Agenda item

To consider Planning Application 2021/2805/FUL – Multi-User Path, Shepton Mallet, Somerset.

Construction of a multi-user path along disused railway from Hamwood Viaduct through Windsor Hill tunnel and across Bath Road Viaduct to link to Shepton Mallet.

2021/2805/FUL RESOLVED

That planning application 2021/2805/FUL be APPROVED in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation.

Votes – 10 in favour, 1 abstention

Application for Construction of a multi-user path along disused railway from Hamwood Viaduct through Windsor Hill tunnel and across Bath Road Viaduct to link to Shepton Mallet.

The Officer’s Report stated that this application had been referred to the Planning Committee by the Vice Chair of the Committee as there was a great deal of interest in the application and a number of objections to the scheme.

The application sought permission for a multi-user path along the former Somerset and Dorset Railway. The section of path, 2.4km long, will go over the Ham Wood viaduct, through the Windsor Hill tunnel, across Forum Lane and over the Bath Road viaduct to meet the A37 (Kilver Street Hill). The construction of the path will unlock further land either side and is a key component of the wider ‘Somerset Circle’ project.

Shepton Mallet Town Council was in support of the application as were many local groups and organisations. There had been 109 comments of support from local residents and 28 comments of objection. Comments in support included:

·       Form an essential part of the ‘Somerset Circle’.

·       Be a valuable amenity asset for residents and visitors.

·       Improve mental and physical health.

·       Encourage sustainable travel.

·       Restore and repurpose derelict heritage assets (viaducts and tunnels).

·       Be sensitive to biodiversity.

·       Boost the local economy through tourism.

·       Provide a soft surface, which is preferred by runners, walkers and dogs (it is also cheaper so more deliverable).

Comments in objection included:

·       Application is not inclusive for all – it discriminates against equestrians and disabled users (so is not a multi-user path).

·       Equestrians should not be forced to dismount on the viaducts or subjected to a trial basis through the tunnels

·       The path should not be segregated, and equestrians should not be forced onto a separate grass verge on the side of the path.

·       The surface should be made of a resilient, weatherproof material suitable for horses as well as wheelchairs and prams (a dust surface is unsuitable).

·       The central seating / viewing platforms on the viaduct will push users to the outside which is dangerous.

·       Signage should encourage safe passing and harmony amongst users.

In conclusion the Officer’s Report said that the scheme would help deliver the wider ‘Somerset Circle’ project and is supported by policy DP18 (Safeguarding Corridors for Sustainable Travel) in the Local Plan. In terms of benefits, the project offered access to the countryside for a range of users, including horse riders, cyclists and pedestrians. Whilst there would be some landscape impact through the loss of trees, this harm is not considered to be significant given the context of the site and the surrounding built form. Overall, the development was sustainable development, and the application was therefore recommended for approval, subject to conditions.

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

There was one speaker in support of the application. She spoke on behalf of Shepton Mallet Town council and said they strongly supported the scheme and it would be a useful addition to the town. It would benefit the community and connect villages. There had been many positive comments from local residents and hoped that the application would be approved as recommended by the Planning Officer.

In the discussion which followed, there was some debate as to whether the path was an integrated path suitable for all users such as horse-riders or the disabled. The Planning Officer said it was available to all to use, it would be up to the individuals if they chose to use it.

At the conclusion of the debate, it was proposed by Councillor Edric Hobbs and seconded by Councillor Claire Sully to approve the application in accordance with the Officer’s Recommendation. On being put to the vote the proposal was carried with 10 votes in favour and 1 abstention.

RESOLVED

That planning application 2021/2805/FUL be APPROVED in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation.

Votes – 10 in favour, 1 abstention