Agenda item

Demolition of outbuilding; replacement with first floor holiday flat, ground floor storage, and studio.

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

The Report continued that the site was relatively isolated with open views to the north. The existing workshop/storage building was in a poor state of repair, finished in brick and block, with corrugated low-pitched roof, approximately 6 metres high. Connected to this on its east side was an older low stone building with tiled roof also used for storage. An ecologist had identified that this had been used as a bat roost.

West Pennard Parish Council had recommended approval of the scheme and other consultees had provided no objections. There had been no representations made by local residents.

However, the Officer’s Report concluded that the principle of development was unacceptable as the site was in the countryside outside the development limits where development is strictly controlled. The proposal did not represent sustainable development by virtue of its distance and poor accessibility and connectivity to local services and facilities. Any limited economic benefits that could be attributed to the development given the proposed use as tourist accommodation did not outweigh the harm identified. For this reason, it was recommended that planning permission be refused.

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

The applicant, Mr Simon Cellan-Jones was invited to address the Committee. He made a number of points including:

• The existing building is very unsafe and cannot be converted.
• Due to delays in the handling of the application, the application is now being considered by the new Unitary Somerset Council where there has been a change of interpretation. It has now been recommended for refusal which seems unfair.
• Previously tourist accommodation would have been encouraged. They had wished to provide bed and breakfast.
• A lot of time and money had been spent on the application with careful consideration to the ecological effects.

Division Members Councillors Claire Sully and Alex Wiltshire were in support of the application and made the following points:

·       The scale of the development for tourism is of a size that would not lead to much extra traffic travelling on the small lanes.

·       The building would soon fall down and it would make sense to demolish it and re-develop the site.

It was proposed by Councillor Claire Sully that the application be approved contrary to the Officer’s recommendation.

In the Members’ discussion the following points were made:

• The derelict building is not suitable for conversion.
• The applicant had made a strong case regarding the effect that the delay on the determination of the application had made on the Officer’s Recommendation.
• The bat roost would be demolished which was not appropriate.

In response, the Team Leader – Development Management advised Members that the economic benefits had been considered not to outweigh the impact of the scheme on the rural and isolated location. Also, if Members were minded to approve, the bat roosts would be addressed in the planning conditions.

Councillor Helen Kay said that the application should not be refused on the grounds of sustainability and location.  The economic benefits outweighed the harm and seconded the proposal to approve, contrary to the Officer’s Recommendation. Conditions would be delegated to Officers in consultation with Chair, Vice and Division Members.

On being put to the vote, there were 11 votes in favour of approval and 1 vote against.

RESOLVED

That planning application 2021/0644/FUL be approved contrary to the Officer’s Recommendation with planning conditions delegated to Officers in consultation with Chair, Vice and Division Members.