Decisions

RESOLVED

That planning application 2024/0607/FUL be REFUSED in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation.

Votes – Unanimous

RESOLVED

That planning application 2024/1319/FUL be APPROVED contrary to the Officer’s recommendation as a departure to the development plan as, taking into account the location of the site, the proposed re-use of a rural building and the contribution towards the housing supply, it was deemed that the harms of the proposal did not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. That delegated authority be given to Officers to issue the permission subject to advertising the application as a departure and the imposition of necessary planning conditions.

Votes – 9 for, 1 against, 1 abstention

RESOLVED

That planning application 2024/1408/FUL be REFUSED in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation.

Votes – 6 for, 3 against, 2 abstentions

RESOLVED

That planning application 2022/0669/FUL be REFUSED in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation.

Votes – Unanimous

RESOLVED

That planning application 2021/1226/FUL be REFUSED in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation.

Votes – Unanimous

RESOLVED

That planning application 2023/0867/FUL be REFUSED contrary to the Officer’s recommendation for the following reasons:

The site is located outside of the housing development limit and is therefore contrary to the settlement strategy, as outlined in Policies CP1 (Mendip Spatial Strategy), CP2 (Supporting the Provision of New Housing) and CP4 (Sustaining Rural Communities) of the Mendip District Local Plan Part I. As the Council cannot currently demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply, the presumption in favour of sustainable development applies, as outlined in the National Planning Policy Framework. Although the site is adjacent to the settlement of Frome, the harms of the proposal would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. Harms include the principle of the proposal and being contrary to Policy  DP1 (Local Identity and Distinctiveness), Policy DP4 (Mendip’s Landscapes) and Part 1 of Policy DP16 (Open Space and Green Infrastructure) of the Mendip District Local Plan Part I. As such, the proposal is not considered to constitute sustainable development and is contrary to Policies CP1, CP2, CP4, DP1, DP4 and Part 1 of DP16 of the Mendip District Local Plan Part I and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Votes – 6 for, 3 against, 2 abstentions

RESOLVED

That planning application 2024/1435/HSE be APPROVED in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation.

Votes – Unanimous

RESOLVED

That planning application 2024/1223/FUL be APPROVED as a departure to the development plan Policy DP24, contrary to the Officer’s recommendation, as the scheme was deemed to be in a sustainable location with no adverse impacts identified. The Committee also gave weight to the fact that the dwelling would be  constructed and occupied as a self-build unit.

That delegated authority be given to Officers to issue the permission subject to advertising the application as a departure, the prior completion of a S106 Agreement to ensure that the dwelling is constructed and occupied as a self-build unit and the imposition of necessary planning conditions.

Votes – 9 for, 1 against.

RESOLVED

That planning application 2024/1051/OUT be REFUSED contrary to the Officer’s recommendation for the following reasons:

The Somerset East area is currently not able to demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. However, the application of policies in the National Planning Policy Framework that protect heritage assets provides a strong reason for refusing the development proposed, as set out below, and therefore the 'tilted balance' is not engaged. The development site is located outside of the development limit and would result in a cumulative change to the general character of the area, adversely affecting the significance of the nationally important heritage asset at Glastonbury Tor (ST MICHAELS CHURCH TOWER (scheduled monument and grade I listed building, list entry number 1345475)) through development in its setting.

Great weight is attached to the conservation of the asset, which is an asset of the highest significance.

The identified level of harm to the heritage asset is less than substantial and this harm is not considered to be outweighed by the public benefits of the proposal.

The proposed development is considered to be contrary to local plan Policy CP1, being located outside the settlement limits, and Policy DP3, as the public benefits of the proposal would not outweigh the harm to the asset's significance, through development in its setting, of the Mendip District Local Plan Part 1: Strategy & Policies, Adopted 15th December 2014 and with the plan as a whole.

Votes – 5 for, 3 against, 2 abstentions

RESOLVED

That planning application 2023/1515/OUT be APPROVED in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation subject to securing a substantial increase in the S106 contributions for the Strawberry Line. This be delegated to Officers in consultation with the Chair, Vice-Chair and Divisional Members.

Votes – 6 for, 2 against, 1 abstention