Agenda item

To consider an application for Outline Planning Permission with all matters reserved for erection of 4.no 1-bed units for rental accommodation

That planning application 2023/2177/OUT be REFUSED contrary to the Officer’s recommendation as the proposal would result in the loss of the majority of the existing car parking spaces from the site and would introduce a pattern of use that would undermine the future use of the neighbouring Community Hall and increase the demand for on street parking in the residential area adjacent to the site and which would be detrimental to the local amenities and highway safety in the area. Furthermore, members concluded that the harms as identified would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the units proposed. Delegated authority to officers to add in the relevant development plan policies.

Votes – Unanimous

Outline Planning Permission with all matters reserved for erection of 4.no 1-bed units for rental accommodation

The Officer’s Report stated that the application had been referred to the Planning Committee at the request of the Vice-Chair, as the recommendation for approval did not accord with the recommendation of Glastonbury Town Council.

The application related to a site within the Windmill Hill area of Glastonbury and was for the erection of 4 x 1 bed units specifically for homeless individuals, which would be built on an existing car park which was owned by Somerset Council, and which served the Community Hall and a convenience shop. The proposal included the provision of 7 car parking spaces.

The Parish Council had objected to the proposal.

The Officer’s Report concluded that the proposal would provide housing within use class C3 (dwellinghouses) on a brownfield site which was in accordance as a matter of principal with the development policy framework against which the application had been assessed against. Therefore, the application should be granted unless the harms arising significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. In their assessment the Officer concluded that the identified benefits were considered to be significant and the harms moderate. Therefore, the harms of the application did not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits and the recommendation was for approval.

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

Councillor Nick Cottle as the Division Member spoke first. He made the following points:

• Disagrees with the Officers recommendation to approve the application.
• The car park is essential for the hall to continue to be viable.
• Parking in the vicinity of the hall is impossible. The roads are already congested.
• Trying to fit 4 units into the car park is unreasonable.
• The units are much needed and a good idea, but they are not in the right place.

There were 5 speakers in opposition to the application. Their comments included:

• The hall is an important community facility being used constantly for all sorts of activities including YMCA led youth groups, book clubs, toddler groups, ballroom dancing, weddings and children’s parties.
• To lose a majority of the car park will remove viability of the hall and the nearby convenience store.
• There has been a severe lack of consultation with the residents of Windmill Hill.
• Many of the users of the hall, such as single mums with young children or the elderly would be uncomfortable passing the proposed units to access the hall.
• There is no public transport access to the hall as buses refuse to drive that way as there is no room to manoeuvre the bus in the narrow, car lined streets. This would only worsen if the car park was mostly removed.
• The units are a good idea but are not a good location. It would also not be a good location for the future, vulnerable residents of the units.
• Should not have to choose between community space and housing for the homeless. Glastonbury needs both.
• The site is totally unsuitable for these units, for both the current users of the hall, and future residents of the units. They are need in Glastonbury but build them elsewhere.

The representative from Glastonbury Town Council was then invited to speak. He echoed the comments of the previous objectors and said that the Town Council also objected to the proposal. St Edmunds Hall was a vital resource in the area and the proposal would have a negative impact on this relatively isolated community. It was a totally inappropriate location for the units to be built.

The next speaker was the representative of the applicant, Julian House. She made the following comments:

• The applicant has addressed the genuine concerns of the local residents at 4 community events and a dedicated email.
• The future residents of the units are more likely to be victims of crime than perpetrators of it.
• There will be 4 dedicated staff and work experience staff to help clients back into work or education.
• There is evidence to show that residents of Julian House properties have little requirement for car parking spaces themselves.
• The applicant is committed to protecting the users of the hall and are not wanting to increase any risk to them. There will be a careful assessment of future residents for suitability in this location and will respond quickly to any concerns or issues.

Before the discussion, the Legal Advisor reminded Members about the Tilted Balance. As Area East has a lack of housing land supply, Members must be mindful when debating that the adverse impacts of the proposal would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.

In the discussion which followed many Members agreed that the viability of the hall would be compromised with the removal of so many car parking spaces to make way for the building of the 4 units. The hall was a vital community asset and very well utilised. They recognised the need for housing for the homeless within Glastonbury and were regretful that there had been no other alternative sites identified for this purpose. However, the harm caused by potential loss of a thriving community hall in this area of Glastonbury significantly and demonstrably outweighed the benefits of the units. One Member pointed out that even if the future residents of the units may not need to use the parking spaces, their visitors most likely would need to.

It was proposed by Councillor Dimery and seconded by Councillor Height to refuse the application contrary to the Officer’s recommendation.

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

RESOLVED

That planning application 2023/2177/OUT be REFUSED contrary to the Officer’s recommendation as the proposal would result in the loss of the majority of the existing car parking spaces from the site and would introduce a pattern of use that would undermine the future use of the neighbouring Community Hall and increase the demand for on street parking in the residential area adjacent to the site and which would be detrimental to the local amenities and highway safety in the area. Furthermore, members concluded that the harms as identified would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the units proposed. Delegated authority to officers to add in the relevant development plan policies.

Votes – Unanimous