the construction and operation of an energy storage facility, fencing, landscape planting, site access, drainage, infrastructure, lighting, CCTV equipment and underground cabling.

RESOLVED

That planning application 2023/1070/FUL be REFUSED contrary to the Officer’s recommendation due to significant harms that would be caused to residential amenity and limitations of the accessibility of the site, which would be contrary to Policies DP1 and DP7. The harms identified outweighed the benefits of the scheme.

Votes – 11 for, 2 against

The Officer’s Report stated that the application had been referred to the Planning Committee as it was recommended for approval. This was contrary to objections raised by a Divisional Member and by Frome Town Council. In addition, a Divisional Member had requested that the application be referred to the Planning Committee. As the application constituted a major development, the scheme of delegation requires the Planning Committee to determine the application.

The report continued that the significant safety concerns raised through public consultation were an important factor to consider in the planning balance. However, Devon and Somerset Fire and Rescue Service had not objected to the application, and there was no reason to conclude the development could not be delivered with acceptable fire, emergency and monitoring plans in place.

The Council has declared a climate emergency, and the development would support the renewable energy sector.. Although the development would change the local character, due to the site context and proposed mitigation planting, the harm was considered acceptable when weighed against the benefits of the proposal.

Identified harms included landscape harm and harm to the character and appearance of the site. However, the application should be considered in the context that the harms would be temporary and reversible (be it for a 40-year timescale). Benefits included energy storage, including renewable energy and biodiversity net gain and construction and operation jobs.

In conclusion, considering all the harms and benefits in the overall planning balance, the benefits were  considered by Officers to outweigh the harms and the application was recommended for approval subject to a S106 legal agreement and the imposition of a suite of planning conditions and informatives.

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

There were 5 speakers in objection to the application. Their comments included:

• Dangerous location. Very close to residential properties, a stream and an electricity sub-station.
• The guidance provided by the Fire Service has been disregarded.
• Problems with the accessibility of the site.
• Distance between the batteries is insufficient.
• Alternative sites had not been given full consideration.
• A deferral for a site visit should be made.
• The site is outside settlement boundaries.
• High risk of toxic water contamination of Rodden stream.
• Will have a catastrophic impact on the invertebrates, fish and otters in the stream.
• Somerset Council must not set a precedent by ignoring fire safety warnings and allowing battery storage on such a small site so close to residential dwellings.
• Sound pollution is inevitable. The acoustic fence will be ineffectual above the ground level of properties due to the gradient of the field.
• Visual amenity of residents will be affected as the fence will block the view of the meadow.
• Toxic BESS (Battery Energy Storage System) fires cannot be extinguished and will be left to burn out.
• No industrial rated fire hydrants nearby, no access for fire appliances and no toxic water retainment.
• The application is unsafe and should be refused.

Speaking in support of the application were two  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

To consider an application for the expansion of the existing sports facilities, including construction of a family putting course; an outdoor gym; 3 outdoor pickleball courts, including a children's play park & a cabana; conversion of a greenkeeper's building to indoor pickleball courts. Construction of overnight accommodation in the form of 48 eco cabins (12 buildings) and 9 lodges, partially in replacement of permitted caravan pitches. Erection of a maintenance hub & Greenkeepers Unit. Various alterations to the clubhouse, other buildings & the golf driving range. Necessary demolition & engineering works & installation of associated infrastructure and landscaping.

RESOLVED

That planning application 2024/0750/FUL be APPROVED in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation with an additional pre-commencement condition for details of the bund and additional landscaping features to be submitted to the Council for approval and thereafter implemented in full.

Votes – 8 for, 4 against

The Officer’s Report stated that the application had been referred to the Planning Committee as it was a major development and the recommendation to approve differed to the conclusions of Ston Easton Parish Council, which did not support the application.

The report continued that the application proposed the expansion and diversification of the existing golf course, to introduce holiday accommodation, new sports courts and a new maintenance facility. The proposal aligned with the relevant local plan policies and national planning policies. It would bring economic and sporting and recreational benefits, and the adverse impacts were considered limited and could be mitigated. The Officer recommendation was therefore for approval.

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

There were 2 speakers in objection to the application. Their comments included:

• Being an immediate neighbour of the golf course, the scheme would cause significant detrimental harm to my property and life.
• Inappropriate location for a holiday park.
• Noise disturbance from increased traffic and events.
• Light pollution.
• Currently there are well utilised footpaths across the site.
• Eco pods and lodges will not fit in and will change the openness of the landscape.
• Actions of Farrington Park have had little respect for local residents.
• If approved, footpaths should be retained, lighting on the site reduced and access should not be via the existing farm track.

There were 4 speakers in support of the application. Their comments included:

• A full habitat assessment has been carried out by a leading UK Ecological specialist contractor.
• The habitat is generally low value with some higher value areas.
• Early discussions with the applicant identified areas that required improved landscape design.
• The lighting design was given very careful consideration.
• Only a low number of protected species use the site.
• The golf club is an important part of the village and wider area.
• The scheme represents an investment in the area that will support it for many years to come.
• The facilities protect areas of natural beauty and countryside.
• The scheme will provide approximately 100 extra jobs and work opportunities.
• Increased tourism and will boost the local economy.
• It will provide sports and activities for the whole family to enjoy together.
• Local business owners will benefit from this scheme as the contractors and suppliers will commit to sourcing local products.
• It will encourage people to spend time with family and friends in a beautiful outdoor environment.

Next to speak was the Chair of Ston Easton Parish Council. He said the economic benefits were recognised and would be a boost to tourism, but it would be a significant new form of development with harms that should be considered including light spillage. The use of column lighting should be restricted and the site should not be intrusive. There will be an impact on North Lawn and the proposed height of the bund at 3m would be insufficient. He commented that the concerns of local residents had not been fully considered. Finally, he requested that access be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

To consider an application for the installation of 12.12kWp Solar Photovoltaic to the roof.

RESOLVED

That Officers be given delegated authority to GRANT planning application 2024/0407/FUL contrary to the Officer’s recommendation, subject to evidence being provided by the applicant to demonstrate that the building would be capable of supporting the weight of the panels and associated elements. The benefits of the scheme outweighed the harms identified to heritage assets.

Votes – Unanimous

The Officer’s Report stated that the application had been referred to the Planning Committee as the recommendation to refuse differed to that of Frome Town Council, which supported the application.

The report continued that the proposal, by reason of its scale and visual prominence on the southeast roof slope, would have a negative impact to the significance of the non-designated heritage asset (the Chapel) and to the Conservation Area, and would have a harmful impact to the designated Gateway Site within Frome. Whilst there were private benefits associated with the proposal and modest environmental benefits in reducing carbon emissions and promoting sustainable development, there were no specific public benefits to be gained from the scheme. No evidence had been provided to confirm that the building would be capable of supporting the additional weight of the panels and other associated internal elements. On balance, Officers had concluded that the benefits of the scheme did not outweigh the harms identified. The recommendation was therefore for refusal.

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

The first speaker was from Frome Town Council who was generally supportive and made the comment that the townscape had already been greatly improved by the work done to the building and the surrounding garden by the applicants.

The Divisional Member also spoke in support of the application. He said that a structural survey had been carried out which showed the roof could take the extra weight of the solar panels. He said that Members should take into account the benefits of solar energy in this climate emergency and approve anything that would lead to environmental improvements.

The applicant was then invited to speak. She made the following comments:

• The building is used to run a charity for children in Frome.
• The building has been brought back to life from a previously unkempt eyesore.
• The desire is to power the building using solar energy.
• Frome Town Council support the application.
• The concerns of the environmental officer are unfounded as the structural survey has shown the roof is strong enough for the panels. The PV converters will not be located on the roof.
• The building is not listed, and the panels will only be visible from the residential street.
• Everything has been done to minimise the visual impact and have coloured the panels to match the roof tiles.

In the discussion which followed, Members commended the charity on the work done to improve the building and site. They noted that this was a heritage building that had been brought back to life and would be preserved. There were important environmental benefits in reducing carbon and greenhouse gas emissions. As the benefits would outweigh the harms, Members were in agreement that, subject to evidence being provided that the building would be capable of supporting the weight of the panels, approval should be granted.

At the conclusion of the debate, it was proposed by Councillor Adam Boyden and seconded by Councillor Martin Lovell  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

To consider the appeal decisions made by the Planning Inspectorate between 20 December 2024 and 17 January 2025.

The appeals decisions made by the Planning Inspectorate between 20 December and 17 January were explained by the Team Leader – Development Management and NOTED by Members.