Agenda item

To consider an application for approval of reserved matters following outline approval 2020/0364/OTA for the erection of a single dwelling. Matters of access/appearance/landscaping/layout/scale to be determined.

Application for the approval of reserved matters following outline approval 2020/0364/OTA for the erection of a single dwelling. Matters of access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale to be determined.

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

The Report continued that the site was set within a slope in the land surrounded by agricultural land and vineyard.  The proposed development was set within the cut out in the slope and was accessed via an existing farm gate enclosed on either side by hedgerow.

The site was located within the Mendip Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) on its southern edge. 

There was an extant permission, reference 2020/0364/OTA, for a dwelling on this site, although there were outstanding pre-commencement conditions. When planning permission was granted all matters were reserved for future consideration.  Since outline permission was granted the application site has been included within the phosphate catchment area which affects the Somerset Levels and Moors Ramsar.

Following the outline approval, a reserved matters application reference 2020/1678/REM, was submitted and refused for one reason, which was due to phosphates and foul drainage issues. The current application seeks approval of all the reserved matters for the erection of a dwelling and it seeks to overcome the previous single reason for refusal.

Westbury Sub Mendip Parish Council had recommended refusal. The reasons given were:

• Dwelling is too tall.
• Window design is inappropriate in terms of light pollution in the AONB
• Dwelling is not sympathetic to the needs / existing character of the village.

Other consultees such as Contaminated Land, Land Drainage, Ecology and Natural England had no objections, subject to various conditions. There had been one letter of objection received and 6 letters of support.  Objections included:

• The reserved matters application has not overcome our concerns which were raised at the outline stage and on the previously refused application.
• Objection in principle to the location of the site in the AONB outside the settlements.
• It is detrimental to the character of the area and will result in light pollution.

Comments from the letters in support included:

• The development is in keeping with surroundings.
• The Ph of the land stands at 0.02 the development will be for 2 people and as such it will not change.

In conclusion, the Officer’s Report said that subject to a legal agreement to secure the provision of phosphate mitigation habitat comprising of woodland planting and a landscape and ecological management plan (LEMP), 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 2 objectors to the application. Their comments included:

• The development is outside the development boundary of the village in inside the AONB.
• The countryside and views of the Somerset Levels will be affected.
• The application has many changes to the original proposal and alter the whole character of the development in a significant and detrimental way.
• The original green roof has gone, the floor area and height has increased, celestial windows are proposed and the garage located below the living space makes it a 2-storey structure.
• Impact on dark skies.

On behalf of Westbury sub Mendip Parish Council, a speaker then made the following points:

• The original application showed a green roof which was not in the latest proposal.
• Dark skies will be affected.
• Application has suffered from “planning creep” and is now much bigger than previous.
• Proposed dwelling no longer “nestles” into the slope.
• The Parish Council objects to the application as it will be obtrusive and will have an unacceptable impact on the countryside and AONB.

Councillor Heather Shearer then spoke. She advised she was the Division Member. She supported the views of the Parish Council. The site was in designated open countryside and was a brownfield site in a disused quarry. When outline permission was granted, the dwelling was shown to be sited well within the quarry, with a green roof and would only be glimpsed from the surrounding landscape. However, this application shows a much bigger, higher dwelling. The windows on the western side of the dwelling would impact dark skies and water courses could become contaminated. If it were to be approved, she said conditions should be added to retain the western wall and hedges planted. There should be an assessment of light pollution and water course contamination.

The final speaker was the applicant’s agent who made the following points:

• The reserved matters application had been refused on one issue only, which was due to phosphates and foul drainage issues.
• The Council’s ecology, drainage and Natural England have independently agreed the mitigation is acceptable.
• Nothing new has been included in this application to what was previously found acceptable at reserved matters.
• There were no comments from the AONB, who did not identify any concerns.

During the discussion which followed, Members had a number of concerns which included the following:

• The earlier reserved matters application had not been debated by Mendip District Council Planning Board and was refused by the Chair and Vice-Chair in line with the Officer’s Recommendation purely on phosphates issues. Had it been debated at Planning Board, other reasons for refusal and conditions may have been included.
• Concerns about the proposed windows on the western side of the dwelling, the increase in height, the contouring of the dwelling within the landscape and lack of a landscaping plan to shield the western side from the village.
• Drainage a concern and would want conditions or assurances that drainage will be sufficient.
• Light pollution to the dark skies should be conditioned against.
• The white colour of the render would make the dwelling stand out even more in the landscape.
• The height of the proposed dwelling appears to have increased. Members requested clarity on the height of the proposed dwelling compared to height above the sloping ground level.
• To protect from further development, permitted development rights should be removed for this property.

In response to some of these comments the Legal Advisor said that Outline permission had been granted for the principle of the development so this could not be questioned. It did not matter who had made the decision to refuse the reserved matters application – it was a lawful decision of the LPA and formed part of the planning history.  Whilst it was open for Members to consider and discuss the detail of the reserved matters, if it was moved for refusal for reasons of, for example, scale and appearance, he would advise Members that it could be regarded as an unreasonable decision as the same scheme had previously not been refused for those reasons.

The Team Leader – Development Management advised that the detail of landscaping was included in the reserved matters application and therefore it would not be possible to condition additional landscaping at this stage. But she did say that a condition to deal with light spill could be added by requesting a lighting strategy. She also advised that a condition could be added requiring details of materials to be submitted and approved. Regarding removal of permitted development, she reminded Members permitted development rights were more restricted as the site was in the AONB. Officers could review this and see what could be done under permitted development rights and assess whether the PD rights needed to be removed.

In response to the question regarding landscaping, the Chair permitted the applicant’s agent to speak again. He reassured Members that extra landscaping in the west of the development would be provided to screen the dwelling.

It was proposed by Councillor Michael Dunk and seconded by Councillor Heather Shearer that the application be approved in accordance with the Officer’s Recommendation set out in the Report with the addition of the following conditions, the wording of which to be delegated to Planning Officers:

1. A lighting strategy to control the light spill
2. Building materials and colours
3. Building levels
4. Consideration as to whether further Permitted Development rights should be removed

On being put to the vote, the proposal to approve was carried by 10 votes in favour and 1 vote against.

RESOLVED

That planning application 2022/1945/REM be approved in accordance with the Officer’s Recommendation subject to the imposition of additional conditions relating to:

1. A lighting strategy to control the light spill
2. Building materials and colours
3. Building levels
4. Consideration as to whether further Permitted Development rights should be removed

That delegated authority be granted to Planning Officers to agree the wording.