Agenda, decisions and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence and notification of substitutions.

Apologies had been received from Councillors Bente Height, Helen Kay, Adam Boyden, Claire Sully and Tony Robbins. Councillor Ros Wyke substituted for Councillor Tony Robbins and Councillor Philip Ham substituted for Councillor Bente Height.

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 )

Councillor Ros Wyke declared that she had previously spoken as Divisional Member on Planning Application 2023/1515/OUT – Land at 353038 145483, Gypsy Lane, Wells, Somerset and would therefore would not participate in this agenda item.

Councillor Nick Cottle declared that regarding Planning Application 2024/1051/OUT - Land at Pear Tree Farm, Cullen Farm Road, Glastonbury, Somerset, although the application was in his division, he was not predetermined or prejudiced and would take part in the debate and vote.

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.

Prior to the next agenda item, the Head of Planning, Alison Blom-Cooper, provided Members with an update on the recent changes to the NPPF legislation.

To consider an outline application with all matters reserved except for access, for up to 47no. dwellings (including affordable housing), open space, ecological mitigation, and supporting infrastructure.

RESOLVED

That planning application 2023/1515/OUT be APPROVED in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation subject to securing a substantial increase in the S106 contributions for the Strawberry Line. This be delegated to Officers in consultation with the Chair, Vice-Chair and Divisional Members.

Votes – 6 for, 2 against, 1 abstention

The Officers Report explained the background of this application and the reason it had returned to Planning Committee. Members were reminded that the application was first considered at Planning Committee on 1st October 2024, when it was deferred. It was then refused at Committee on Tuesday 3rd December 2024, for the following reasons:

·       Highway concerns regarding the safety and visibility of the proposed junction with the site from the B3139

·       Landscape impact

·       Managing flood risk

·       Failing to maximise the use of sustainable transport as a result of an insufficient contribution towards active travel, in particular towards the Strawberry Line which would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the scheme

Since then, the NPPF was revised on 12 December 2024.  Therefore, in light of the national policy changes and as the decision notice had not been issued at that time, the application had to be reconsidered by the Committee.

During the meeting the Legal Advisor confirmed this position and stated that when a new NPPF is issued which has a material  impact on a resolution made by the Planning Committee and where the decision notice had not yet been issued, the planning application should   be reported back to Members for further consideration.

The Planning Officer explained the application using a PowerPoint presentation, after which the public speakers addressed the Committee.

There were 3 speakers in objection to the proposal. Their comments included:

·       Query why the decision notice following the resolution of the meeting held on 3 December 2024 was not issued before the change in legislation on 12 December 2024.

·       The revised NPPF should not change the outcome of this application. The reasons for objection remain the same:

·       Impact on the landscape; proposal is outside the development limits; there will be a loss of green space; access is too narrow with poor visibility and is dangerous; due to distance to the town centre, people will still need to drive into town; flooding issue still prevalent.

·       The application is not supported by St Cuthbert Out Parish Council, who gave good reasons for recommending refusal with a strong planning balance.

·       There will be a significant increase in traffic on Gypsy Lane.

Mr Ivor Tetley, who spoke in objection to the application, raised a query regarding the process and procedure that was followed to bring the application back to the Planning Committee. He questioned why the decision notice for the application had not been issued in a timely manner following its refusal at the 3 December 2025 meeting, resulting in it being brough back to Committee for re-consideration in light of the changes to the NPPF. He said he felt that the Committee was being asked to reconsider and reverse its decision and queried the procedural rules which would allow this to happen.

In response, the Legal Advisor stated that the Chief Planning Officer was able to bring matters back to the Committee under their delegated powers Part i2 of the Scheme of Delegation for Officers, paragraph 134. He advised that the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 250.

To consider an outline application with some matters reserved for up to 24 dwellinghouses with details of access.

RESOLVED

That planning application 2024/1051/OUT be REFUSED contrary to the Officer’s recommendation for the following reasons:

The Somerset East area is currently not able to demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. However, the application of policies in the National Planning Policy Framework that protect heritage assets provides a strong reason for refusing the development proposed, as set out below, and therefore the 'tilted balance' is not engaged. The development site is located outside of the development limit and would result in a cumulative change to the general character of the area, adversely affecting the significance of the nationally important heritage asset at Glastonbury Tor (ST MICHAELS CHURCH TOWER (scheduled monument and grade I listed building, list entry number 1345475)) through development in its setting.

Great weight is attached to the conservation of the asset, which is an asset of the highest significance.

The identified level of harm to the heritage asset is less than substantial and this harm is not considered to be outweighed by the public benefits of the proposal.

The proposed development is considered to be contrary to local plan Policy CP1, being located outside the settlement limits, and Policy DP3, as the public benefits of the proposal would not outweigh the harm to the asset's significance, through development in its setting, of the Mendip District Local Plan Part 1: Strategy & Policies, Adopted 15th December 2014 and with the plan as a whole.

Votes – 5 for, 3 against, 2 abstentions

The Officers Report explained the background of this application and the reason it had returned to Planning Committee. Members were reminded that the  application was first considered at Planning Committee on 5^th November 2024, when it was deferred. It was then refused at Committee on Tuesday 3rd December 2024, for the following reason:

• The development site is located outside of the development limit and would result in a cumulative change to the general character of the area, adversely affecting the significance of the nationally important heritage asset at Glastonbury Tor (ST MICHAELS CHURCH TOWER (scheduled monument and grade I listed building, list entry number 1345475)) through development in its setting.

Since then, the NPPF was revised on 12 December 2024.  Therefore, in light of the national policy changes and as the decision notice had not been issued at that time, the application had to be reconsidered by the Committee.

The Planning Officer pointed out that the updated NPPF now states that the reasons for refusal must now be “strong” rather than just “clear”. The change in the five-year housing supply in Somerset East from 3.67 years to 2.2 year was very relevant, but that the need “strong” reasons for refusal was the main consideration for Members when determining the application.

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

There were two speakers from Glastonbury Town Council. They made the following comments:

• Disappointed that the application was back before the Planning Committee and it was not clear why the decision notice to refuse the application had not been issued in a timely manner.
• The impact on the landscape would be significant and currently the Town Council was in the process of applying for World Heritage Site status for the Tor and Church Tower, the Abbey and the nearby landscape.
• This application would cause further intrusion into the landscape which should be avoided at all costs.
• Glastonbury Town Council has already identified a potential 5-year land supply, which does not include this site.

Finally, on behalf of the applicant, the planning agent addressed the Committee. His comments included;

• The housing land supply has deteriorated as calculated by the revised NPPF.  Therefore, there will need to be significantly more housing on green fields although it will be unpopular.
• Previously the application was refused due to the heritage impact despite the professional consultees saying that there were no strong heritage landscape reasons for refusal.
• The Planning Officer has confirmed that the new NPPF has increased the required weight of refusal reasons to ‘strong’. Although Members were not duty bound to follow the advice of the professional Officers, they would have to provide expert evidence on appeal if the application is refused.
• The Council needs to increase the amount of housing land and this is an excellent opportunity to do this.
• There have been no objections from professional consultees.
• The client is a developer who builds quickly to a high standard. There is an agreed solution  ...  view the full minutes text for item 251.

To consider an application for the erection of a detached two storey self-build dwellinghouse and garage.

RESOLVED

That planning application 2024/1223/FUL be APPROVED as a departure to the development plan Policy DP24, contrary to the Officer’s recommendation, as the scheme was deemed to be in a sustainable location with no adverse impacts identified. The Committee also gave weight to the fact that the dwelling would be  constructed and occupied as a self-build unit.

That delegated authority be given to Officers to issue the permission subject to advertising the application as a departure, the prior completion of a S106 Agreement to ensure that the dwelling is constructed and occupied as a self-build unit and the imposition of necessary planning conditions.

Votes – 9 for, 1 against.

The Officer’s Report stated that the application had been referred to the Planning Committee at the request of the Vice Chair, following referral.

The recommendation for refusal was due to the application failing to meet the criteria of a self-build application in Policy DP24. Therefore, this would result in a dwelling in the countryside where development is strictly controlled. This would lead to unjustified encroachment and would not be sustainable due to the distance to and accessibility of local services and facilities.

There had been 6 letters of support from local residents and none in objection. Supportive comments included:

• No impact on existing properties
• Will allow a family to stay in the area
• It would contribute to the local community
• The family grew up locally and have strong links
• Living near older parents will benefit both households

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

The applicant spoke in support of his application. He made the following comments:

• He felt he did comply with the requirements of a self-build application and was very keen to do a self-build.
• He has lived at Chewton Fields for many years and did meet the criteria of Policy DP24.
• He wishes to provide a family home and be able to live near his parents to give them the support they need as they age.
• There is full support for the application from the Parish Council and local residents.
• There is a bus stop nearby with a regular service. There would be no increase in the use of private vehicles as he already lives on site.
• The house will be built to high eco standards with solar panels, air source heat pumps and he would be more than happy to enter into a S106 agreement.

In the brief discussion which followed, Members were supportive of the application. They noted that the location appeared to be sustainable and the design was in keeping with the locality. There were no adverse impacts. They were keen to ensure that the approval would be as a self-build.

The Legal Advisor suggested that, as the application did not comply with Policy DP24, the application would need to be advertised as a departure from the development plan. In addition, there would need to be a S106 Agreement to secure the dwelling as a self-build unit.

Members were happy with this suggestion and Councillor Edric Hobbs proposed to approve the application, contrary to the Officer’s Recommendation with the addition of a S106 agreement to secure the application as a self-build. This was seconded by Councillor Ros Wyke.

On being put to the vote the proposal was carried with 9 votes in favour and 1 against.

RESOLVED

That planning application 2024/1223/FUL be APPROVED as a departure to the development plan Policy DP24, contrary to the Officer’s recommendation, as the scheme was deemed to be in a sustainable location with no adverse impacts identified. The Committee also gave weight to the fact that the dwelling would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 252.

To consider an application for a single storey front, side and rear extension.

RESOLVED

That planning application 2024/1435/HSE be APPROVED in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation.

Votes – Unanimous

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

The application was for the demolition of an existing garage, and the construction of a “wrap-around” extension.

The Report continued that the proposal, by reason of its design, scale, and materials was acceptable. It respected the amenity of occupants, neighbours and the public. Parking provision on site continued to meet the requirements for a dwelling at this location and therefore the recommendation was for approval.

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

There were no speakers registered.

Members felt there was no debate required and acknowledged that the application had come to Committee for probity reasons. Councillor Barry Clarke proposed and Councillor Edric Hobbs seconded that the application  be approved in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation.

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

RESOLVED

That planning application 2024/1435/HSE be APPROVED in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation.

Votes – Unanimous