Agenda item

To consider an application for the demolition of an existing barn and erection of a new 4 bed dwelling with detatched garage

That planning application 2024/0506/FUL be APPROVED contrary to the Officer’s recommendation as it was decided that as there was already planning permission on the wider site area for the demolition of an existing barn and the erection of a three-bed dwelling, the refusal reason regarding development in open countryside could not be upheld. That delegated authority be given to Officers to negotiate a suitable legal agreement to revoke the previously approved planning application 2021/2922/FUL and to impose necessary planning conditions. These are to be agreed in consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair and divisional members.

Votes – 7 for, 2 against, 2 abstentions

The Officer’s Report stated that this application had been referred to the Planning Committee as the Case Officer’s recommendation was for refusal, however, the Parish Council had recommended approval. If approved the application would be a departure from the development plan.

The Officer’s Report continued that various previous planning applications had been made on the site and there was extant permission for the demolition of the barn and the erection of a 3.-bed house. Further west there was another barn that had been granted permission to be demolished and replaced with 4 dwellings.

The Officer’s Report concluded that although it was recognised that a dwelling on the smaller site to the north could be achieved by the extant permission, this was within the confines of the existing built development.  This application proposed a new unjustified dwelling encroaching into the countryside where development is strictly controlled.  The proposed development would have an urbanising effect detrimental to the visual amenity of the landscape. Due to the lack of phosphate information in the application, it was not clear whether the proposal would have an adverse effect on the Somerset Levels and Moors Ramsar site. In summary the benefits would not outweigh the harms identified and therefore the recommendation was for refusal.

The Planning Officer explained the application to the Committee with the aid of a PowerPoint presentation. He also advised that the second reason for refusal, regarding the phosphate impact, could be disregarded as the applicant had revised the layout and the Somerset ecology team were now satisfied. He also added that since the report had been published, the Highways Authority response had been received and they had no objections to the proposal.

There was one speaker registered. He was from the applicant’s architect and made the following points:

• The existing planning permission was granted to a previous owner of the site.
• The current owner is willing to enter into a legal agreement to rescind this existing permission.
• The new house has been modelled on a dutch barn, iconic and typical of the rural English landscape.
• The footprint will be smaller than the footprint of the existing barn.
• The new scheme is an improvement on the previously approved scheme in overall design quality.
• The impact on the wider landscape is minimal and would only be seen at a distance in the context of other existing buildings to the west.
• There is only a single reason for refusal, that being the impact on the character of the local area. There have been no technical objections to the scheme.

In the discussion which followed Members made the following comments:

• There does not seem to be much opposition to the scheme and the Parish Council support, albeit with a request to replace any trees that are removed.
• The applicant is happy to rescind the existing planning permission. The legal agreement to do so can be delegated to Planning Officers.
• Unable to understand why this proposal would be less sustainable than the one already approved. It is very close to a cycle route.
• Concern about the height of the proposed Dutch Barn, which are also difficult to affix solar panels on.
• Due to the existing planning permission for a house nearby, unable to recognise that this scheme would represent an unacceptable form of development in the open countryside, or that it would create an urbanising effect. 

At the conclusion of the debate, it was proposed by Councillor Claire Sully and seconded by Councillor Edric Hobbs to approve the application contrary to the Officer’s recommendation.

On being put to the vote the proposal was carried with 7 in favour, 2 against and 2 abstentions.

RESOLVED

That planning application 2024/0506/FUL be APPROVED contrary to the Officer’s recommendation as it was decided that as there was already planning permission on the wider site area for the demolition of an existing barn and the erection of a three-bed dwelling, the refusal reason regarding development in open countryside could not be upheld. That delegated authority be given to Officers to negotiate a suitable legal agreement to revoke the previously approved planning application 2021/2922/FUL and to impose necessary planning conditions. These are to be agreed in consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair and divisional members.

Votes – 7 for, 2 against, 2 abstentions