1 Planning Board DATE

Planning Board

DATE: 8th November 2017 NOTES:

1. Items may be taken out of order and therefore we are unable to advise the time at which an item will be considered.

2. Applications can be determined in any manner notwithstanding the recommendation being made

3. Councillors who have a query about anything on the agenda are requested to inspect the file and talk to the case officer prior to the meeting.

4. Any members of the public wishing to make late additional representations should do so in writing or contact their Ward Councillors prior to the meeting. Please give a day’s notice if you wish to inspect a file if this is possible.

5. Letters of representation referred to in these reports together with any other background papers may be inspected at any time prior to the Meeting and these papers will be available at the Meeting.

6. For the purposes of the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985, unless otherwise stated against a particular report , ‘background papers’ in accordance with section 100D will always include the case officer’s written report and any letters or memoranda of representation received.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Planning Board - 8th November 2017

Item Page Application Ward/Site Case Number Officer DM01 03 2017/2085/FUL Land At 354741 144934, Anna Cathedral Avenue, Wells, Clark Somerset,

Wells St Cuthberts DM02 11 2017/1307/VRC Long Hill Farm , Folly Mr Carlton Cottages To Arthurs Langford Bridge, Ditcheat, Shepton Mallet, BA4 6QR

The Pennards And Ditcheat DM03 15 2016/2582/FUL Tree House Day Nursery, Miss School Lane, South Lynsey Horrington Village, Wells, Bradshaw Somerset, BA5 3DL

St Cuthbert Out North DM04 35 2016/2584/LBC Tree House Day Nursery, Miss School Lane, South Lynsey Horrington Village, Wells, Bradshaw Somerset, BA5 3DL

St Cuthbert Out North DM05 41 2017/0482/FUL Hazel Manor Lodge , Miss Nordrach Lane, Priddy, Lynsey Cheddar, BS40 6LG Bradshaw

Chewton Mendip And Ston Easton

Agenda Item No. DM01

Case Officer Anna Clark

Site Land At 354741 144934 Cathedral Avenue Wells Somerset

Application Number 2017/2085/FUL

Date Received 1st August 2017

Applicant/ Mr Martin Law Organisation Shepton Vets

Application Type Full Application

Proposal Erection of single storey Veterinary practice with associated external works (amended site plan and section received 22/09/17 to change picket fence to close boarded).

Ward Wells St Cuthberts

Parish Wells City Council

This application is referred to the Planning Board following consultation with the Ward Members, and the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Board.

Description of Site, Proposal and Constraints

The application relates to a site on Cathedral Avenue in Wells, within the Cathedral Park development which has an outline planning permission for Use Classes B1, B2 and B8.

The application seeks full planning permission for a single storey veterinary practice with associated external works.

Summary of Consultation Responses

Wells City Council

Recommend Approval

Cllr Osman, Wells St Cuthberts Ward Member – declared an interest

I had better not make any comment on the application as: 1) I know the applicant 2) I know the applicants competitors

Whilst I have no actual prejudicial interest, any comment I make could be seen adversely by the other.

I will leave it to Cllr Siggs and the officers to determine.

Cllr Siggs, Wells St Cuthberts Ward Member

Thank you I have read through your report and appreciate the sound reasoning behind your recommendations. My only reason in asking for it to go to the Board is because we have been robust in insisting on the B1, B2, B8 classifications, turning down a number of other possibilities, over the years. If the Chair and Vice Chair feel that this is not an issue then I

3 will bow to their superior judgement but feel I have to at least raise this technical concern to their attention.

MDC Environmental Protection – No objections, comments.

I have considered the application and the information provided and would suggest that the picket fence for the dog walking area is made solid so any dogs being walked are unable to see those arriving and vice versa to minimise the likelihood of barking causing annoyance to residents or other commercial users. I appreciate that the proposal is for a new build and having considered the character of the area if feel it is unlikely to result in noise sensitive premises being adversely affected by noise from the proposed development.

I have no objections.

MDC Planning Policy – Verbally confirmed no objection.

Local Highway Authority (SCC Highways) – No objection, subject to conditions

The proposed veterinary surgery will be accessed from an existing private commercial estate road, as shown on submitted plan Site Plan Proposed Dwg No P01 proposing an access with a 5.5m carriageway width together with 2m footways on either side of the access /carriageway. On reviewing the submission it is not anticipated that the proposal will generate a significant level of vehicle trips at peak period, therefore the impact on the adjacent adopted highway will in all probability be minimal.

The submitted drawing shows a total of 17no car parking spaces, including 2no disabled spaces providing a manoeuvring area of just under 6m behind each of the parking spaces, which in this instance is acceptable. Whilst the level of proposed parking is higher than that required by the SCC parking strategy - Approximately 8 spaces - it is accepted that at such a facility users are more likely to use a vehicle in order to transport animals to the site, therefore the Highway Authority would not object to this level of parking provision.

It is noted that 6 cycle parking spaces are provided, which is acceptable.

Therefore, in conclusion there are no objections to the proposal subject to the following conditions being attached to any permissions granted:-  The proposed access shall be constructed in accordance with details shown on the submitted plan, drawing number Site Plan Proposed Dwg No P01, and shall be available for use before occupation. Once constructed the access shall be maintained thereafter in that condition at all times.  The area allocated for parking and turning on the submitted plan, drawing number Site Plan Proposed Dwg No P01 , shall be kept clear of obstruction and shall not be used other than for parking and turning of vehicles in connection with the development hereby permitted.  Prior to first occupation or first use of the development hereby permitted, spaces for not less than 6no bicycles shall constructed as detailed on the submitted plan Site Plan Proposed Dwg No P01. Once constructed the bicycle facilities shall be maintained thereafter in that condition at all times.

MDC Drainage Engineer – No objection, subject to condition

I have reviewed the Flood Risk Assessment (J2050/R01) and Drainage Strategy (J2150/100) together with the details for the wider Cathedral Park Site within which the proposed development sits. The proposals put forward for the surface water and foul drainage for the site are appropriate for the type and size of development proposed and we would recommend approval on the basis that the strategy is implemented in accordance with the aforementioned documents.

Senior Historic Environment Officer - No objections

Public Consultation

3 letters of objection have been received, 2 from partners of other veterinary practices, which raise the following issues:

 Hypocritical that this company objected to the planning application of the pets at home group who wanted change of use from B1 to A1 to put a pet store and vet practice within the same proximity of their application, when they now seek planning approval for change of use from B1 office to D1  No need or benefit to Wells in giving up office space for a 3rd vets practice as one of the existing vets has pp to expand  Variation from uses proposed in the masterplan  Cramped site with no room for expansion  Lack of green space for visiting animals (as opposed to those staying in).  Insufficient parking for number of jobs  No staff smoking shelter  Inappropriate location of the commercial refuse storage

Relevant planning history

059850/005 – Outline application (with layout, scale, appearance and landscaping reserved) for development of Use Classes B1, B2 and B8 business uses, highway works, landscaping, drainage works and parking (as amended by further revisions to the design of access arrangements including amendment to position of spine road and exclusion of mini roundabout, approved with conditions 16/02/2010.

Subsequent reserved matters applications have been made on various plots under that outline application, for a total of 8,369sqm

 Plot B – 2010/0061 for Aster Homes for 2,180sqm (GEA over 2 floors)  Plot C – 2011/0439 for Old Mill Accountants of 1,870sqm (GEA over 2 floors)  Plot D – 2015/0754 for TePe, of 1,169sqm  Plots E and F (Plot 4) - 2016/2623/REM for 12 light industrial units with trade counters of 2,600sqm over 2 buildings  Site H - 2016/3042 for a B1 office of 300sqm and an industrial building of 250sqm

A separate full permission (2015/2800) was granted in respect of Plot J, for Premier Inn.

The following planning conditions of the outline planning permission have also been discharged:

 2010/0281 – condition 10 (tree works)  2010/0532 – conditions 11 (strategic lighting), 24 (construction method statement), 26 (ecology) and 29 (contamination)  2010/2615 – conditions 15 (drainage strategy) and 27 (ecological method statement)

Summary of relevant planning policies

Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 places a duty on local planning authorities to determine proposals in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The following development plan policies and material considerations are relevant to this application:

Development Plan

Policies CP1 (Spatial Strategy), CP3 (Business Development and Growth), CP10 (Wells City Strategy), DP1 (Local Identity and Distinctiveness), DP5 (Biodiversity and Ecological Networks), DP7 (Design and Amenity), DP8 (Environmental Protection) DP9 (Transport Impact of New Development), DP10 (Parking Standards), DP20 (Reuse of Employment Sites), DP21 (Managing Town Centre Uses), and DP23 (Managing Flood Risk) of the Mendip District Local Plan Part 1: Strategy and Policies (adopted December 2014).

Material Considerations

 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)  National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG)  Somerset County Council Highways Development Control Standing Advice (June 2017)  The Countywide Parking Strategy (2013)

Assessment of relevant issues

Principle of development

The site lies within the development limits of Wells and is a Committed Employment Site. The site also falls within the wider site, now known as Cathedral Park which is covered by the outline consent 059850/005, for development of Use Classes B1, B2 and B8 business uses, highway works, landscaping, drainage works and parking.

Although a veterinary surgery falls within Use Class D1 (sui generis if a veterinary clinic or hospital) as a form of health centre, the proposed veterinary practice could be considered to be a main town centre use as defined in the NPPF which requires justification through the sequential test if it is to be sited outside of the defined town centre, as in this case. However, given the specific nature of the health centre use for animals it is not realistic to expect the development’s siting outside of the town centre to need to be justified as it is unlikely that customers would travel by public transport with their pets, or to undertake linked trips with other shops, services and facilities in the town centre, whilst their pet is in need of veterinary care. Accordingly, whilst a sequential test has been provided, it is not considered necessary in this instance for it to be scrutinised in the usual way to ensure there are no sequentially preferable sites within the District or an otherwise justified catchment area.

Policy CP10 of the Local Plan allocates the wider employment site for the delivery of “employment space” without stipulating only B Class Uses. Whilst the veterinary practice may not generate as much employment as would be anticipated from a similar floor area of office development it is nonetheless equivalent or higher than other B classes (B2 and B8) and given the length of time the site has been left vacant, due to its small scale, it is considered that the proposal would result in an adequate level of job creation and wider economic development to support the Council’s wider employment strategy and ensure compliance with policy DP20, CP3 and CP10.

Opposition to business competition is not a material planning consideration of any weight in determining this application.

The principle of development is therefore considered acceptable.

Impact on character and appearance of the area

The proposed design, materials and landscaping complies with the design code for the outline consent and would therefore be in character with nearby buildings.

The proposal is therefore considered acceptable in visual terms in accordance with DP1 and DP7.

Impact on residential amenities/ adjoining properties

There are no near residential properties and as a single storey building separated from the adjoining properties it would have no adverse impact on adjoining properties. As amended the fencing around the external walking area would be close boarded to minimise the likelihood of barking causing annoyance to residents or other commercial users. Having considered the character of the area the Council’s Environmental Protection team therefore feel it is unlikely to result in noise sensitive premises being adversely affected by noise from the proposed development. No business within the park or nearby residents have raised any objections.

The proposal would therefore have no adverse impact on the amenity of adjoining properties and is acceptable in accordance with Policies DP7 and DP8.

Flood Risk and Drainage

The site is within flood zone 2, but its allocation in the local plan for employment use prevents the need for a flood risk sequential test. The Council’s Drainage Engineer has reviewed the submitted Flood Risk Assessment (J2050/R01) and Drainage Strategy (J2150/100) together with the details for the wider Cathedral Park Site. Accordingly they are satisfied that the proposals put forward for the surface water and foul drainage for the site are appropriate for the type and size of development proposed.

The proposal is therefore considered acceptable in flood risk and drainage terms subject to a condition to ensure the strategy is implemented in accordance with the aforementioned documents.

Highways Matters

The proposed veterinary surgery will be accessed from an existing private commercial estate road, proposing an access with a 5.5m carriageway width together with 2m footways on either side of the access /carriageway. On reviewing the submission The Local Highway Authority (LHA) do not anticipated that the proposal would generate a significant level of vehicle trips at peak period and therefore the impact on the adjacent adopted highway would in all probability be minimal.

Whilst the level of proposed parking is higher than that required by the SCC parking strategy - approximately 8 spaces - it is accepted that at such a facility users are more likely to use a vehicle in order to transport animals to the site, therefore the Highway Authority are satisfied with this level of parking provision pus the 6 cycle parking spaces provided. They are also satisfied with the turning areas.

The proposal is therefore considered acceptable subject to the proposed conditions, in accordance with policies DP9 and DP10.

Environmental Impact Assessment

This development does not fall within the scope of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 and so Environmental Impact Assessment is not required.

Conclusion It is recommended that planning permission be granted for the reasons set out above.

Reason/s for Recommendation

1. The proposal accords with the Council's settlement strategy for the location of new development.

The proposal, by reason of its design, scale and layout would be in keeping with its surroundings.

The proposal, by reason of its design, scale and layout, would safeguard the amenities of neighbouring residents and adjoining land users.

The means of access and parking arrangements meet the required safety standards and will ensure the free flow of traffic on the highway.

All practical measures for the conservation of energy have been included in the design, layout and siting of the proposal.

The proposal has been tested against the following Development Plan policies. In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, and subject to the conditions below, the proposal is acceptable:-

National Planning Policy Framework Planning Practice Guidance The Countywide Parking Strategy (2013) Somerset County Council Highways Development Control Standing Advice (June 2015)

Conditions

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason: As required by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning permissions.

2. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with drawing numbers L01; P01 rev.A; P02; P03; P04; P05 Rev.A; and S01. Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interest of proper planning.

3. No external facing materials in respect of the walls and roof of the development hereby approved shall be constructed or installed unless a schedule of materials and finishes and samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and shall not be occupied until the approved external facing materials have been installed. Reason: in the interests of the character and appearance of the area.

4. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), the development hereby approved shall be used only for a veterinary surgery and no other use falling within Use Class D1 of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987, or in any provision equivalent to that Class in any statutory instrument revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) without the granting of express planning permission from the local planning authority. Reason: Alternative D1 uses would require more detailed consideration.

5. The development hereby approved shall not be brought into use or occupied unless the vehicular access has been constructed in accordance with details shown on the submitted plan, drawing number Site Plan Proposed Dwg No P01. Once constructed the access shall be maintained thereafter in that condition at all times. Reason: To ensure that suitable access is provided in the interests of highway safety.

6. No part of the development hereby approved shall be brought into use or occupied unless it is served with turning areas and parking for vehicles and bicycles in accordance with details shown on the submitted plan, drawing number Site Plan Proposed Dwg No P01. The turning and parking spaces shall thereafter not be used other than for purposes identified on the plan and shall thereafter be permanently retained, kept free from obstruction and not used for any other purpose. Reason: To ensure that sufficient parking and turning is provided to serve the approved development and ensure vehicles can manoeuvre safely around the site, in the interests of highway safety.

7. No part of the development hereby approved shall be brought into use or occupied unless it is served with not less than 6no bicycles constructed as detailed on the submitted plan Site Plan Proposed Dwg No P01. Once constructed the bicycle facilities shall be maintained thereafter in that condition at all times. Reason: To encourage sustainable travel.

8. The development hereby approved shall not be occupied until surface and foul water drainage works have been carried out in accordance with the details outlined in the submitted Drianage Strategy by PRO Structures Ltd dated 26th July 2017. Reason: To ensure the adequate provision of drainage infrastructure.

List of Advices

1. In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework the Council has worked in a positive and pro-active way with the Applicant and has negotiated amendments to the application to enable the grant of planning permission.

2. The responsibility for ensuring compliance with the terms of this approval rests with the person(s) responsible for carrying out the development. The Local Planning Authority uses various means to monitor implementation to ensure that the scheme is built or carried out in strict accordance with the terms of the permission. Failure to adhere to the approved details will render the development unauthorised and vulnerable to enforcement action.

3. Your attention is drawn to the condition/s in the above permission, some of which require(s) the submission and approval of certain information PRIOR to the commencement of certain activities (e.g. development, use or occupation). Failure to comply with these conditions may render the development unauthorised and liable to enforcement action. Please note that there is a fee for the council's consideration of details submitted pursuant to a condition on a planning permission. The fee is £97 per request (or £28 where it relates to a householder application) and made payable to Mendip District Council. The request must be made in writing or using the Standard Application form (available on the council's website www.mendip.gov.uk). For clarification, the fee relates to each request for the discharge of condition/s and not to each condition itself. There is a no fee for the discharge of conditions on a Listed Building Consent, Conservation Area Consent or Advertisement Consent although if the request concerns condition/s relating to both a planning permission and Listed Building Consent then a fee will be required. You should allow up to eight weeks for these condition/s to be discharged, following the submission of details to the Local Planning Authority. If the Local Planning Authority fails to give a decision within this time or should it refuse approval of the submitted details then the applicant is entitled to lodge an appeal to the Planning Inspectorate, Temple Quay House, 2 The Square, Temple Quay, Bristol BS1 6PN, tel. 0117 372 6372, www.planning- inspectorate.gov.uk

4. In order to discharge conditions relating to the approval of external walling and roofing materials, please ensure that materials are left on site for approval and NOT brought to the Council Offices. When applying for the approval of materials, you must state precisely where on site any samples have been made available for viewing.

5. The Planning Authority is required to erect a Site Notice on or near the site to advertise development proposals which are submitted. Could you please ensure that any remaining Notice(s) in respect of this decision are immediately removed from the site and suitably disposed of. Your co operation in this matter is greatly appreciated.

6. Where a Planning Permission, Listed Building Consent, Certificate of Lawful Development or Prior Approval has been issued, approval may also be required under the Building Regulation Legislation before any work is commenced, and throughout the building process. Somerset Building Control Partnership works in tandem with our Development Management team to offer a number of helpful and efficient services that can be accessed via their website [email protected] by email at [email protected], or by telephoning 0300 303 7790. Our Building Control team includes chartered surveyors, fire and building engineers and support staff that are available for free pre-application discussions and/or site meetings, to plan and facilitate a streamlined pathway to the completion and final sign-off of all projects.

Agenda Item No. DM02

Case Officer Mr Carlton Langford

Site Long Hill Farm Folly Cottages To Arthurs Bridge Ditcheat Shepton Mallet BA4 6QR

Application Number 2017/1307/VRC

Date Received 16th May 2017

Applicant/ Mr N Dyke Organisation

Application Type Variation or Removal of Conditions

Proposal Application for removal of condition 2 (holiday let) from previous permission 049165/012

Ward The Pennards And Ditcheat

Parish Ditcheat Parish Council

This application is referred to the Planning Board following consultation with the Ward Member, and the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Board.

Description of Site, Proposal and Constraints

The application relates to a holiday cottage at Long Hill Farm, Ditcheat which was given planning permission in 2008 (ref. 049165/012) with a holiday let condition attached to the permission restricting occupation by the same person (s) for no more than 28 days in any calendar year.

The holiday let was originally constructed as a new build and not a barn conversion and therefore was only acceptable, and given planning permission, in this isolated location where development is strictly controlled as a holiday let was considered a sustainable form of development given the benefit to the local economy.

This holiday let condition was later relaxed in 2016 (application ref. 2016/2120/VRC) such as the condition currently reads;

The holiday accommodation hereby approved shall be occupied for holiday purposes only and not as a sole or main place of residence. An up-to-date register of all occupiers on the site (including their main home address), shall be maintained and this information shall be made available at all reasonable times to the Local Planning Authority. Reason: Permission has only been granted in a location where isolated new dwellings would not otherwise normally be permitted because the development would result in economic benefits from the provision of holiday accommodation.

The current application seeks to remove the holiday let condition (condition 2 on planning permission 2016/2120/VRC) allowing the property to be an open market dwellinghouse.

Summary of parish comments, any objections or conflict with the recommendation

Ward Cllr – No objections

Ditcheat Parish Council – Recommend approval

County Highway Authority – Standing Advice.

Environmental Protection – No objections.

Conservation Officer – No objections

Other Representations – None received.

Relevant planning history

049165/012 – Planning approval for the conversion of barn to ancillary accommodation to farmhouse and demolition of modern barn and erection of holiday let. 2008.

2016/2120/VRC – Approval to vary holiday let condition on planning permission 049165/012, October 2016

Summary of all planning policies relevant to the proposal

Development Plan

CP1 (principle of development), DP1 (local identity), DP3 (heritage), DP7 (design and amenity), DP9 (transport), DP10 (parking) of the Mendip District Local Plan 2006-2029 (Part 1 Strategies and Policies - adopted 15th December 2014)

Material considerations

National Planning Policy Framework Planning Practice Guidance The Countywide Parking Strategy (2013)

Assessment of relevant issues

The key issue to consider is the principle of allowing an unfettered dwellinghouse within an isolated location in the countryside contrary to the core principles of the Mendip District Local Plan. The development is acceptable in all other respects having regard for design, amenity, parking and highway safety and in this case the impact of the scheme on the heritage asset (Listed Building).

The original development was only allowed as a holiday let for the reason set out in the holiday let conditions attached to permissions 049165/012 and 2016/2120/VRC namely that;

‘Permission has only been granted in a location where isolated new dwellings would not otherwise normally be permitted because the development would result in economic benefits from the provision of holiday accommodation.’

The objective of this condition is appropriate for such a rural area, where access to shops, employment, schools and other facilities would have to be by private car. Such development would be unsustainable, contrary to national planning policy, as expressed in paragraph 55 of NPPF which states that local planning authorities should avoid new isolated homes in the countryside, and none of the exceptional special circumstances are considered to apply in this application. It would also be contrary to Core Policies 1 (Mendip spatial strategy) and 2 (provision of new housing) within the Local Plan.

The applicant has loosely brought the application forward as a ‘special circumstance’ suggesting an open market rent or the sale of the property is essential to enable works to the main listed building on site (Longhill Farmhouse). The applicant further suggests that the accommodation is only occupied 60% of the time between Easter and October and this does not represent a suitable return on the investment and is therefore unviable.

Unfortunately none of the above can be substantiated by clear evidence i.e. financial accounts, repair costs for the heritage asset or even a survey of what essential work to the heritage asset are required and are not merely routine maintenance. Furthermore, there is no explanation as to why the property is not occupied for the 5 months of the year between October and Easter with the recent relaxation (in October 2016) of the original planning condition allowing all year round occupation as holiday accommodation.

In the absence of clear evidence as mentioned above it is not considered that a ’special circumstance’ currently exists which would allow a new isolated home in the countryside. As such, the proposal promotes unsustainable development contrary to the core policies within both the Council’s Local Plan and The National Planning Policy Framework.

Environmental Impact Assessment

This development does not fall within the scope of the town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 and so Environmental Impact Assessment is not required.

Conclusion

It is recommended that planning permission be refused.

Reason/s for Recommendation

1. The proposal to remove the holiday let condition will result in an unfettered isolated home in the countryside and the application has failed to provide any clear evidence to support a case that there is a special circumstance which would allow the development. The proposal therefore promotes unsustainable development in a rural area contrary to Core Policies 1, 2 and 4 of the Mendip District Local Plan 2006-2029 adopted 15th December 2014 and Policies within the National Planning Policy Framework to include paragraph 55.

List of Advices

1. In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework the Council has worked in a positive and pro-active way with the Applicant and has looked for solutions to enable the grant of planning permission. However, the proposal remains contrary to the planning policies set out in the reasons for refusal and was not therefore considered to be sustainable development.

2. This decision relates to application form and supporting letter.

3. The Planning Authority is required to erect a Site Notice on or near the site to advertise development proposals which are submitted. Could you please ensure that

13 any remaining Notice(s) in respect of this decision are immediately removed from the site and suitably disposed of. Your co operation in this matter is greatly appreciated.

Agenda Item No. DM03

Case Officer Miss Lynsey Bradshaw

Site Tree House Day Nursery School Lane South Horrington Village Wells Somerset

Application Number 2016/2582/FUL

Date Received 4th October 2016

Applicant/ Tree House Day Nursery Organisation

Application Type Full Application

Proposal The demolition of existing children's nursery and the erection of a new children's nursery and 2 no dwellings to financially cross subsidise development (re-submission) (Additional information received 21/03/2017 including risk assessment and revised site plan, and 23/05/2017 including access details and amended boundary risk assessment).

Ward St Cuthbert Out North

Parish St Cuthbert Out Parish Council

This application is referred to the Planning Board following consultation with the Ward Member, and the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Board.

Description of Site and Proposal

The application relates to Tree House Day Nursery, School Lane, in South Horrington Village.

The site is within the Mendip Hospital Conservation Area, defined from the old Mendip Hospital walled curtilage. The main hospital building, Chapel, and South Lodge are all Grade II listed buildings.

The development site includes an existing children’s nursery. This area was historically the site of the sewage treatment works for the hospital, and so is considered to have the potential to be contaminated land. The current nursery is accessed by a private drive (School Lane) shared by a number of residential houses, a nursing home, and the Wells Cricket Club, leading from an entrance for the main site off of Old Frome Road. The site is to the south of the Wells Cricket Club, which is ‘recreation space’ as defined within the Local Plan.

The application seeks to demolish the existing children's nursery and the erect a new children's nursery, including the demolition of a section of listed boundary wall to allow a new access to be formed directly onto the Old Frome Road. In addition, the application includes 2 new dwellings, proposed on the basis that they would financially cross subsidise the development. There is also extensive protective netting between the proposed development and the cricket pitch, and the resurfacing of the existing shared access road.

This application was made in conjunction with 2016/2584/LBC in relation to the required listed building consent.

During the life of the applications various details have been amended, and the interested parties re-consulted on additional information recieved.

Summary of Consultations and Representations

Ward Member

If you are in mind to refuse this application, I would like to call this in to the planning Board please.

St Cuthbert Out Parish Council

17.11.2016

REFUSAL subject to risk assessment and net locations, design and maintenance

29.03.2017

Recommend APPROVAL

SCC Highways

26.10.2016

Standing Advice Applies

Contaminated Land Officer

The applicant has submitted an undated report with no author suggesting that there is no likelihood of historic contamination on the site, following some research and a walk over survey.

The councils records indicate that the site was formerly a sewage works (most likely serving the hospital) for many years back to Victorian times. Sewage works have the potential for ground contamination particularly with respect to spillages and leaks associated with fuels and conditioning chemicals that were used. If there is any evidence that there was an electrical transformer on site then PCBs may be present in the ground. Given the intended use of houses with gardens and the likely need for earth movement given the various ground levels pertaining to the site, the Enforcement Team are not able to accept the applicants report and would recommend the full set of conditions relating to contaminated land.

Environmental Protection

I note Ian Parkman’s [previous Environmental Protection Officer] response dated 08.02.16 under 2015/2605/FUL:

EP would have no objections in principle to the above application however because of the close proximity of residential properties we would recommend the following condition should the applicant be successful in gaining planning permission.

 Construction, including any demolition or groundworks, of the development hereby permitted shall not commence until a detailed method statement of groundworks, demolition and construction has been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The method statement shall detail the working methods to be employed on site during the construction to minimise emissions of dust fumes odour light noise and vibration. The method statement shall include hours of works, details for the safe disposal of waste material and details of any equipment (e.g. pumps, generators) which may have to operate outside the specified working hours.

EP team would still support this condition on any consent. I note that the proposed layout provides for a reasonable approach to limiting conflict between the two uses therefore there is no concern regarding noise impact of the nursery (indoor or outdoor use) affecting the residential use

Land Drainage Engineer

I refer to the notice received by Mendip District Council (MDC) dated 24th October 2016 for comment and approval of the above planning application.

The applicant has provided no details relating to surface and foul drainage. This needs to be provided to ensure that there is adequate existing capacity and/or that there is no increase in runoff from the site.

The design and access statement refers to the need to retain the existing nursery building until the new nursery building has been completed and is occupied. The applicant will need to provide details of how surface water runoff will be managed during this phase of the development. MDC have no objection to this application in principal, subject to the inclusion of conditions

Conservation Officer

14.11.16

The LBC specifically relates to the demolition of a stretch of boundary wall, although this is not included in the description which could lead to some misunderstanding. Also no elevation drawings of the existing and proposed wall are provided.

I have no objection to the demolition of the existing nursery building, or the erection of the new nursery and two new dwellings; however, I maintain my stance that the demolition of a significant length of the boundary wall would be harmful to this listed structure. The boundary walls are identified in the South Horrington Conservation Area Appraisal as "acting as a visual reminder of the hospital's isolated past and need for security." Although it describes parts of the walls as being in need of repair, this has no bearing on the harm that would be caused by their demolition.

I would query whether the principal reason for proposing the new access from the road is to provide greater privacy to the new dwellings and hence may be financially motivated.

The harm to the essentially contiguous boundary wall along Old Frome Road would be "less than substantial" in NPPF parlance, and this harm would not be outweighed by any public benefit. I would strongly recommend that the LBC application be refused.

21.04.17

My earlier comments stand.

Note that the description remains the same, not referring to the one element for which Listed Building Consent is being applied, i.e. the demolition of a 50m stretch of listed boundary wall, and there are still no elevation drawings of the wall provided. These matters should be addressed.

Irrespective of the above, and as below, the harm to the essentially contiguous boundary wall along Old Frome Road would be "less than substantial" in NPPF parlance, and this harm would not be outweighed by any public benefit. I would strongly recommend that the LBC application be refused.

07.06.17

The provision of elevation drawing and site plan do not alter my assessment of this scheme and, therefore, my earlier comments below stand.

Please note that the description of the LBC application has still not been changed to reflect the work applied for, i.e. the demolition and rebuild of a 50m stretch of listed boundary wall.

03.08.2017

The proposed 10m high nets including interim supports would be a visual intrusion to views across the conservation area, particularly towards the main former hospital building (GII).

The Conservation Area Appraisal for Mendip Hospital (i.e. South Horrington) states: "4.6 The former Mendip Hospital is a landmark building within the conservation area, with its main vista coming from the cricket pitch to the south which sits below it."

South Horrington is unique in that the setting of the listed buildings is essentially the conservation area itself. The proposed nets and supports would cause harm to the conservation area and to the listed buildings within, primarily the main former hospital building, due to the effect on their setting. This harm would be "less than substantial" (in NPPF parlance) as there would be no total loss of significance to the heritage assets; however, this is not acceptable harm, and is not outweighed by any public benefit.

Sport England

15.11.2016

Sport England - Statutory Role and Policy

It is understood that the site forms part of, or constitutes a playing field, as defined in The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 (Statutory Instrument 2015 No. 595). The consultation ref 2016/2582/FUL with Sport England is therefore a statutory requirement.

Sport England has considered the application in light of the National Planning Policy Framework (particularly Para 74) and Sport England's Playing Fields Policy, which is presented within its Planning Policy Statement titled 'A Sporting Future for the Playing Fields of England' (see link below): www.sportengland.org/playingfieldspolicy

Sport England's policy is to oppose the granting of planning permission for any development which would lead to the loss of, or prejudice the use of, all/part of a playing field, unless one or more of the five exceptions stated in its policy apply.

The Proposal and Assessment against Sport England Policy/NPPF

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) expects sport and recreation facilities to be protected through policy and its implementation (paragraphs 70 and 74). There should be no unjustified facility loss, and where it does occur this should be based on a robust and up-to- date assessment of current and future community needs, with provision made for a suitable replacement.

Paragraph 70 of the NPPF identifies the need to "guard against the unnecessary loss of valued facilities and services, particularly where this would reduce the community's ability to meet its day-to-day needs".

This application seeks planning permission for the demolition of existing children's nursery and the erection of a new children's nursery and 2 no dwellings (re-submission). As noted by the ECB below, the application does now propose a fence on the cricket field boundary however it has no details over height, cost, or ongoing management and maintenance of the fence. It is also located on the cricket field land without their consent.

It is considered that the proposed development gives rise to a potential conflict with the use of the playing field for cricket. Cricket balls are likely to leave the playing field and to land on the application site when matches are being played. The proposed development would increase the potential liability to Wells Cricket Club for damage to property and personal injury.

Sport England recognises similarities with two previous cases that have been considered by the Courts. These are:

1. Miller v Jackson [1977] EWCA Civ 6 (6 April 1977), and; 2. East Meon Forge and Cricket Ground Protection Association v East Hampshire District Council [2014] EWHC 3543 (Admin) (31 October 2014).

In Miller v Jackson, while the cricket club was found to be liable in negligence and its activities amounted to an actionable nuisance, it was decided that the public interest should prevail over the private interest.

In the East Meon case, an assessment undertaken on behalf of the Cricket Club found that cricket balls commonly travel in excess of 70 metres, at all levels and abilities. This confirms the likelihood of cricket balls travelling beyond the boundary.

In both cases, it was found to be unreasonable to expect residents to live behind shutters during summer weekends or to stay out of their gardens or away from other amenity areas. Additionally, the occupants and visitors to dwellings will be at risk of injury when entering or leaving premises during cricket matches.

In the East Meon case, Sport England advised that the proposed mitigating measures (removable shutters) were unenforceable and a permanent ball-stop fence was required. Mrs Justice Lang considered Sport England's representations to be sound.

Sport England would recommend an independent risk assessment is undertaken to gauge the likely impact of the housing within close proximity to the cricket pitch. Until the findings of such an assessment and conclusions have been published, Sport England objects to the proposal. This is because it has not been demonstrated that proposal accords with any of the exceptions in Sport England's playing fields policy or paragraph 74 of the NPPF.

The ECB advise that concerns have been raised on previous applications regarding the impact of the development on the cricket club. The same issues that were raised in the previous application are all still valid on this application. In summary cricket balls could easily enter in to the development land and cause significant damage and personal injury. This is currently the case on the existing properties however their times of use are different to the cricket club so the impact of ball strikes is minor property damage that the cricket club rectify at their own cost. This new development has significantly raised the risk of ball strikes including personal injury.

The application does propose a fence on the cricket field boundary however it has no details over height, cost, or ongoing management and maintenance of fence. It is also located on the cricket field land and the applicant has not discussed this with the cricket club.

The circumstances of this application are near identical to the East Meon case where the development will be prejudicial to the use of the playing field land for cricket.

For the ECB to assess the application fully the applicant needs to obtain a risk assessment undertaken by an appropriate company, Labosport UK are the only company we are aware of that can undertake this type of ball trajectory assessment, to determine the risk and possible mitigation measures. Due consideration also needs to be given to control of the mitigation measures, if it was going to be any form of temporary structure or netting, and the ongoing management and maintenance of the fencing. The cost of any fencing, and ongoing maintenance and replacement should be borne by the developer in perpetuity.

No appropriate risk assessment or mitigation plan has been submitted as part of this application. The ECB strongly object to this application as it will prejudice the use of the playing field land for cricket.

Conclusion

In light of the above, Sport England objects to the application because it is not considered to accord with any of the exceptions to Sport England's Playing Fields Policy or with Paragraph 74 of the NPPF.

If this application is to be presented to a Planning Committee, we would like to be notified in advance of the publication of any committee agendas, report(s) and committee date(s). We would be grateful if you would advise us of the outcome of the application by sending us a copy of the decision notice.

Sport England - 05.04.2017

We note the 'Labosport Report' to gauge the likely impact on the housing, which is a step in the right direction.

The developers have agreed to put up safety netting at their cost, maintain it at their cost and ensure it is in place for match days.

We have some comments in relation to the Labosport report and the proposed mitigation measures:

Labosport Report

1. Labosport have introduced an assumption that cricket is only played at weekends in their risk analysis. This is untrue as the cricket club have always had the right to play cricket 7 days a week. The club currently use the ground at least 5 days a week in the season for training and games.

2. Since 1997, the Club has had planning consent to put training nets and a second pitch on the land adjacent to the current pitch. The Club has no plan to develop a second pitch but it desperately needs training nets. The training nets have to go north-south and under the current consent the batters will hit towards the proposed development. The club have informed the developer that the club had consent for the training nets but they were not included in Labosport's analysis.

The Labosport Report will need to be amended to reflect the above.

Mitigation

The mitigation proposal is unworkable and in particular for the LPA, unenforceable. I refer you to East Meon Forge and Cricket Ground Protection Association v East Hampshire District Council [2014] EWHC 3543 (Admin) (31 October 2014). An assessment undertaken on behalf of the Cricket Club found that cricket balls commonly travel in excess of 70 metres,

20 at all levels and abilities. This confirms the likelihood of cricket balls travelling beyond the boundary of the proposed site. It was found to be unreasonable to expect residents to live behind shutters during summer weekends or to stay out of their gardens or away from other amenity areas. Additionally, the occupants and visitors to dwellings will be at risk of injury when entering or leaving premises during cricket matches.

Therefore, we need to ensure the site is safe 7 days a week during the cricket season, for all cricket that is played on the site in perpetuity.

As discussed previously Sport England and the ECB would accept one of two proposals; 1. A permanent fence. 2. A fence that is put up on 1 April and taken down on 30 September every year so it is permanent during the full cricket season.

We would like to review the specification of the fencing proposed to ensure it is robust and fit for purpose.

Sport England maintains its objection at this time.

I trust that the above is useful in going back to the applicant for the local planning authority to resolve.

22.06.2017

We note the 'Labosport Report' to gauge the likely impact on the housing, which is a step in the right direction.

The developers have agreed to put up safety netting at their cost, maintain it at their cost and ensure it is in place for match days.

We have some comments in relation to the Labosport report and the proposed mitigation measures:

Labosport Report

The Labosport Report will need to be amended to reflect the above.

Mitigation

The mitigation proposal is unworkable and in particular for the LPA, unenforceable. I refer you to East Meon Forge and Cricket Ground Protection Association v East Hampshire

District Council [2014] EWHC 3543 (Admin) (31 October 2014). An assessment undertaken on behalf of the Cricket Club found that cricket balls commonly travel in excess of 70 metres, at all levels and abilities. This confirms the likelihood of cricket balls travelling beyond the boundary of the proposed site. It was found to be unreasonable to expect residents to live behind shutters during summer weekends or to stay out of their gardens or away from other amenity areas. Additionally, the occupants and visitors to dwellings will be at risk of injury when entering or leaving premises during cricket matches.

Therefore, we need to ensure the site is safe 7 days a week during the cricket season, for all cricket that is played on the site in perpetuity.

We would like to review the specification of the fencing proposed to ensure it is robust and fit for purpose.

Sport England maintains its objection at this time.

I trust that the above is useful in going back to the applicant for the local planning authority to resolve.

28.06.2017

Wells CC have advised me that they are now satisfied with the proposal following amendments by the developer.

Therefore, Sport England withdraws its objection to the planning application.

Tree Officer

I can confirm that I have carried out a desk-top assessment of the proposals in relation to the trees identified within the Hillside Trees Ltd "Tree Report" (Arboricultural Impact Assessment, Arboricultural Method Statement, Tree Protection Plan) and that I have No Objections on the basis that, should the proposals be approved, that (i) the works shall be carried out in accordance with the Tree Protection Measures / Recommendations within the "Tree Report".

SCC Ecology

Judging from the photos there is appears to be little opportunity for roosting bats although I cannot be entirely certain about crevices that might be exploited by such species as common pipistrelle. I would therefore advise that a precautionary approach is taken in demolishing the roof structure and would recommend the following condition:

(ii) Demolition/construction contractors must be made aware of the potential for bats to be present within the material of the building. The roofing structures, including tiles, felting, fascia boards and other selected features will be removed by hand, each one checked for bat(s) clinging to the underside, before being put down. In the event that a bat is found during dismantling of the buildings, all works must cease immediately and a licensed bat ecologist must be contacted to provide advice.

Reason: Bats and their roosts are afforded protection under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 which includes making it illegal to cause kill or injure bats and destroy, damage or disturb roosts and from intentional or reckless disturbance to individual bats under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended)

I would also recommend the following:

(iii) A Habibat roost type 001 or 003 will be installed and maintained under the apex of the west elevation wall of the new detached dwelling in Plot 2. Reason: To ensure the development contributes to enhancing biodiversity where possible as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework.

SCC Historic

As far as we are aware there are limited or no archaeological implications to this proposal and we therefore have no objections on archaeological grounds.

Wells Cricket Club

08.11.2017

Wells Cricket Club objects to the Tree House planning proposals detailed in applications 2016/2582, 2016/2583 and 2016/2584 for the following reasons:

Safety - It is a matter of fact that the cricket club regularly hit cricket balls into the area of the proposed development during the course of the cricket season. The distance from the cricket square to the boundary hedge in the picture below is less than 40m. Therefore, there is a serious risk of personal injury or damage to people or property from the neighbouring cricket ground. This risk needs to be correctly mitigated to ensure that any duty of care is correctly acknowledged and administered. All liabilities must be accepted by the developer as part of this proposal.

The proposed development now acknowledges that safety netting is required by identifying a shaded area to facilitate cricket nets on cricket club land. However, the following is true: No specification of safety facilities - the physical attributes of the necessary facilities required to prevent personal injury or damage to property from balls landing within the boundary of the proposed development have not been provided, eg material, height, construction. Therefore, the developer has not seriously addressed the very real possibility of serious injury to people, including children, and property in their proposal.

Sport England previously advised that the developer undertake a risk assessment with a recognised expert to mitigate the risk of ball strikes. The developer has not taken this advice because no specification of safety facilities exists as part of this proposal nor has any discussion taken place with the Cricket Club regarding the required safety facilities.

Provision of safety facilities not defined - the developer has not declared who will provide and maintain the necessary safety facilities once they have been specified to prevent personal injury or damage to property. Therefore, the developer has not made provision or taken responsibility for the correct level of safety equipment as part of their proposal.

The Cricket Club cannot be expected to accept liability for any level of risk generated by this proposal, nor can it be the Cricket Club's responsibility to provide and maintain the measures required to mitigate this risk. A precedent for this has been set in law through the following two cases:

East Meon Forge and Cricket Ground Protection Association v East Hampshire District Council [2014] EWHC 3543 (Admin) (31 October 2014) it was found that it is the responsibility of the developer to ensure its new development is not put at risk and that the measures must be enforceable.

In the case of Miller v Jackson [1977] EWCA Civ 6 (6 April 1977) the public interest of the Cricket Club prevailed over the private interest of the residents in resolving the issue of nuisance and negligence as a result of cricket balls landing in the residents' property.

In other words, it is the responsibility of the developer to provide, maintain and ensure the correct use of all necessary safety measures required to protect their development. The provision of safety facilities has not been defined in the current proposal.

Location of safety facilities unclear - it is not possible to determine where the safety facilities will be located. The proposal suggests that the shaded area (orange on the plan) is there to facilitate cricket nets on cricket club land. The developer does not have the right to propose that safety facilities will be erected on Cricket Club land as part of their proposal.

It is the responsibility of the developer to gain consent and implement appropriate safety measures required to protect its new development (East Meon Forge and Cricket Ground Protection Association v East Hampshire District Council and Miller v Jackson). The developer acknowledges that safety nets are sensible by marking a shaded area to facilitate cricket nets on the plan. However, the developer cannot propose measures outside of their boundary without agreeing this with the Cricket Club. The developer must also obtain any planning consent for the construction of the safety nets (previously the Cricket Club constructed safety nets on the east and south sides of the ground and it was obliged to obtain planning consent from MDC in 1997).

It does not make sense for the developer's proposal to be dependent on another planning consent to provide suitable safety measures. Therefore, the developer should clarify the location of the required safety facilities and gain consent for them as part of this current proposal.

Loss of amenity - there is a serious risk that the cricket club will suffer loss of amenity as a direct result of this proposal which will be unacceptable. Currently the cricket club enjoys the right to play cricket on the adjacent property whenever it chooses to host a game or facilitate a practice session. The cricket club is a community facility and if the safety risks are not correctly addressed to the satisfaction of acknowledged sports safety experts to preserve the right to play cricket at any time as part of this proposal, then the cricket club may lose playing rights at the ground. This would represent a loss of community and sporting amenity.

In Miller v Jackson, whilst the cricket club was found to be liable in negligence and its activities amounted to an actionable nuisance, it was decided that the public interest should prevail over the private interest and that any loss of amenity was unacceptable. Therefore, it would be prudent on the part of the developer to provide measures designed to reduce risk to as low as reasonably practical in order to avoid any similar situations to Miller v Jackson from occurring in the future.

The Cricket Club has an existing planning consent to use the area broadly to the north of the proposed development as a second pitch. Whilst the Club does not have plans to develop this part of its facility currently, it does not want to preclude this from happening in the future. Therefore, the developer needs to be aware that this consent exists and may be acted upon in the future. This has a safety implication that will need to be addressed.

Encroachment - the proposal encroaches on cricket club land. The shaded area directly to the north of the existing access drive (orange on the plan including a footpath to enable refuse access to Old Frome Road ) is shown on cricket club land. This is not within the boundary of the Tree House property and represents an illegal encroachment onto cricket club land.

The extract from Land Registry Title No WS23393 shown immediately above (and as attachment to email) from which the Cricket Club's lease is derived, clearly shows that the boundary of the Cricket Club land is represented by the northern edge of the existing access

24 drive next to the existing Tree House nursery. This is confirmed by the photo below which shows that the only physical feature on the ground that demarcates the boundary between the Tree House Nursery and the Cricket Club ground is the small retaining wall on the northern edge of the existing access drive.

The current proposal submitted by the developer clearly shows the proposed footpath to enable refuse access with lockable gate and part of the proposed garage on Cricket Club land to the north of the existing access drive, i.e. on the grassed area to the right of the access drive/retaining wall in the picture. This has not been agreed with the Cricket Club and represents encroachment on to Cricket Club land.

What is more, the Cricket Club currently deploys netting during the cricket season along this boundary, ie just inside the boundary wall in the picture. Therefore, the proposed footpath and garage will be on Cricket Club land and the wrong side of the netting during the cricket season with no alternative net provision defined in the proposal.

This demonstrates that the developer has not recognised: (iv) the legal boundary of its property in its proposal; (v) the requirement for the Cricket Club to protect its interests; (vi) the need to provide safety netting in designing properties adjacent to the cricket pitch because no alternative provision has been described in the current proposal.

Therefore, the current proposal needs to be redrawn so that the proposed development is wholly on Tree House property.

No consultation - the Cricket Club has not been consulted with respect to this planning application. There has been no discussion regarding required safety measures, use of Cricket Club land with respect to this proposal or the potential loss of amenity to the Cricket Club. The Cricket Club therefore requests that the developer consults with the Cricket Club on these matters and amends the application accordingly.

10.04.2017

Wells Cricket Club would like to register its conditional support for the revised Treehouse development proposal, with the following provisos: (vii) The proposed development does not cross the low boundary wall along the northern edge of the access road in front of the current Treehouse nursery building. (viii) The proposal covers all costs for the manufacture, installation and maintenance of the perimeter safety netting as advised by the Labosport risk assessment report in perpetuity. (ix) The proposal ensures that the developer is responsible for making sure that the perimeter safety netting is in place for all cricket activities throughout the cricket season in perpetuity. (x) The proposal does not place any additional safety requirements on the provision of a two lane cricket training facility oriented north-south with the batters hitting in a southerly direction. The two lane facility will be located in the vicinity of the existing concrete bases at the cricket ground.

It is the Cricket Club's understanding that these conditions will be met in full by the revised proposal and that these conditions will be enforced by MDC Planning Office in the event that consent is granted.

Wells CC believes that its position is aligned to that of the ECB/Sport England on the basis that these conditions are met in full and therefore does not wish to object to this development at this time. If this understanding is incorrect, Wells CC request that MDC Planning Office informs the Club in order that it can reassert its objection.

Wells Civic Society

No response

Other Representations

28 letters of support have been received raising the following issues:

 valuable employer of local people  further improve and increase on the excellent facility that they provide  current access is inadequate  new proposed separate access road would vastly improve on the existing  good quality facilities are in high demand  good quality external faēade of brick work will be sympathetic with the surrounding area  it is clear that the expansion of the existing premises is necessary  increased employment will be created through the building project  close proximity with the cricket ground has been adequately dealt with  if the 2 dwellings cross subsidise the development then that is a sensible use of resources  separate access road will also provide welcomed privacy for the residents

Relevant planning history

101468/001 - Change of use from social club to childrens day nursery and nursery school. Approved with conditions 25.05.1993. 101468/002 - Change of use of redundant hospital building to nursery school. Approved with conditions 09.12.1998.

Summary of all planning policies relevant to the proposal

Development Plan

Mendip District Local Plan Part 1 Strategy and Policies (adopted December 2014): CP1 (Spatial Strategy) CP2 (Housing) CP3 (Supporting Business Development and Growth) CP4 (Sustaining Rural Communities) DP1 (Local Identity and Distinctiveness) DP3 (Heritage Conservation) DP5 (Biodiversity and Ecological Networks) DP6 (Bat Protection) DP7 (Design and Amenity) DP8 (Environmental Protection) DP9 (Transport Impact of New Development) DP10 (Parking Standards) DP16 (Open Space and Green Infrastructure) DP17 (Safeguarding Community Facilities) DP23 (Managing Flood Risk)

Material Considerations

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) Somerset County Council Highways Development Control Standing Advice (June 2017) Conservation Area Character Appraisal

Assessment of relevant issues

Principle of development

The main elements of the proposal are to construct a new purpose built children’s day nursery with a greater capacity than the existing building, alongside this the development includes the erection of two new dwellings to provide cross-subsidy for the project.

The site lies outside of the settlement limits of Wells, in the village of South Horrington. It is relatively isolated from facilities, shops and services. Core Policy 1 (CP1) of the Council’s Local Plan Part 1 strategy is to focus most new housing in larger, more sustainable settlements, both to protect the quality and character of the countryside and to limit development in locations that would encourage travel by private car. CP1 goes onto state that any proposed development outside settlement limits will be strictly controlled and will only be permitted where it benefits economic activity or extends the range of facilities available to the local communities.

Policy CP3 of the local plan supports business development and growth in general terms and confirms proposals for economic development will be supported where they accord with the criteria set out within that policy and the principles set out in CP4.

Policy CP4 makes provision for sustaining rural settlements and the wider rural area by supporting proposals for development of the rural economy which enable the expansion or diversification of a business in a manner and of a scale which is appropriate to the location and constraints upon it [emphasis added].

These principles are also in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). At para 28 it deals with supporting a prosperous rural economy and suggests promoting a strong rural economy through supporting the sustainable growth and expansion of all types of business and enterprise in rural areas in order to create jobs and prosperity.

Further to this, the preamble of DP17 seeks to retain services and facilities within villages, and nursery provision is considered to be a commercial community facility and local employment opportunity.

Given that the development would result in the modest expansion and diversification of the existing business, the development of a new nursery building is considered to fulfil the requirements of policy. However, the application must be considered as a whole, and it also proposes 2 new build dwellings to cross-subsidise the development. CP1 (1) (b) (iii) says that in other villages and hamlets, development may be permitted in line with provisions set out in Core Policy 4 to meet specifically identified local needs within those communities.

Core Policy 2 (CP2) states that the delivery of new housing will be secured from three sources (a) Infill, conversions and redevelopments within Development Limits defined on the Proposals Map, (b) Strategic Sites identified on the Key Diagrams for each town associated with Core Policies 6-10 and (c) other allocations of land for housing and, where appropriate, mixed use development, outside of Development Limits through the Site Allocations process. The site is not within development limits, and is not part of the site allocations process.

The application has made a claim for special circumstances on the basis that the new dwellings are required to subsidise the expansion of an existing business in the form of financing a new build nursery. To be acceptable, the application must therefore satisfactorily demonstrate, with adequate evidence, that the new dwellings are necessary and the public benefits (as opposed to private, financial considerations) are of sufficient weight to outweigh the conflict with the Development Plan policies.

In terms of evidence one method of demonstrating the applicant’s claim would be via an assessment carried out in accordance Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors Professional

Standards Committee publication the Appraisal and Valuation Manual, commonly known as ‘The Red Book’. It came into force during January 2014 and its overall purpose is to provide consistency, objectivity and transparency for the valuation process to both build and sustain public confidence and trust on valuations prepared by Chartered Registered Valuers.

Some evidence has been submitted to assert the practicality and viability of the proposed scheme, however, the submission has the proviso that the information submitted ‘does not constitute a Red Book Valuation as governed by RICS’. No detailed viability assessment has been submitted with regard to improving and extending the existing building, beyond the ‘Design and Access Statement’ asserting that this is not viable. In the absence of adequate evidence it cannot be assumed that improving and extending the existing building would not be cost effective, and therefore remove the need for the proposed dwellings to cross- subsidise the expansion of the business.

The ‘Design and Access Statement’ makes reference to DP22, and alleges that the existing building could be converted to a dwelling or dwellings once the site is made vacant when the new nursery building is completed. However, it is considered that this reference is erroneous, as the existing nursery building is not proposed for conversion but rather demolition, to be replaced with 2 new build dwellings. This means that the benefits of reusing the existing structure, and its inherent carbon investment, would be lost and is therefore not consistent with the aims and requirements of DP22.

Taking together all of the above, the application has failed to demonstrate that the principle of the whole development is acceptable, and is therefore not in accordance with CP1, CP2, CP3, CP4, or DP22.

Effect of the proposal upon the character and appearance of the area and heritage assets

The site is within the Mendip Hospital Conservation Area, within the setting of the Grade II listed main hospital building to the north of the site. The existing development is a single storey building close to the boundary wall, with an associated car parking area. This area of the Mendip Hospital site is open and largely grassed, with some residential development close to the south boundary, with more extensive residential development to the east.

The proposed nursery building takes its design cues from the cricket pavilion buildings to the east. The building design is considered to have a pleasant appearance that is acceptable in its context. The nursery building has its long elevations (east and west) rotated at 90˚ to the main hospital building, which is considered to reduce the visual impact on the heritage asset’s setting.

The proposed dwellings have a substantial solid appearance as viewed from the front because of the long plan form, and are larger than the other dwellings to the east of the site. There are some larger detached buildings to the west of the site along the south boundary of South Horrington village. The appearance of the dwellings is vaguely agricultural in character. Given the varied context, the design of the proposed dwellings is not considered significantly harmful to the warrant a reason for refusal.

The proposed materials for the nursery building and the dwellings are listed as natural stone, brick and reconstituted stone, however, the materials are not annotated on the drawings. In the context of the site these materials are considered to be appropriate, however, further details would need to be secured by condition.

The proposal includes the removal of approximately 50 metres of the boundary wall to the south of the site along the Old Frome Road. This structure is considered to be listed because it is the boundary wall associated with the Grade II listed main hospital building. The Conservation Officer states;

“The boundary walls are identified in the South Horrington Conservation Area Appraisal as "acting as a visual reminder of the hospital's isolated past and need for security." Although it

28 describes parts of the walls as being in need of repair, this has no bearing on the harm that would be caused by their demolition.”

The breach to the boundary wall is therefore considered to cause “less than substantial harm” to the heritage asset itself, and the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

The proposal also includes the provision of 10 metre high nets along the boundary of the site with the Wells Cricket Club. The Conservation Officer considers that the nets would cause “less than substantial” harm to the unique setting of the conservation area and to the listed buildings within.

Consequently, the proposals adversely affect heritage assets, and the application is therefore required, in accordance with DP3 of the Local Plan, to:

1. Demonstrate an understanding of the significance of the heritage assets 2. Justify any harm and demonstrate the overriding public benefits which would outweigh the damage.

The PPG says (Reference ID: 18a-020-20140306) that public benefits may follow from many developments and could be anything that delivers economic, social or environmental progress as described in the National Planning Policy Framework. It says public benefits should flow from the proposed development and they should be of a nature or scale to be of benefit to the public at large and should not just be a private benefit.

The “less than substantial” harm identified, predominantly by breaching the boundary wall and to a lesser extent the visual impact of the nets, is not considered to be outweighed by the limited public benefit associated with a replacement nursery and the two new dwellings.

Taking all of the above into consideration, the development as a whole is considered to be contrary to DP1, DP3 and DP7.

Impact to residential amenities

The site is currently used as a children’s nursery. The proposed location of the new nursery would be further away from the dwellings to the east of the site, but closer to the dwellings to the west of the site. In addition two new dwellings are proposed.

Given the distance between the proposed developments and neighbouring dwellings, and the existing use of the site and adjacent residential uses, the impact of the development on neighbour amenity is considered acceptable.

The Environmental Protection Officer did not object to the proposal, subject to the imposition of a condition to secure a detailed method statement of groundworks, demolition and construction. The impact of noise from the proposal on neighbour amenity is therefore considered to be in accordance with DP7 and DP8.

Highways Impact

The existing access continues from part of the estate road network within the old hospital site, and is stated to be a private shared driveway. This section of the road, from the Wells Cricket Club entrance to the entrance of the existing nursery site, is currently in a poor state of repair and narrow.

It is proposed that this road would be used for the two new dwellings, with a new access formed, direct from the Old Frome Road to serve the new nursery building. The Old Frome Road is a classified road, where the speed limit is 30mph. SCC Highways standing advice requires visibility splays for the access of 43 metres in either direction to the edge of the

29 carriageway when measured 2.4 metres back from the carriageway edge from the centre of the access.

The ‘design and access’ statement submitted with the application states that the applicant has agreed that the existing road would be resurfaced as part of the development, and a shared maintenance program put in place. The ‘design and access’ statement goes on to say that this would be secured by condition, however, such a maintenance agreement would have to be part of a Section 106 agreement to secure the details and arrangements.

The proposal also includes provision for the refuse collection for the proposed dwellings to be from the nursery site via a pedestrian access, so that refuse vehicles do not have to access the new dwellings.

Given the current use of the existing drive, the proposed residential use in association with the 2 proposed dwellings is not considered to be prejudicial to highway safety.

The proposed new access would require the demolition of a significant section of 50 metres of wall to enable adequate access width and visibility splays. The site is on significantly higher ground than the road level, and so the site would also require regrading to enable the appropriate gradient for the access, where standing advice requires a gradient no steeper than 1:10. The site plan states the gradient would be 1:14, and demonstrates visibility splays of 43 metres x 2.4 metres back from the carriageway edge. There is also provision for turning space for both the new dwellings and the nursery car park. The visibility splays and gradient are therefore considered to be in accordance with standing advice, and could be secured by conditions.

No drainage or surfacing details for the access have been provided. It is essential to prevent the discharge of water, or loose stone or gravel, onto the highway, in the interests of highway safety. However, it is considered that these details could be secured by conditions.

Subject to appropriate controls, the proposed new access for the site, and provisions for the existing access, are considered to be in accordance with DP9.

SCC Highways Parking Standards requires 1/100m² parking spaces for D1b use, and 4 parking spaces for a 4+ bedroom dwelling in this location. The new nursery would be 590m² (requiring 6 parking spaces) and the proposal includes the provision of 18 parking spaces for the nursery. Each of the dwellings would be provided with 2 parking spaces and double garage.

The proposed parking for the site is therefore considered to be in accordance with DP10.

Flood risk

The applicant has provided no details relating to surface and foul water drainage. These are required to ensure that there is adequate existing capacity and that there is no increase in runoff from the site to prevent the increase in flood risk.

The Land Drainage Engineer did not object to the proposal, subject to the imposition of conditions to secure appropriate foul and surface water drainage details. The proposal would therefore be in accordance with DP23.

Contaminated Land

Where there is potential for land contamination on the site, the applicant is required to provide adequate site investigation, and where necessary ground remediation works. The Land Contamination Officer did not object to the proposal, subject to conditions to secure site investigation and necessary remediation.

The impact of land contamination on the proposed development would be considered in accordance with DP8, providing the suggested conditions are imposed.

Trees

There are a number of trees within and adjacent to the development site that are afforded protection by virtue of being within a Conservation Area. The application submission includes a ‘Tree Report’. Following his consideration of the information submitted, the Tree Officer did not object to the proposal, subject to the imposition of a condition to require the development to be carried out in accordance with the tree protection measures and recommendations within the tree report.

The impact of the proposal on trees within the Conservation Area is therefore considered acceptable.

Archaeology

The SCC Historic Environment Officer considered that there are limited or no archaeological implications to this proposal and did not object to the application. The impact of the proposal on potential archaeology is therefore considered to be in accordance with DP3.

Ecology

The SCC Ecologist accessed the potential for bat roosts within the existing nursery building, which is proposed to be demolished. He did not object to the proposal, but recommended a precautionary approach to the development, and some mitigation measures, to be secured by conditions.

Subject to the imposition of these conditions, the impact of the proposal on ecology is considered to be in accordance with DP5 and DP6.

Sports facilities

Sports facilities are afforded protection, both by local and national policy. Proposals that would remove or compromise their use are strictly controlled in order to maximise access and use to such facilities by local communities because of the health and wellbeing benefits they generate.

The initial proposal generated objections by both Sport England, and Wells Cricket Club. They were concerned that the future use of the cricket field would be compromised because of the cost of damage claims from the future occupiers of the development following damage from cricket balls on the proposed private properties or the risk of injury from being hit by a cricket ball.

Following extensive negotiations between the applicants and these bodies, the proposal was amended to include 10 metre high nets. They are proposed to be sited at the boundary with the cricket field and the new dwellings and nursery site to protect the proposed development from damage by cricket balls when the cricket field is in use. These nets would be required to be erected, maintained and operated by the future occupants of the development, with the aim of removing the liability for damage caused by cricket balls from Wells Cricket Club. It is noted that there are already nets in place to the south of the cricket pavilion, which are owned and operated by the Wells Cricket Club. However, it is considered that the proposed nets would need to be in place at all times, as erecting and dismantling them at the right time by private individuals would be impractical and unreasonable.

Subject to securing the details of the nets and their ongoing maintenance, both Sport England and Wells Cricket Club removed their objections.

Section 106

In the event that planning permission is granted for the development the development would require a S106 agreement to secure:  The cross-subsidy funding of the nursery by the development of the 2 proposed dwellings  The phasing of the development o 1st phase to include the creation of the new access for construction traffic, completion of the new nursery building, and the installation and maintenance of the cricket nets o 2nd phase to include the resurfacing of School Lane, and the provision of pedestrian access for the occupants of the proposed dwelling to the refuse collection area of the proposed nursery.

While the ‘Design and Access Statement’ includes reference to the applicants’ agreement to enter into a S106 agreement, in the absence of a signed agreement this must form a reason for refusal, as the application cannot be approved without a S106 having been completed.

Other issues

While it is accepted that the construction phase of the development would secure employment for workers in the construction industry, this would be relatively short term, and is therefore not considered a sufficient economic benefit to justify the development.

The ‘Design and Access Statement’ includes an agreement to a condition to require details of the reinstatement of the neighbouring property gable at ‘2 The Pavilion’. Certificate B was signed on the application form, listing the properties that have had notice served on them, and ‘2 The Pavilion’ is included. Such works to a party wall are covered under separate legislation, and so further control is not considered necessary.

Environmental Impact Assessment

This development does not fall within the scope of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 and so Environmental Impact Assessment is not required.

Conclusion

While one of the elements proposed is acceptable within the policy context (the replacement nursery), as it relates to the redevelopment and expansion of an existing business, the development must be considered as a whole. It is considered that the proposal constitutes unjustified residential development outside development limits, which would cause “less than substantial” harm to heritage assets where the public benefit is not considered to outweigh the harm. Further to this, a S106 agreement has not been signed to secure the alleged cross-subsidy and phasing details of the nursery and dwellinghouses. It is therefore recommended that the application is refused.

Reason/s for Recommendation

1. The development in respect of the two new dwellings proposed does not accord with the objectives of Policies CP1 and CP2 of the Mendip District Local Plan Part I with regards to strictly controlling development outside the Development Limits. The conflict with the Development Plan is not outweighed by any other relevant material consideration. The proposal would cause harm to the character and appearance of the area by virtue of having an unjustified urbanising effect. As such, the development would be contrary to policies CP1, CP2, CP3, CP4, DP1, DP3 and DP7 of the adopted Mendip District Local Plan 2006 - 2029 and the National Planning Policy Framework, with particular regards to paragraph 55.

2. The proposed development by virtue of the breach of the Grade II listed boundary wall would result in the loss of historic fabric and part of a historic feature, and the new access would be out-of-keeping with its context as a result of the loss of a large section of the historic boundary for the wider site. In addition, the high cricket protection netting would interrupt views of, and from, the heritage assets. The proposal would therefore harm the character and appearance of the heritage assets and their setting. The public benefits would not outweigh the 'less than substantial' harm identified to the heritage assets. In balancing these impacts considerable weight is given to the statutory duties relating to Listed Buildings and Conservation Area set out in the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act. The proposal is considered to be contrary to DP3 (heritage) and DP7 (design and amenity) of the Mendip District Local Plan 2006-2029 (Part 1 Strategies and Policies - adopted 15th December 2014) and the National Planning Policy Framework, with particular regard to Chapter 12.

3. In the absence of suitable planning obligations secured under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended), the proposal would not make adequate provision for the cross-subsidy arrangements between the residential elements of the scheme and the nursery, the phasing of development and access arrangements, which are necessary in the interests of sustainable development. As such, the proposal is contrary to Policies CP3, CP4, and DP9 of the Mendip District Local Plan Part 1 2006-2029 (adopted December 2014) and the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012).

List of Advices

1. This decision relates to drawing numbers 2015/THDN/01/02, 2015/THDN/01/03, AND 2015/THDN/01/04, and the documents titled "Design and Access Statement", "Arboricultural Impact Assessment", "Site investigation to determine contamination risk", "GPT/NP/9027" viability assessment by Cooper and Tanner submitted for the application validated on 4th October 2016, and the document titled "Technical Report" risk assessment by Labosport received on 23rd May 2017, and drawing numbers L5630 105A and 2015/THDN/01/01 rev. D received on 6th June 2017 only.

2. In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework the Council works in a positive and pro-active way with Applicants and

33 looks for solutions to enable the grant of planning permission. However, in this case the proposal is not sustainable development for the reasons set out and the Council was unable to identify a way of securing a development that improves the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area.

Agenda Item No. DM04

Case Officer Miss Lynsey Bradshaw

Site Tree House Day Nursery School Lane South Horrington Village Wells Somerset

Application Number 2016/2584/LBC

Date Received 4th October 2016

Applicant/ Tree House Day Nursery Organisation

Application Type Listed Building Consent

Ward St Cuthbert Out North

Parish St Cuthbert Out Parish Council

This application is referred to the Planning Board following consultation with the Ward Member, and the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Board.

Description of Site and Proposal

The application relates to Tree House Day Nursery, School Lane, in South Horrington Village.

The site is within the Mendip Hospital Conservation Area, defined from the old Mendip Hospital walled curtilage. The main hospital building, Chapel, and South Lodge are all Grade II listed buildings.

The application seeks listed building consent for the demolition of a section of listed boundary wall to allow a new access to be formed directly onto the Old Frome Road, to facilitate the proposals within the full planning application (2016/2582/FUL).

During the life of the applications various details have been amended, and the interested parties re-consulted.

Summary of Consultations and Representations

Ward Member

If you are in mind to refuse this application, I would like to call this in to the planning Board please.

St Cuthbert Out Parish Council

17.11.2016

REFUSAL subject to risk assessment and net locations, design and maintenance

29.03.2017

Recommend APPROVAL

Conservation Officer

14.11.16

I would query whether the principal reason for proposing the new access from the road is to provide greater privacy to the new dwellings and hence may be financially motivated.

21.04.17

My earlier comments stand.

07.06.17

The provision of elevation drawing and site plan do not alter my assessment of this scheme and, therefore, my earlier comments below stand.

Please note that the description of the LBC application has still not been changed to reflect the work applied for, i.e. the demolition and rebuild of a 50m stretch of listed boundary wall.

03.08.2017

The proposed 10m high nets including interim supports would be a visual intrusion to views across the conservation area, particularly towards the main former hospital building (GII).

Wells Civic Society

No response

Other Representations

6 letters of support have been received raising the following issues:

Relevant planning history

101468/001 - Change of use from social club to childrens day nursery and nursery school. Approved with conditions 25.05.1993.

101468/002 - Change of use of redundant hospital building to nursery school. Approved with conditions 09.12.1998.

Summary of all planning policies relevant to the proposal

Development Plan

Mendip District Local Plan Part 1 Strategy and Policies (adopted December 2014) DP3 (Heritage Conservation)

Material Considerations

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 37

National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) Conservation Area Character Appraisal

Assessment of relevant issues

Background

The NPPF deals with determining planning applications that affect heritage assets in paragraphs 128 to 135. Paragraph 132 sets out that when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification.

Significance is defined in the NPPF as the value of a heritage asset to this and future generations because of its heritage interest. That interest may be archaeological, architectural, artistic or historic. Significance derives not only from a heritage asset’s physical presence, but also from its setting; the setting of a designated heritage asset is defined in the Framework as the surroundings in which a heritage asset is experienced.

Section 16 (2) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 says that in considering whether to grant listed building consent for any works the local planning authority shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.The statutory duty therefore requires more than a straightforward balancing exercise, where all matters have equal weight, as it is necessary to have ‘special regard’ (or give considerable weight) to the importance of the desirability of preserving the setting or any feature of the Listed Buildings in that overall assessment.

Effect of the proposal upon the heritage asset

The proposal includes the removal of approximately 50 metres of the boundary wall to the south of the site along the Old Frome Road. This structure is considered to be listed because it is the boundary wall in association with the Grade II listed main hospital building. The Conservation Officer states;

“The boundary walls are identified in the South Horrington Conservation Area Appraisal as "acting as a visual reminder of the hospital's isolated past and need for security." Although it describes parts of the walls as being in need of repair, this has no bearing on the harm that would be caused by their demolition.”

The breach to the boundary wall is therefore considered to cause “less than substantial harm” to the Listed heritage asset itself, and in turn the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

In this instance the works harm the Listed building (the wall), and the application is therefore required, in accordance with DP3 of the adopted Local Plan, to:

 Demonstrate an understanding of the significance of the heritage assets  Justify any harm and demonstrate the overriding public benefits which would outweigh the damage.

The “less than substantial” harm identified resulting from the extensive breach proposed in the Listed boundary wall is not considered to be outweighed by the limited public benefit associated with a replacement nursery and the two new dwellings.

Taking all of the above into consideration, the development as a whole is considered to be contrary to DP3, the relevant guidance in the NPPF and the legislative requirements described above.

Environmental Impact Assessment

This development does not fall within the scope of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 and so Environmental Impact Assessment is not required.

Conclusion

It is considered the works would cause “less than substantial” harm to heritage assets where the public benefit is not considered to outweigh the harm. It is therefore recommended that the application is refused.

Reason/s for Recommendation

1. The proposed works by virtue of the breach of the Grade II listed boundary wall would result in the loss of historic fabric and part of a historic feature, and the new access would be out-of-keeping with its context as a result of the loss of a large section of the historic boundary for the wider site. The public benefits would not outweigh the 'less than substantial' harm identified to the heritage asset. In balancing these impacts considerable weight is given to the statutory duties relating to Listed Buildings set out in the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act. The proposal is considered to be contrary to DP3 (heritage) of the Mendip District Local Plan 2006-2029 (Part 1 Strategies and Policies - adopted 15th December 2014) and the National Planning Policy Framework, with particular regard to Chapter 12.

List of Advices

2. In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework the Council works in a positive and pro-active way with Applicants and

39 looks for solutions to enable the grant of planning permission. However, in this case the proposal is not sustainable development for the reasons set out and the Council was unable to identify a way of securing a development that improves the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area.

Agenda Item No. DM05

Case Officer Miss Lynsey Bradshaw

Site Hazel Manor Lodge Nordrach Lane Priddy Cheddar BS40 6LG

Application Number 2017/0482/FUL

Date Received 27th February 2017

Applicant/ Carter Jonas Organisation Will Woodland

Application Type Full Application

Proposal Replace residential conversion with new dwelling and construct first floor above estate yard to create ancillary accommodation (Landscape and Visual Impact Appraisal and associated information submitted 14/06/2017).

Ward Chewton Mendip And Ston Easton

Parish Priddy Parish Council

This application is referred to the Planning Board following consultation with the Ward Member, and the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Board.

Description of Site and Proposal

The application relates to Hazel Manor Lodge, near Priddy. The site is accessed off of an estate road from Nordrach Lane, a classified road. Part of the access road follows a public right of way (CL 7/22). This route is currently used for existing dwellings, forestry, and agriculture.

The site is within the Mendip Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. It is in the landscape character areas of ‘The Mendip Plateau’, and the ‘Black Down and The Northern Slopes’. The site is adjacent to buildings identified as Hazel Manor Lodge, Hazel Manor Farm, and Hazel Manor Bungalow. These building were originally part of a large estate, with Hazel Manor being the large estate house that was destroyed by fire in 1929 and never rebuilt. The remaining buildings were originally stables and ancillary buildings for the Hazel Manor.

The land is classified as grade 3 agricultural land, defined as land with moderate limitations due to soil, relief or climate, or a combination of these factors.

The application seeks to ‘replace’ a recent residential conversion (ref. 2015/2880/PAO) with a new dwelling and construct first floor above the previously approved dwelling to create ancillary accommodation. The proposal also includes the removal of a large agricultural building to the west of the site, and extensive landscaping.

Summary of Consultations and Representations

Priddy Parish Council

Priddy Parish Council Voted to SUPPORT the application with the following comment:-

"Whilst there were concerns about the escarpment aspect, it was accepted that the property would not be seen from outside the Hazel Manor Estate. Though not in compliance with the Local Plan, it was felt that the new dwelling would be appropriate to its setting and enhance the estate as a whole".

SCC Highways

Standing Advice Applies on PROW CL 7/22

SCC Ecologist

Thank you for sending the bat report from First Ecology. This determined that no bats would be affected by the development but nonetheless gives recommendations in case a bat is found. I would therefore apply the following informative to the planning permission, if so granted, in this case:

 The developers are reminded of the legal protection afforded to bats and bat roosts under legislation including the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. In the unlikely event that bats are encountered during implementation of this permission it is recommended that works stop and advice is sought from a suitably qualified, licensed and experienced ecologist at the earliest possible opportunity

Tree Officer

II can confirm that I have visited the site and assessed the development proposals in relation to the existing trees and the arboricultural appraisal within the Tree Survey, Arboricultural Impact Assessment and draft Tree Protection Plan which I shall refer to as the “Tree Report” – prepared by Ian Monger Ref: IMT-SPC-201704b – dated 7 April 2017.

I offer No Objections on the conditions that an Arboricultural Method Statement (AMS) and final Tree Protection Plan (TPP) are submitted for approval, and that all works should be carried out in accordance with the approved AMS. Reason: To ensure that retained trees are adequately protected prior to and during construction.

Land Drainage Engineer

The site is within Flood Zone 1 and there are no surface water flood risk areas denoted by the Environment Agency flood risk mapping within the vicinity of the site. The site is currently brownfield but it is unclear from the plans submitted whether there is likely to be a net increase or decrease in impermeable areas.

We note that the intention is to remove much of the concrete hardstanding and any remaining redundant buildings to create a formal garden for the proposed property, however this hasn't been quantified to ascertain if there will be an increase in impermeable areas.

We would encourage the applicant to incorporate SuDS within the landscape and garden plans to deal with all surface water from the site. This will provide additional benefit in terms of flood risk, but also enhance the biodiversity of the proposals. The water features proposed could be adapted to be dual purpose in this regard. The applicant also notes an intention to utilise a package treatment plant with soakaway. Further details will be required prior to commencement of the development, including confirmation of the ground conditions, groundwater levels and infiltration rates.

MDC therefore have no objection to this application subject to the inclusion of conditions.

Mendip Hills AONB Liaison Officer

25.05.2017

The proposed development is within the Mendip Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). The development proposal is to replace a residential conversion with a new dwelling and construct a first floor above the estate yard to create ancillary accommodation.

The Countryside and Rights of Way (CRoW) Act 2000 confirmed the significance of AONBs and Section 85 places a statutory duty on all relevant authorities to have regard to the purpose of conserving and enhancing natural beauty when discharging any function in relation to, or affecting land within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The primary purpose of the AONB designation is to conserve and enhance natural beauty. The Mendip Hills AONB Partnership produced the AONB Mendip Hills Management Plan 2014-19 as required by the Act on behalf of the joint local authorities and this is also a material consideration. The Mendip Hills AONB Management Plan under paragraph 1.4 sets out a Statement of Significance on the special qualities of the Mendip Hills AONB and these qualities include views towards and out of the AONB, retaining dark skies and a sense of tranquillity and a landscape enjoyed by large numbers of people for a wide range of interests and outdoor pursuits.

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) under paragraph 115 sets out that 'great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks, the Broads and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which have the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty.'

The proposed development includes a proposal for a substantial new detached dwelling of 490m² and new formal gardens (660m²) including new stone walls, paths, gazebos and other garden structures. From reviewing the application documentation, I note that the proposed dwelling is designed and orientated for panoramic and distant views across the Chew Valley from the north east elevations and proposed garden to the front of this elevation.

The Planning, Access and Design Statement dated February 2017 includes excerpts taken from comments from the South West Design Review Panel including 'The open countryside to the north provides panoramic and distant views across the Chew Valley but the siting of the house, set well back from the scarp face, will not have any adverse impact on the wider landscape' and 'The South West Design Panel Review averred the siting is 'wise and well- mannered' and 'impact on the Mendip Hills AONB will be negligible'. Within the application documentation there does not appear to be any further information provided regarding how landscape and visual impact have been assessed and how these conclusions have been reached.

It would be useful to consider additional information regarding landscape and visual impact of the proposed development on the surrounding landscape and particularly the Mendip Hills AONB, submitted to the Design Review Panel for consideration and the context of the above excerpts particularly with regards to conserving and enhancing natural beauty and the impact of the proposed development on the surrounding landscape and Mendip Hills AONB special qualities.

10.07.2017

With reference to the above application, herewith further comments in respect of additional information submitted by the applicant and received by this office on 15 June 2017.

The development includes a proposal for a new detached dwelling of 490m² on two floors with an eaves height of 5.5 m and ridge height of 9 m. From the South West and North East Elevations drawing, there are 3 chimneys which extend past the ridge line. There are also proposals for new formal gardens (660m²) including new stone walls, paths, gazebos and other garden structures including to the frontage of the north east elevation.

The submitted Landscape and Visual Impact Appraisal dated June 2017 sets out that 'despite the siting of the dwelling on the summit of Mendip Hills with extensive and long distant views across the Chew Valley, it is set back around 300 m from the scarp face

43 occupying a relatively level plateau'. It is unclear from the Appraisal if the formal gardens and chimneys would be visible from the various viewpoints. I further visited various viewpoints on Tuesday including viewpoints 1 and 6 as set out within the Appraisal and it is difficult to determine the impact of the proposed dwelling (roof line/chimney line etc.) and gardens particularly on the ridge line and the Mendip Hills. A sections plan of how the development proposal sits within the landscape may be of assistance.

As highlighted within the Mendip Hills AONB Unit comments on the application dated 23 May 2017, the primary purpose of the AONB designation is to conserve and enhance natural beauty. The Mendip Hills AONB Management Plan 2014-19 is a material consideration and under paragraph 1.4 sets out a Statement of Significance on the special qualities of the Mendip Hills AONB including a distinctive limestone ridge, views towards the Mendip Hills including from the Chew Valley, retaining dark skies and a landscape enjoyed by large numbers of people for a wide range of interests and outdoor pursuits.

I would further note that within the adopted Chew Valley Neighbourhood Plan that Policy HDE4 refers to sensitive skylines as identified on illustration HDE4-VI and includes the skyline of the Mendip Hills in which the development proposal sits.

Bath & North East Somerset District Council

No response

Other Representations

No other responses have been received

Relevant planning history

112919/000 - Erection of single storey extension south west elevation (at Hazel Manor Cottage). Approved with conditions 19.08.1997. 112919/003 - Renewal of consent 112919/000 - erection of single storey extension to south west elevation (at Hazel Manor Cottage). Approved with conditions 28.05.2002. 112919/006 - Extension of general purpose storage building. Approved with conditions 14.01.2004. 2015/2880/PAO - Change of use of an office building to one dwellinghouse. Prior approval not required 27.01.2016.

Summary of all planning policies relevant to the proposal

Development Plan

Mendip District Local Plan Part 1 Strategy and Policies (adopted December 2014): CP1 (Spatial Strategy) CP2 (Housing) DP1 (Local Identity and Distinctiveness) DP4 (Mendip’s Landscapes) DP5 (Biodiversity and Ecological Networks) DP6 (Bat Protection) DP7 (Design and Amenity) DP8 (Environmental Protection) DP9 (Transport Impact of New Development) DP10 (Parking Standards) DP22 (Reuse of Conversion of Rural Buildings)

DP23 (Managing Flood Risk)

Material Considerations

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) Somerset County Council Highways Development Control Standing Advice (June 2017)

Assessment of relevant issues

Principle of development

The proposal has four main elements:

 Construction of a new manor house  Extend the existing dwelling (ref 2015/2880/PAO), raising the roof to provide ancillary accommodation to the ‘new manor house’ at the ground and first floors  Removal of 660m² of modern agricultural buildings  Extensive landscaping for the ‘new manor house’

The application therefore argues that there would be no net gain in dwellings.

A core planning principle of the NPPF is to promote sustainable development. Paragraph 55 of the NPPF states:

To promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. For example, where there are groups of smaller settlements, development in one village may support services in a village nearby. Local planning authorities should avoid new isolated homes in the countryside unless there are special circumstances such as:  the essential need for a rural worker to live permanently at or near their place of work in the countryside; or  where such development would represent the optimal viable use of a heritage asset or would be appropriate enabling development to secure the future of heritage assets; or  where the development would re-use redundant or disused buildings and lead to an enhancement to the immediate setting; or  the exceptional quality or innovative nature of the design of the dwelling. Such a design should:  be truly outstanding or innovative, helping to raise standards of design more generally in rural areas;  reflect the highest standards in architecture;  significantly enhance its immediate setting; and  be sensitive to the defining characteristics of the local area.

The application does not include reference to the applicant working in agriculture, and does not demonstrate an ‘essential need’ for a rural worker’s dwelling to be in this particular location. The site has no heritage assets associated with it.

The application proposes the use of the existing dwelling as ancillary, and so the ‘new manor house’ would not include the re-use of a redundant or disused building. The application does not therefore accord with the special circumstances described in paragraph 55 of the NPPF.

The planning statement submitted admits that the proposed ‘new manor house’ “was never intended to meet the truly outstanding benchmark of Paragraph 55 of the NPPF”.

The Planning Statement asserts that the Local Plan is silent on replacement dwellings. However, Core Policy 1 (CP1) of the Council’s Local Plan Part 1 strategy is to focus most new housing in larger, more sustainable settlements, both to protect the quality and character of 45 the countryside and to limit development in locations which would encourage travel by private car. CP1 goes on to state that any proposed development outside settlement limits will be strictly controlled and will only be permitted where it benefits economic activity or extends the range of facilities available to the local communities.

The proposal does not constitute an economic development (housing being excluded from the definition of economic development contained in the NPPF), or extend the range of facilities available to the local community. In addition, it is worth noting the proposal includes the removal of a substantial area of agricultural buildings (660m²), in use at the time of the site visit, which could be argued to be detrimental to agricultural economic activity.

The estate office has been previously given consent to be to a dwellinghouse under Part 3 Class O of the General Permitted Development Order (GPDO). It should be noted that Class O of Part 3 of the permitted development legislation does not include physical alterations, and the GPDO restricts development to a dwellinghouse within article 2 (3) land, which includes Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. In addition, Local Plan policy DP22 allows for the reuse and conversion of rural buildings. One of the restrictions of DP22 is that the proposed building operations do not include works that would require major and complete reconstruction. The GPDO legislations (and DP22) recognises that there is an inherent carbon investment in existing built form, which can be utilised in a ‘new’ form.

Bearing in mind the amount of additional construction proposed to the existing built form, as well as the ‘new build dwelling’, the amount of additional building proposed is considered to go beyond what can reasonably be called a ‘replacement dwelling’. This proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to the aims of delivering sustainable development.

Taking all of the above into account the proposal constitutes a new build dwelling and the alterations to the existing built form goes beyond what is considered acceptable under DP22. The principle of a new build dwelling in this location without adequate justification is not considered acceptable, and is contrary to CP1.

Effect of the proposal upon the character and appearance of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

The supporting statement reports that the use as a dwelling (permitted under ref 2015/2880/PAO) has been implemented. The principle of the estate office building having a change of use into a dwelling house has therefore been established, but the development as proposed to that building requires the scrutiny of a formal planning application.

The current proposal is for the annexation of the existing building to the proposed new build dwelling, with substantial building operations, and that proposed dwelling is a completely new building.

The proposal also includes extensive landscaping, with large formal gardens, ancillary garden buildings and walls, including a ha-ha facing onto the valley, where there is currently only pastoral land. As such it generates its own impacts on the landscape, which is in a particularly sensitive area, separate from the existing built form.

The character and appearance of the proposed ‘new build dwelling’ is of a grand manor house, of significant footprint and height. As such, there are not many similar buildings within the local context to reference in terms of local distinctiveness, as one might expect. Given the appearance of the building, it would be essential to secure high quality external facing materials, fenestration details, and workmanship, in order to prevent the development from becoming a poor quality pastiche. These details could be secured by conditions.

The proposed alterations to the existing built form, for the ‘ancillary accommodation’ would result in an increase in height in the built form, and raise the status of this building within the built hierarchy of the site. Given the existing built form is of no particular merit, its siting of the development is within the existing complex away from the open views, and the existing

46 agricultural development to be removed, this part of the proposal is not considered to be significantly harmful to the character and appearance of the area, local distinctiveness, or significantly harmful to the AONB.

The planning statement asserts that the ‘new build dwelling’ element of the proposal would constitute a reinstatement of the architectural history of the site. However, the heritage value of the site was, and can now never be, established for the previous building. The site is currently of value because of its natural scenic quality, being open pastoral land. The site is within the Mendip Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, where the NPPF (paragraph 115) states that;

“Great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks, the Broads and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which have the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty.”

The proposal site is in an isolated location, and the planning statement includes references to the distant views across the Chew Valley. Although reference has been made within the application to the conclusions of the South West Design Review Panel, their full report was not submitted as part of this application. In addition, it is not clear how this proposal differs from that discussed by the Design Review Panel in terms of the height, siting, and design of the ‘new manor house’. Therefore, the weight that should be attributed to these comments is limited.

The Mendip Hills AONB Liaison Officer highlighted the statutory duty to have regard to conserving and enhancing natural beauty when discharging any function in relation to, or affecting land within an AONB, and the importance of views into and out of the AONB. She referenced the lack of clarity regarding how the Design Review Panel reached their conclusions. Following her comments, a Landscape and Visual Impact Appraisal dated June 2017 was submitted.

The Mendip Hills AONB Liaison Officer considered the additional information, and submitted further comments. She considered that the impact of the proposed development and extensive landscaping could not be established, and reiterated that the primary purpose of the AONB designation is to conserve and enhance natural beauty, and that sensitive skylines are of particular importance. The proposed ‘new build dwelling’ could therefore have a harmful visual impact on the character and appearance of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and on this basis is not considered to be an enhancement to the character and appearance of the AONB.

The application has failed to adequately demonstrate that the proposal, within the Mendip Hills AONB, would not be harmful to the landscape such as to compromise the setting of the designated area. The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to DP4.

Further to this, the increase in domestic activity in the area, within to the Mendip Hills AONB, and the associated domestic paraphernalia, is considered to have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the area. The proposal is therefore not considered to “avoid, minimise and/or mitigate negative effects”, contrary to DP1 of the Local Plan.

Impact to residential amenities

The proposal includes an additional floor level over the existing built form (from approximately 4.7 metres to 6.2 metres), which forms part of a courtyard area with the opposing dwelling ‘Hazel Manor Cottage’. The distance between the proposed built form and the dwelling is approximately 20 metres. Given the existing built form, and distance between them, the proposed increase is ridge height is not considered to give rise to an unacceptable degree of overbearing to the existing dwelling.

Given the consent for the conversion of the building, and the current agricultural activity in close proximity to the site, the proposed changes would not give rise to any adverse neighbour amenity impact from noise and disturbance over and above that situation.

The impact of proposal on neighbour amenity is therefore considered to be in accordance with DP7.

Highways Impact

There are no proposed changes to the access for the site onto the highway. Given the existing estate use and domestic traffic, it is not considered that the proposal would result in a significant increase in traffic movements that would be prejudicial to highway safety. The proposed access for the site is therefore considered to be in accordance with DP9.

The proposal includes the provision of 4 parking spaces, as well as 6 cycle spaces. SCC Parking Standards requires 4 parking spaces for a 4+ bedroom dwelling in this location. The proposed parking for the site is therefore considered to be in accordance with DP10.

Biodiversity

Under the previous applications (Class O, Part 3, GPDO), the impact on ecology was not part of the assessment of whether the proposal was acceptable. However, the current proposal includes a significant amount of new development, both to the existing built form and for the ‘new manor house’. For the current proposal, the impact on ecology should be assessed.

The SCC Ecologist was satisfied with the biodiversity survey for the site, subject to an informative being added to the decision notice, if approved. As such, the proposal is therefore considered to be in accordance DP5 and DP6.

Trees

Under the previous applications (Class O, Part 3, GPDO), the impact on trees was not part of the assessment of whether the proposal was acceptable. However, the current proposal includes a significant amount of new development, on an adjacent site. For the current proposal, the impact on trees should be assessed.

The Tree Officer did not object to the proposal, subject to a condition being added to the decision notice, if approved. As such, the impact of the proposal on trees is therefore considered to be acceptable.

Environmental Impact Assessment

This development does not fall within the scope of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 and so Environmental Impact Assessment is not required.

Conclusion

It is recommended that planning permission is refused because the proposal would result in an unjustified new build dwelling without the benefit of reusing the existing built form, and includes major construction for the ancillary accommodation. Further to this, the application has failed to demonstrate that the proposal would not have harmful impacts on the scenic natural beauty of the AONB, which is afforded special protection.

Reason/s for Recommendation

1. The development, which goes beyond what can reasonably be called a 'replacement dwelling', does not accord with the objectives of Policies CP1 and CP2 of the Mendip District Local Plan Part I with regards to strictly controlling development outside the Development Limits and the approach to the delivery of housing. The application has failed to demonstrate that the proposal would not cause harm to the character and appearance of the Mendip Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty by virtue of having an unjustified domesticating effect on the countryside's intrinsic natural beauty here, without the benefit of reusing an existing building. As such, the development would be contrary to policies CP1, CP2, DP1 and DP4 of the adopted Mendip District Local Plan 2006 - 2029 and the National Planning Policy Framework, with particular regards to paragraph 55.

List of Advices

1. This decision relates to drawing numbers PL 3569/1B, PL 3569/2, 2299-00, 1318 10, 1318 11, 1318 12, 1318 20 A, 1318 21, 1318 22, 1318 23, 1318 24, 1318 25, 1318 26, 1318 27, 1318 28, 1318 29, 1318 30A, 10867 SP 01, 10867 SP 02, 10867 SP 03, 10867 SP 04, 10867 SP 05, 10867 SP 06, 10867 SP 07, 10867 SP 08, and the documents titled "Foul/Non-Mains Drainage Assessment and Energy Efficiency Statements", the "Planning, Access and Design Statement", the "Country House Development at Hazel Manor Estate, Compton Martin Garden Design", and "Tree Survey, Arboricultural Impact Assessment and draft Tree Protection Plan" and drawing numbers TCP-SPC-201704b-IMT and TPP-SPC-201704b-IMT submitted for the application validated on 11th April 2017, the document titled "Landscape and Visual Impact Appraisal" received on 14th June 2017, and the document titled "Bat Roost Report" received on 27th July 2017 only.

2. The Planning Authority is required to erect a Site Notice on or near the site to advertise development proposals which are submitted. Could you please ensure that any remaining Notice(s) in respect of this decision are immediately removed from the site and suitably disposed of. Your co operation in this matter is greatly appreciated.

3. In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework the Council works in a positive and pro-active way with Applicants and looks for solutions to enable the grant of planning permission. However, in this case the proposal is not sustainable development for the reasons set out and the Council was unable to identify a way of securing a development that improves the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area.