Agenda item

To consider applications 2023/0540/FUL & 2023/0541/LBC - The Grange, Farm Road, Street, Somerset.

Part demolition and replacement of existing buildings with a new two-storey building to connect the Grange and the Barn and alterations to existing buildings and landscaping across the site to create a new museum with a cafe and shop, whilst retaining offices and archive storage.

2023/0540/FUL RESOLVED

That planning application 2023/0540/FUL be APPROVED contrary to Officer’s recommendation as the harm to the reduction of the listed wall would not outweigh the benefits of the scheme. Delegation was made to Planning Officers to negotiate details of the café extractor with the applicants and delegation of conditions was made to Planning Officers, Chair and Vice-Chair.

Votes – 6 in favour, 5 against

2023/0541/FUL RESOLVED

That planning application 2023/0541/FUL be APPROVED contrary to Officer’s recommendation as the harm to the reduction of the listed wall would not outweigh the benefits of the scheme. Delegation was made to Planning Officers to negotiate details of the café extractor with the applicants and delegation of conditions was made to Planning Officers, Chair and Vice-Chair.

Votes – 8 in favour, 3 against

Application for part demolition and replacement of existing buildings with a new two-storey building to connect the Grange and the Barn and alterations to existing buildings and landscaping across the site to create a new museum with a cafe and shop, whilst retaining offices and archive storage.

The Officer’s Report stated that these applications had been referred to the Planning Committee as the Officer’s Recommendation for refusal was contrary to that of the Parish Council and Divisional Member.

The Report continued that the site had vehicular access via a private road off Farm Road and lay to the north and west of Clarks Village retail outlet with pedestrian entrances to the retail outlet and associated car park. Beyond the car park, to the north was the A39 main road and to the east of the site was a close of residential properties. The site was within in the development limits of Street.

The Divisional Member fully supported the applications and Street Parish Council had recommended approval. No comments were made by local residents. The Highway Authority had initially objected to the application as had the Local Flood Authority. Both objected due to lack of information. The Conservation Team had objected to the application and there were comments from The Georgian Group, The Victorian Society and The Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings for the LBC (Listed Building Consent) application only.

In conclusion, the Officer’s Report said that with regards to Planning Application 2023/0540/FUL the Recommendation was for refusal for two reasons:

• The loss of existing fabric resulting from the reduction in the courtyard wall and potential impact of the extraction system (due to a lack of information) for the café would fail to preserve and enhance the grade II listed host building, The Grange, and thus result in less than substantial harm to this heritage asset. Furthermore, no clear and convincing justification for this work had been provided and it was not considered that there were any public benefits arising from the development that would sufficiently outweigh the harm that had been

identified. Additionally, the extract equipment had the potential to be out of character and appearance of the local area.

• In the absence of proof of access rights to the highway the application would be unacceptable in highway terms due to a lack of access and insufficient parking arrangements, which would have a knock-on effect for adverse impacts on highway safety.

Additionally, the Recommendation for the Listed Building Consent application 2023/0541/LBC was also for refusal as the proposal would result in “less than substantial harm” to the significance of The Grange and that it was considered that the harm the development would have on the significance of the Listing Building was not justified.

The Planning Officer explained the application to the Committee with the aid of a PowerPoint presentation. She also reported some updating on the application that had occurred since the Report had been published.

There were a number of speakers in support of the applications who made the following points:

• The project would bring together 3 eras of Street’s history in a fabulous building never previously open to the public.
• Being located next to the Clarks Village shopping outlet, it would bring more visitors to the town.
• The proposal was to reduce the height of the wall, not to remove it, so it would only be a negligible impact on the heritage asset.
• By reducing the height of the wall, it would enable connection to the Grange and improve the viability of the museum and café.
• The height of the wall is too high and prevents a clear view of the museum entrance.
• The proposal is in line with the Councils corporate plane and would contribute to a flourishing Somerset and offer an educational experience.
• The scheme would be a benefit to the Somerset Leisure and Tourism strategies.

In the discussion which followed, many Members were in support of the applications, and felt that the height of the wall should be reduced to enable the scheme to be as viable as possible. There were also suggestions that the problems with the vent for the café could be overcome with conditions. It was felt by many that the benefit of the scheme would outweigh the harms to the heritage asset.

On the other hand, some Members said that the wall was a heritage asset that should not be touched. They did not see the benefit of reducing the height of the wall and they did not feel it was too high. The viability of the museum would not be compromised due to the height of the wall.

The Planning Officer said that she had tried to negotiate with the applicants regarding the proposed ventilation but that they were unable to agree on a solution.

The Heritage Officer stated that there was no public benefit from the part demolition of the wall and that Members would need to demonstrate clear and convincing justification for the harm if they chose to approve the applications.

The Legal Adviser advised that Members must decide if the benefits would outweigh the harms and that they could decide to delegate conditions of the café ventilation to Planning Officers and the Chair and Vice-Chair.

Councillor Heather Shearer proposed that both the applications be approved, contrary to the Officer’s Recommendation with the details of the extractor for the café to be negotiated with the applicants. Also, the harm from the reduction of the height of the heritage wall did not outweigh the benefits of the scheme. This was seconded by Councillor Shane Collins.

A counterproposal was made by Councillor Edric Hobbs, who proposed to refuse the applications, in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation. This was seconded by Councillor Bente Height.

The substantive proposal for application 2023/0540/FUL was put to the vote. It was carried with 6 votes in favour and 5 votes against.

The substantive proposal for application 2023/0541/FUL was put to the vote. It was carried with 8 votes in favour and 3 votes against.

2023/0540/FUL

RESOLVED

That planning application 2023/0540/FUL be APPROVED contrary to Officer’s recommendation as the harm to the reduction of the listed wall would not outweigh the benefits of the scheme. Delegation was made to Planning Officers to negotiate details of the café extractor with the applicants and delegation of conditions was made to Planning Officers, Chair and Vice-Chair.

Votes – 6 in favour, 5 against

2023/0541/FUL

RESOLVED

That planning application 2023/0541/FUL be APPROVED contrary to Officer’s recommendation as the harm to the reduction of the listed wall would not outweigh the benefits of the scheme. Delegation was made to Planning Officers to negotiate details of the café extractor with the applicants and delegation of conditions was made to Planning Officers, Chair and Vice-Chair.

Votes – 8 in favour, 3 against