1 Planning Board DATE

Planning Board

DATE: 18th July 2018 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 - 18th July 2018

Item Page Application Ward/Site Case Number Officer

DM01 3 2015/0527/OTA Land South Of Stocks Mr Daniel Lane, North Wootton, Foster Shepton Mallet

Croscombe And Pilton DM02 17 2018/0229/FUL Carpark Of Kudos Night Miss Club , Princes Road, Lynsey Wells, BA5 1TE Bradshaw

Wells St Cuthberts DM03 28 2018/0433/FUL Land At Dyehouse Lane, Anna Glastonbury, BA6 9QS Clark

Glastonbury St Benedicts DM04 36 2018/0077/HSE The Old Butcher Shop , Mr Ditcheat, Shepton Mallet Howard Warren The Pennards And Ditcheat DM05 40 2018/0078/LBC The Old Butcher Shop , Mr Ditcheat, Shepton Mallet Howard Warren The Pennards And Ditcheat

Agenda Item DM01 No. Case Officer Mr Daniel Foster Site Land South Of Stocks Lane North Wootton Shepton Mallet Application 2015/0527/OTA Number

Date Received 2nd March 2015 Applicant/ Mr + Mrs P + M Gordon Organisation Application Outline - All Matters Reserved Type Proposal Outline planning for 5 affordable dwellinghouses and 1 open market dwellinghouse (amended description and information received 6th February 2018) Ward Croscombe And Pilton Parish North Wootton Parish Council

This application is referred to Planning Board for a decision as it relates to the re-determination of the planning application following the original approval being quashed in the Court of Appeal in November 2017. As the Council’s original decision was quashed this requires the Local Planning Authority to re-make the decision on a proper basis and having regard to the decision of the Court. Description of Site, Proposal and Constraints The application relates to land south of Stocks Lane, North Wootton. The application seeks outline planning permission with all matters reserved for subsequent approval, those being matters related to the (a) layout (b) scale (c) appearance (d) access and (e) landscaping of the site. The application now seeks permission for ‘up to’ 5 affordable homes and 1 open market dwelling house. The application describes the affordable units as 2 x 2 bed units and 3 x 3 bed units, while the private dwelling is cited as a 4 bed. The applicant has, following the quashing of the original decision, amended the scheme in the following ways:

• A revised description of development is now proposed with 5 instead of 6 affordable units • A revised Outline Drawing • Revised Design & Access Statement, including Revised Financial Statement • Updated Ecology Survey • New drainage details

Legal background (summary) Outline planning permission was granted by the Council’s Planning Board for ‘upto six affordable housing units and 1 open market dwelling’ in May 2016 contrary to the Officer’s recommendation. The Officer’s report, at the time, had recommended permission was refused on the following grounds (summarised): 1. The scale of the development proposed (up to 6 dwellings) was not necessary to meet a clearly identified need for affordable housing.

2. It has not been demonstrated that would proposed arrangements for cross-subsidising the affordable housing by the market housing component, would satisfactorily allow for the affordable homes to be retained in perpetuity for occupation by those in housing need.

3. The proposed development, by reason of its scale and extent, and the proposed position of the market house in a location separate from the affordable housing, would result in unnecessary encroachment of development, harming the character and appearance of the countryside and failing to allow for integration between the different tenures of accommodation. The planning approval was subsequently challenged in the High Court by a local resident on four grounds. His Honour Judge Jarman QC rejected the claim on all grounds in a decision dated 3rd November 2016. However, subsequent permission to appeal the High Court decision was granted on one ground only; namely whether the Council had misinterpreted Policy DP12 if it considered the grant of permission was in accordance with that policy. The Court of Appeal (McFarlane and Sales LJJ) allowed the appeal and quashed the grant of planning permission (in a decision dated 7/11/17). The Court of Appeal held that the language of policy DP12(1)(a) is clear and the development must do no more than provide affordable homes that meet a clearly identified need for affordable housing as identified in the latest Local Housing Needs Assessment specific to that settlement. The Court of Appeal decision confirmed that ‘meet’ bears its ordinary meaning of meeting but not exceeding – the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for ‘upto six dwellings’ did not therefore comply with DP12 as the number of affordable housing units permitted exceeded the identified need (of five units).

Summary of Parish Council comments, representations and consultee comments

Case officer note: The amended description and plans reducing the scheme to five affordable units have been subject of a formal re-consultation exercise, a summary of the latest responses is provided below. North Wootton Parish Council (have responded on three separate occasions to the re- consultation – the comments below are verbatim) 7/3/18 - North Wootton parish council resolved to support this application by a majority decision of two votes to one. 13/3/18 - Please find additional information that North Wootton PC would kindly ask is placed on MDC's website in support of the statement sent through concerning the decision of this parish council to support the application by a majority of two to one. Our response to the consultation was initially brief to communicate the parish council's decision within the timescale afforded to us but given the importance of this decision to the community, we would be grateful if these further observations were added to our initial comment. "Following our report on 7th March regarding this application the Parish Council considers that it ought to explain the thoughts behind its decision. A special meeting was called for 6th March to discuss this Outline application - unfortunately only three of the five elected councillors were able to attend but this number formed a valid quorum. The public meeting was attended by some forty members of the village reflecting the strong interest/feeling still apparent amongst the community regarding this application. The chairman allowed agreed speakers to address the council - three in support and three opposed to the development. The applicant had responded to an earlier appeal for sites to be put forward for use to provide affordable housing within the village but many residents are doubtful that there remains a valid demand for such housing as the last Housing Needs Survey available is from 2013. After the public statements had been allowed, the Chairman reconvened the meeting to allow the three councillors present to debate the Outline application. The Council had previously expressed concerns about the layout of the units but some of these concerns have been reflected by reducing the numbers of affordable homes from 6 down to 5 and amending the size of two of them. The council acknowledges that final details of the houses though will be the subject of a subsequent Reserved Matters application so did not need to be considered at this recent meeting. Council are aware that under Policy DP12, Mendip District Council requires formal support from the Parish Council for these affordable housing schemes and these must be supported by an 'up to date' housing needs survey. One councillor felt that the 2013 survey may not adequately reflect the current need but two councillors were satisfied that the result of the 2013 survey could still be relied upon. On a vote therefore the decision to support the application was passed by two votes to one. In the event that the application goes to Planning Committee the Parish Council would like the opportunity to address the meeting to confirm these observations" 8/5/18 - At a meeting held on 6th March 2018 a majority voted in favour of building 5 Affordable Homes, together with one market value residential house, as supported by the latest Housing Needs Survey, subject to new and more detailed plans." Housing Enabler 5

The difference between this proposal and that of the previous application (approved 13th May 2016) - is in the reduction of one affordable home, which is to address an issue raised by a recent Judicial Review Process. In the context of policy - it is being promoted through Rural Exception Site Policy and MDC's Local Plan Policy - DP12. Rural exception site policies have a specific purpose - it is there to help support communities with the provision of affordable housing. This is usually on sites outside of an identified settlement boundary, or in areas that would not normally receive planning consent, or where market housing would not normally be acceptable. This type of policy allows local planning authorities the opportunity to consider the community value and appropriateness of building affordable housing in rural locations, providing there is justification and evidence of housing need. Housing needs information is essential in justifying a planning application for rural exception schemes. It's understood that this proposal is relying on the 2013 Housing Needs Survey and the justification for the 5 x affordable housing units. The reality of this is that, the 2013 Housing Report is out of date and not necessarily the most reliable or accurate data source. Demographics and housing needs have most likely changed over the last five years and Housing Needs Surveys have a 'shelf life' which are usually no longer than three years. Whilst the number aligns with the number of units proposed; it's not necessarily a true picture of housing need for 5 x 3 bed affordable units, as the current demand below demonstrates. The most up-to-date housing data below, taken from the councils housing register, is telling us that the demand for social/affordable housing in North Wootton has not changed sufficiently or improved even, since the last time we investigated the data. The demand was low before and the unit requirement has also changed to 1 bed requirement. For example, there are currently 2 x households registered for housing who have expressed a preference to living North Wootton. But their demand status is low, they're not in any priority need (suggesting as before that they are adequately housed) and both applicants have bedroom requirement is for 1 bed (not 3 x bedroom need, as per the proposal). I've tried to take an objective view to this application, but for all intents and purposes, it is the same as before, nothing has fundamentally changed or improved. I take account however, that the technical detail fits with the policy, DP12: Rural Exception Policy, but there is still no new evidence to support the proposal. Housing Needs information is critical to a development of this type and by relying on old information is not helpful in assessing this proposal. I believe it contradicts with the true picture. I therefore have concluded that I cannot give support to this application. Environmental Protection – no objection, as previously County Ecologist – no objection subject to conditions. Drainage Engineer – no objection subject of conditions Highway Authority – no objection, as previously. 6

Representations 13 letters of support and 17 letters of objection received in response to the re- consultation exercise raising the following points (summarised):

• People have to move away because of lack of housing, much needed, meets local needs, village can grow in a balanced way • housing is the only way for the younger generation to be able to stay in the village, brings diversity to the village • Not overly intrusive • The fact that this proposal involves no grant or subsidy from local or central government militates strongly in its favour • Final details will be part of reserved matters • The original council houses were sold to their tenants • The applicant has a long-standing connection to the village • Goalposts should not be moved part way through the process • Original decision should be supported • Revised plans take account of concerns • Parish Council have supported the scheme

• The land was sold as paddock not a building site • Loss of views • No need for the development, Housing Needs Survey is out-of-date, housing need should be based on the current register, houses likely to be offered to those outside the village • Court of Appeal has determined there is no need for six houses, Mendip had to pay the costs of the case, already told by the appeal court that Mendip cannot be flexible in interpreting DP12 • Mendip’s own housing officer recommends refusal • Proposed size of the units does not cater for need • Not a sustainable location, lack of amenities, transport, shop • Not in keeping with the rural character • Contravenes the Local Plan, houses already planned at the Crossways Hotel • No consultation on alternatives • Building work disruption • Increased surface water flows • Adds to the parking problem, increase in traffic • Overshadowing effect • No new dwellings are allowed in North Wootton, object to the carrot offered by the Planning Dept. re. giving over land to allow building. • Anyone can go on the housing register • How is the cross-subsidy viable, no viable mechanism to ensure the houses remain affordable indefinitely • 2013 Housing Needs Survey was never robust, independent and not up- to-date new survey is required • Noise impacts • Poorly positioned/designed • Attempt to build a private house on land where they would not normally have a chance.

Full details of all consultation responses can be found on the Council’s website www.mendip.gov.uk

Relevant planning history None (though see previous section titled ‘legal background’)

Summary of all planning policies relevant to the proposal 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: Mendip District Local Plan Part 1 2006 – 2029 (adopted December 2014) CP1 (Spatial Strategy), CP4 (Sustaining Rural Communities) DP1 (Local Identity and Distinctiveness), DP4 (Mendip’s Landscapes), DP5 (Biodiversity and Ecological Networks), DP7 (Design and Amenity), DP8 (Environmental Protection), DP9 (Transport Impact of New Development), DP10 (Parking Standards), DP12 (Rural Affordable Housing) Other material considerations National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPG) North Wootton Village Design Statement Countywide Parking Strategy SPD

Assessment of relevant issues Principle of Development In the adopted Local Plan Core Policy 1 (CP1) sets out the Spatial Strategy to enable the most sustainable pattern of growth for Mendip District. The Strategy seeks to direct the majority of development to the District’s five principal settlements (market towns) and then a hierarchy of named Primary and Secondary Villages. North Wootton is not identified as a Primary or Secondary Village in CP1. 8

Core Policy 1 Para. 1 (c) says that development in the open countryside [such as here] will be strictly controlled but may exceptionally be permitted in line with the provisions set out in Core Policy 4: Sustaining Rural Communities. Paragraph 4.14 of the Local Plan explains that: ‘Where exceptional development is considered in communities unnamed in the policy (under Core Policy 1 , section 1) a) ii), any site should be broadly adjacent to the existing built extent of the community concerned and have regard to the surrounding landscape setting, as well as being compliant with national and local planning policies.’ Core Policy 4 says rural settlements and the wider rural area will be sustained by, amongst other things: ‘Identifying and delivering opportunities for the provision of rural affordable housing, secured for the benefit of the community in perpetuity, where there is evidence of local need as set out in Development Policies 11 and 12.’ The application site is broadly adjacent to the existing built extent of North Wootton, however in-light of the above points if compliance with Policy DP12 cannot be demonstrated permission should be refused as a matter of principle. Local Plan Policy DP12 – Rural Exceptions Sites Given the importance of this policy to the proposal, the wording is set out in full below: 1. As an exception to normal policy for the provision of housing set out in Core Policies 1 and 2, affordable housing for local people may be permitted in locations adjoining existing rural settlements on small sites where development would not otherwise be permitted where: (a) the development will provide affordable homes that meet a clearly identified need for affordable housing as identified in the latest Local Housing Needs Assessment specific to that settlement; and (b) the need cannot reasonably be met in any other way on a site where housing would be permitted under normal policies; and (c) the development satisfies other policies in this Plan, with particular regard being given to its integration into the form and character of the settlement and its landscape setting. 2. All Exception Sites approved under this policy will be made subject to a planning obligation to ensure that: (a) all initial and subsequent occupiers of the affordable dwellings will be eligible local people, in the first instance, and (b) affordable homes secured under the policy are retained in perpetuity for 3. The inclusion of market housing will be supported where any such scheme meets all the criteria in the preceding parts of this policy, and: (a) which has clear evidence of support from the local Parish Council.

(b) demonstrates, through detailed financial appraisal, that the scale of the market housing component is essential for the successful delivery of the development. (c) ensures no additional subsidy for the scheme and its affordable housing delivery is required. These criteria are considered below. Clearly identified need for affordable housing The application now seeks outline consent for ‘up to’ 5 affordable dwellings, with 1 market dwelling. The Parish Needs Assessment for the settlement (carried out in 2013) identified a need for 5 affordable homes in the village of North Wootton, with a requirement for 4 x three-bed rented homes and 1 x four-bed shared-ownership/low- cost home ownership home. The Council’s Housing Enabling Officer has raised concerns, as set out in detail above, regarding the ‘age’ of the 2013 Housing Needs Assessment and the relevance of other evidence regarding housing need locally (such as the Housing Register). These concerns have been echoed by some local residents. At para. 34 of the High Court judgement for this site Judge Jarman said the following; ‘There are good policy reasons for choosing the latest local housing needs assessment as the indicator of need rather than, for example, the number of those who the trouble of registering with the authority for housing. As Ms Richards recognised, even that assessment may not discover every need, and as the authority members recognised, such need is constantly changing…..’ The Court of Appeal found the High Court decision to be erroneous with regards to the proper interpretation of policy DP12 but the Court of Appeal judgement reaffirmed the latest local housing needs assessment as the relevant reference point. The Lord Justice Sales, in the Court of Appeal judgement, said (at para. 39 (i)): I consider that the language of policy DP12(1)(a) is clear. The development must do no more than provide affordable homes “that meet a clearly identified need for affordable housing as identified in the latest Local Housing Needs Assessment specific to that settlement”…… The judgement went onto say: It is true that housing needs may change over time, but policy DP12 uses a clear and specific reference point: the number clearly identified in the latest assessment (in our case the 5 affordable homes in the 2013 assessment). It is easy to understand why, since it is by doing this that the Local Plan can clearly inform the public of the approach which will be followed when applications are made for permission for residential development in rural villages which are not primary or secondary villages and of the number of homes which will be allowed, so as “to secure consistency and direction in the exercise of [the Council’s] discretionary powers”…… In-light of the points above whilst the concerns regarding the relevance of the 2013 Housing Needs Assessment are acknowledged they must be considered in the context that planning-law places a duty on local planning authorities to determine

proposals in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. As both the relevant Court judgements have set out that policy (DP12) emphasises the importance of a focus on the particular quantum of housing need identified in a specific source – that being meeting a clearly identified need for affordable housing as identified in the latest Local Housing Needs Assessment specific to that settlement (5 units in this case). Whilst the latest housing needs assessment for North Wootton is from 2013, and therefore now 5 years old, and it is considered none of the other material considerations, including the evidence from the Housing Register, is sufficient to outweigh the compliance of the current application proposals with the relevant policy wording. The need cannot reasonably be met in any other way Policy DP12 only supports exception site development where the need cannot reasonably be met in any other way on a site where housing would be permitted under normal policies. North Wootton is not generally considered a sustainable location for development, reflected by the fact that it is not identified as either a Primary or Secondary Village in Core Policy 1. There are no development limits for North Wootton where housing could therefore be delivered on a site through infill or redevelopments within Development Limits. There are no sites proposed to be allocated for housing in North Wootton through the draft Local Plan Part 2 process as it is neither a Primary/Secondary Village. As such the only scope for the housing need to be met on a site where housing would be permitted under normal policies (other than as an exception site) is through conversion of existing buildings. There is no substantive evidence that such buildings exist or are available in or near the village. The planning permission for 14 dwellings on the adjacent Crossways Inn site (2009/1904) was granted, in March 2010, under the auspices of the previous Local Plan (albeit the adjacent development makes no provision for affordable housing as it fell below the then threshold for such provision). There is no definitive evidence as to whether the Crossways permission remains extant or not (no dwellings have been constructed). Inclusion of market housing and financial considerations Paragraph 3 of DP12 says the inclusion of market housing, such as the single market- dwelling proposed here, will be supported (in addition to meeting all the other DP12 criteria) in schemes: (a) which has clear evidence of support from the local Parish Council. (b) demonstrates, through detailed financial appraisal, that the scale of the market housing component is essential for the successful delivery of the development. (c) ensures no additional subsidy for the scheme and its affordable housing delivery is required.

The Parish Council have, of their own volition, responded on three occasions to the Council’s consultation on the revised development. The overall thrust of the Parish Council’s comments on each occasion is that they support the scheme. As previously the intention is that the developer of the site (Pat Bridgeman) would receive the land for the 5 affordable homes for nil financial consideration, but would construct, manage and maintain the affordable homes. Meanwhile the land owner (Mr and Mrs Gordon) would not receive any financial consideration for the land for the affordable units, but instead would benefit from the planning consent for the single open market dwelling on land they would retain. The previous case officer raised concerns about the financial model proposed. The officer reported, inter alia; ‘Therefore, while the scale of the market component may not be unacceptable, the nature of the applicant’s financial model is that the affordable housing component would not be financially sustainable. The cost of building the affordable houses would not be met because there is insufficient cross-subsidy, with an excessive amount going to the landowners (the Gordons). Once built, this means that there would be a significant risk of the LPA being faced with pressure to allow some (or all) of the affordable restrictions to be relaxed (eg by allowing market not social rents). This is because the affordable housing units would not otherwise be viable for the provider, Pat Bridgeman. If permission were granted, the LPA would have accepted what appears to be an unsustainable financial model. It would then be difficult for the LPA (or an Inspector at appeal) to resist these pressures for relaxation because it would then be insisting that the developer continue with an unprofitable venture.’ The applicant has provided a revised development appraisal for the current application setting out the revenue and costs associated with the development. Amongst other things it shows that, in crude terms, the cost of constructing the affordable housing in the revised scheme now proposed would now be 5/6th of the previous scheme (there being five instead of six affordable dwellings). As such the potential cross-subsidy ‘gap’ referred to by the previous case officer would be less than previously. Moreover, in the High Court case (from 2016) for this site one of the four grounds of appeal was (in summary) that the evidence did not establish the necessary need or cross subsidy. In paragraph 35 of the High Court decision it was said that; …In my judgement, the incentive to make that gift [of the land for the affordable housing] is the benefit of planning permission for the four-bedroom house, which would not otherwise be granted. The authority was entitled to conclude that, in the words used in DP12, the market housing component is essential for the successful delivery for the development. As explained in the supporting text, this requirement ensures that the focus is upon securing affordable homes which is the fundamental basis for the rural exceptions policy. There is no particular method expressed in DP12 of showing that the market component is essential for the successful delivery of the development and in my judgement it is impermissible to imply a particular method. The High Court rejected the claim on this ground regarding the cross-subsidy and the requirement that this is essential.

Taking account of all of the matters in the round it is considered that the scheme includes only sufficient market housing (1 unit) required to cross subsidise affordable homes which still make up the majority of the total number of units proposed (as set out in paragraph 6.116 of the Local Plan this ensures that focus is upon securing affordable homes which remains the fundamental basis for the wider rural exceptions policy). The application sets out that no additional public subsidy is required to deliver the affordable homes. Planning obligation As with the previous, quashed, planning approval on this site the applicant is willing to enter into a planning obligation (S106) to secure that: a) all initial and subsequent occupiers of the affordable dwellings will be eligible local people, in the first instance, and b) affordable homes secured under the policy are retained in perpetuity for occupation by those in housing need. Such an obligation would ensure the scheme complies with paragraph 2 of the Policy DP12. However, until such time as suitable planning obligation is entered into planning permission should not be granted for the development. Character and Appearance of the area The previous case officer assessment for this application considered that the erection dwellings on this site would be clearly harm the rural character and appearance of this part of the village, changing what is currently an attractive field into built-up development. The case officer went onto say that, although the application is in outline, its red line boundary shows two clear and divided sites. This remains the case now with plots 1 to 5 (affordable units) to the north of the site and plot 6 (the market dwelling) separately to the south. Between the two there is a significant gap (of up to 50m) which would remain countryside. The previous officer assessment also set out that the proposed indicative arrangements would also fail to allow for integration between the different tenures of accommodation and Local Plan paragraph 6.113 specifically says that affordable and market housing units should not be unduly segregated. Paragraph 50 and 69 of the NPPF similarly supports mixed communities. The previous case officer recommended that the application be refused on the basis of the adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area. The fundamental approach of separating the affordable housing and the single market unit is unchanged in the revised scheme and there remains no planning reason why the development as a whole should not form one site rather than being unnecessarily and harmfully spread out. Policy DP12 refers to proposals on ‘small sites’ and the supporting text says specifically that exception site development includes open market housing on the same site. By drawing the site boundary as proposed, the open market housing would effectively be on a different ‘site’ and therefore policy DP12 is not met in this respect.

DP12 (1) (c) also says the rural exception sites should satisfy other policies in the Local Plan, with particular regard being given to its integration into the form and character of the settlement and its landscape setting. It is considered that the development as proposed, by virtue of its layout and poor integration, would be harmful to character and appearance of the area and this should be considered in the overall planning balance. Amenity, including noise The Council’s Environmental Health Officers have considered the applicant’s acoustic assessment in-light of the revised scheme and they continue to raise no objection on noise grounds and therefore this issue should not form a reason for refusal. There is sufficient separation distance and the change in topography to ensure that the proposed development would not have a materially harmful impact on the amenity of the nearest neighbours. Similarly, it is considered that future occupiers of the development would be provided a satisfactory living environment (subject to details reserved matters design). The loss of an individual ‘view’ is not a material planning consideration. Highway Safety The County Council as Highway Authority has been consulted on the application and they raise no objection to the proposal subject to conditions which is consistent with their advice for the previous scheme here for a total of seven dwellings (i.e. one more than now proposed). It is therefore considered that the proposal is acceptable in respect of highway safety. Ecology An updated ecological survey prepared by Crossman Associates in January 2018 was submitted with the revised details. The site is of intensively grazed grassland. The field is entirely bound by well managed mature native hedgerows that are continuous and link into the wider hedgerow network. The County Council’s Ecologist has considered the survey and mitigation methods and is satisfied that, subject to conditions, ecology does not for a reason for resisting the proposed development.

Environmental Impact Assessment This development is not considered to require an Environmental Assessment under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017. Conclusion Planning law requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Paragraph 12 of the NPPF says that proposed development that accords with an up-to-date Local Plan should be approved, and proposed development that conflicts should be refused unless other material considerations indicate otherwise.

The High Court and Court of Appeal Judgements in respect of the development of this site are material considerations in the (re) assessment of the application. Policy DP12 allows, as an exception to normal policy for the provision of housing set out in Core Policies 1 and 2, affordable housing for local people may be permitted in locations adjoining existing rural settlements on small sites – subject to various criteria which are considered above. It is considered in light of the preceding analysis that the revised scheme would be acceptable in principle. The provision of affordable housing is an important factor and represents a benefit of the scheme but weighing against the proposal is the significant harm to the character and appearance of the area associated with the poorly laid out development that separates the affordable housing and market unit onto two distinct parcels of land. It is considered, in weighing the planning balance, that the harm to the character of the area outweighs the benefits. Furthermore, the absence of a completed S106 forms a second reason for refusal (this reason could be addressed through the completion of a satisfactory planning obligation).

Reason/s for Recommendation

1. The proposed development, by reason of its layout, scale and extent, including the proposed position of the market house in a location separate from the affordable housing, would result in unnecessary encroachment of development, harming the character and appearance of the countryside and failing to allow for integration between the different tenures of accommodation. In this respect, the development would therefore be contrary to policies DP4, DP7 and DP12 of the Mendip District Local Plan 2006 - 2029 Part I (adopted December 2014) and the advice in the National Planning Policy Framework, including paragraphs 50 and 69. 2. In the absence of a planning obligation under s106 of the Town and Country planning Act 1990 to secure the affordable housing provision, including obligations that all initial and subsequent occupiers of the affordable dwellings will be eligible local people, in the first instance, and the affordable homes are retained in perpetuity for occupation by those in housing need, the development would be contrary to policies CP1, CP2 and DP12 of the Mendip District Local Plan 2006 - 2029 Part I (adopted December 2014).

List of Advices 1. This decision relates to drawings 3001A, S5754/100B, Ecological Appraisal dated 15/1/18 (ref. P1104.026) and the Design and Access Statement (revised). 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.

Agenda Item No. DM02 Case Officer Miss Lynsey Bradshaw Site Carpark Of Kudos Night Club Princes Road Wells BA5 1TE Application Number 2018/0229/FUL Date Received 30th January 2018 Applicant/ Mrs Ramazan Ibrahim Organisation Application Type Full Application Proposal Change of use from sui generis (commercial car park) to a mixed use of sui generis (commercial car park) and A5 (stationing of a mobile unit for hot food take away) (description amended 13.04.2018). Ward Wells St Cuthberts Parish Wells City Council

This application is referred to Planning Board following referral of the officer recommendation to the Ward Members and subsequent consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Planning Board. Description of Site, Proposal and Constraints: The application relates to an area of the car park that serves the Kudos nightclub, on the corner of Princes Road and Priory Road, in Wells. The Kudos nightclub itself is a Grade II listed building. The site is within the development limits and town centre boundary of Wells, and specifically identified in the Wells City Strategy where Core Policy 10c applies. The site is also within archaeologically sensitive areas, main river buffers, and flood zone 2. The application seeks full planning permission for a change of use from sui generis (commercial car park) to a mixed use of sui generis (commercial car park) and A5 (stationing of a mobile unit for hot food take away).

Relevant History: There is no specific planning history for the site, but it has historically been used as a car park in association with the Regal Cinema, which was previously converted into the current Kudos nightclub. The business previously operated across the road, where the planning history was as follows: ENF/2013/0311 - Without planning permission, the change of use of land from Class B1 (vehicle washing place) to a mixed use of Class B1 (vehicle washing place) and Class A5 (stationing of a mobile unit for hot-food take-away). 17

Appeal: APP/Q3305/C/14/2223746 (appeal against enforcement notice) Subject to correction appeal allowed decision notice quashed. Temporary permission for 1 year 2015/2297/FUL - External alterations to building and alteration to forecourt to facilitate conversion of existing hand car wash into a retail unit (use class A1) and a takeaway unit (use class A5) (amended description and plans and additional information received 16/12/15). Approved with conditions 18.01.2016. Redevelopment of the site 2016/3131/FUL - Change of use from hand car wash (sui generis) to mixed use of hand car wash and A5 (hot food take away) and permanent positioning of mobile food unit (retrospective). Approved with conditions 27.03.2017. Permanent siting of hot food take-away 2017/0767/FUL - Demolition of existing building and erection of new building (reduced footprint), and change of use from sui generis to A1 (shops) and A5 (hot food takeaway) use. Approved with conditions 04.07.2017. Redevelopment of the site

Summary of Ward Councillor comments, Town/Parish Council comments, representations and consultee comments: During the life of the application the description was amended to include “(stationing of a mobile unit for hot food take away)”, and interested parties were re-consulted. Ward Members: Cannot support this application Wells City Council: Recommend refusal for the following reasons: 1. Prior history of this enterprise a. encouraging loitering, b. discouraging people from dispersing after leaving the nightclub c. generating noise and anti-social behaviour. 2. There are concerns that the permitted hours would be exceeded, as before, with no effective enforcement action taken 3. The proposed site will again affect a residential area. 4. The Council has a duty to have regard to prevention of crime and disorder; accordingly the committee felt they should object to this application. SCC Highways: No objection Environmental Protection: No objection subject to conditions Heritage Conservation Officer: No objection SCC Historic Environment Officer: No objection

Wells Civic Society: No representation received Twentieth Century Society: No representation received Environment Agency: No representation received Other Representations 5 letters of objection have been received raising the following issues:

• Noise and disturbance in residential area

o Noise survey inadequate • Increase in littering

• Cooking smells

• Operating hours

• Focal point of congregations of large crowds following the dispersal of kudos

• Anti-social behaviour

• How will the restrictions of this application be policed

• Where they going to keep their waste

• The town centre has vacant shops that could be utilised

• Loss of parking

• Toilet facilities for the staff

• Food storage 7 letters of support have been received raising the following issues:

• Local facility used mid evening by many people

• Provides choice

• Previous site loss meant van unable to continue trading.

• No reason why it should make any negative difference that the van is relocated

• Surrounded by other similar businesses

• Healthy competition and good food is a must for the area

• It has been sorely missed, with nothing to replace it.

• You can't get anything hot to eat in Wells after 11pm.

• Asset in providing healthy food

• Refer to the overwhelming support on the Wells community notice board

• Planning site is complicated, so are you really getting accurate public feedback? Full details of all consultation responses can be found on the Council’s website www.mendip.gov.uk

Summary of all planning policies and legislation relevant to the proposal: 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: The Council’s Development Plan comprises:

• Mendip District Local Plan Part I: Strategy and Policies (December 2014)

• Somerset Waste Core Strategy The following policies of the Local Plan Part 1 are relevant to the determination of this application:

• CP1 (Spatial Strategy)

• CP3 (Supporting Business Development and Growth)

• CP10 (Wells City Strategy)

• DP1 (Local Identity and Distinctiveness)

• DP3 (Heritage Conservation)

• DP7 (Design and Amenity)

• DP8 (Environmental Protection)

• DP9 (Transport Impact of New Development)

• DP10 (Parking Standards)

• DP21 (Managing Town Centre Uses)

• DP23 (Managing Flood Risk)

Other possible Relevant Considerations (without limitation): • 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 the Use:

The site is within the development limits and town centre boundary (but not primary shopping area or retail frontage) of Wells, where the principle of development is acceptable in accordance with CP1, CP3 and CP10. Core Policy 1 (CP1) of the adopted “Mendip District Local Plan - Part 1” says that to enable the most sustainable pattern of growth for Mendip District the majority of development will be directed to towards the five principal settlements (Frome, Shepton Mallet, Wells, Glastonbury and Street). The local plan’s emphasis is on reusing previously developed land within existing settlement limits. Core Policy 3 (CP3) of the adopted “Mendip District Local Plan - Part 1” says that proposals for economic development will be supported where they accord with CP1, and encourage a diverse, robust, thriving and resilient local economy. The development of high quality job opportunities and improving the skills of the existing workforce are major drivers in the implementation of the local plan. The site is also within a Town Centre Development Area known as land at Princes Road/ Priory Road to which CP10C of the policies map refers, where up to 7,500sqm of non-food retail is that complements the city historic core is sought. However, this policy is aspirational, and does not preclude other types of development. In addition, the proposed site is within a car park, which limits opportunities for non-food retail development. The takeaway would be 49m² and was previously sited on the other side of Priory Road (following enforcement appeal, and subsequently approved by planning permission 2016/3131/FUL). That site has an extant permission to be redeveloped for retail and A5. The principle of this development is therefore considered acceptable, subject to the consideration of the design of the proposal, and its impact on the heritage assets and character and appearance of the area, highway safety, neighbour amenity and flood risk.

Design of the Development and Impact on the Street Scene and Surrounding Area: The proposal site is in the east corner of the existing car park. The nightclub is a Grade II listed building of red brick. To the east of the site are modern industrial units (St Andrews Park) with metal sheeting exteriors, and the single storey building (The Wells Film Centre) of render walls and concrete/metal/asbestos roof sheets. To the south of the site is the old bus station (The Quarter Jack), predominantly of red brick, but with a render section that is directly behind the site. The proposed mobile unit is a modern prefabricated design, with composite PPC cladding, and a flat roof. It is considered that the discreet siting and modest size of the unit is not significantly detrimental to the varied existing character and appearance of the area to constitute a reason for refusal. The proposed design and materials are therefore considered to be in accordance with DP1 and DP7.

Impact on Listed Building: The site is the car park to a Grade II listed building (Kudos Night Club, formally the Regal Cinema). The heritage asset dates from 1935 and was built as a cinema in the 'Moderne' style. It has architectural value which is attributed to its bespoke design by ES Roberts and its rare surviving interior decorative scheme. It also has historic value as it is a primary record of the early cinema and film industry and popular entertainment venues of the mid-20th century. The public accessibility and use of the building both past and present gives it a strong community value. All of these contribute to its overall significance. The proposed hot food takeaway unit is of standard design using standard modern materials, however, its location in the rear corner of site would result in limited impact to the setting of the listed building. The proposals would therefore have no impact on the values of the asset that make up its overall significance. In line with the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Area) Act 1990 special regard is given to preserving the heritage asset. In this instance it is considered that there is no harm to the significance of the designated heritage asset and therefore, having regard to the provisions of Policy DP3 (Heritage Conservation) of the Mendip District Local Plan 2006-2029 (Part 1 Strategies and Policies - adopted 15th December 2014), the NPPF, and Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, the proposed development is considered acceptable from a conservation perspective.

Impact on Residential Amenity: The site is within the town centre boundary of Wells where a certain amount of general public activity and associated noise is to be expected. There are adjacent nightclub, pub and restaurant uses. However, it is considered that Wells is a relatively quiet city, with little transport or general background noise being generated later at night, and there are some residential dwellings in the area, particularly along Priory Road to the south of the site. The Environmental Protection Officer raised some concerns regarding the impact of the proposal on neighbour amenity. However, it is noted that proposed use (this business) was previously sited across the other side of Princes Road. That site was the subject on an enforcement appeal. The main issue under consideration in the enforcement appeal (APP/Q3305/C/14/2223746) was the impact on the living conditions of the occupiers of nearby residential properties. At the time of the appeal (21st April 2015) the premises had been open for 3 and a half years. In summing up, the Inspector stated that: “the business is established and appears to be well run. In view of this, and the absence of cogent evidence of harm to date, I consider that a grant of planning permission for a temporary period of 1 year would be proportionate and appropriate in the circumstances. This would enable both the appellant and the Council to objectively assess the development”

Whereas the site on the opposite side of the road had the high walls and substation between it and the dwellings on Priory Road, the current site has no such acoustic barriers between it and those dwellings. In addition, it is closer to the ‘Kudos’ nightclub. The Environmental Protection Team raised some concerns that the application undermines the dispersal policy of the adjacent 'Kudos' nightclub venue by encouraging users of the premises to congregate in the immediate vicinity of the hot food takeaway unit. However, the dispersal policy is a matter that can be dealt with through the licensing process for both the takeaway unit and the ‘Kudos’ nightclub and the Environmental Protection Team. In addition, an important factor is that the hours of operation for the proposal would restrict the business to ending prior to the hours of operation for the nightclub. If approved, these hours would be imposed by condition. The Council’s Environmental Protection Team considers the submitted noise assessment has some deficiencies with regards to the acoustic assessment and calculations. Taking all of the above into consideration, particularly the relevant planning history, it is considered that a permission for temporary period of 18 months, similar to that imposed by the Inspector in the enforcement appeal, would be reasonable. This would give the business time to operate through several seasons, including the summer months when local residents are more likely to have their windows open at night, and would provide the opportunity to demonstrate that there is no harm to neighbour amenity and that it does not conflict with the nightclub use. Subject to the proposed conditions, and having regard to the planning Inspector’s decision on APP/Q3305/C/14/2223746, it is considered that the proposal is acceptable in accordance with Policies DP7 and DP8 of the Local Plan.

Assessment of Highway Issues: There are no proposed changes to the access for the site. Given the existing use, 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 loss of 4 parking spaces within the car park. SCC Highways officer considered that the loss of these parking spaces would not have a detrimental effect on the local highway network. The loss of parking spaces is therefore considered to be acceptable.

Assessment of flood risk: The mobile unit is approximately 49m² and is within Flood Zone 2 and the 8m Main River Buffer. With regard to flood risk, Hot Food Takeaways are considered to be a ‘less vulnerable’ use, and ‘extensions’ under 250m² are considered ‘minor’. The proposal would be sited on an existing area of hardstanding. Therefore, the development does not propose to increase the impermeable areas, and so there would be no net change in surface water runoff.

The proposed use does not include any internal customer seating, and so customer interaction with the takeaway would be on foot. It can be therefore be assumed that the users would have a high degree of awareness of the surrounding situation when using the site. The mobile unit’s internal floor level is approximately 300mm above the external ground level, as recommended for development in Flood Zone 2, and it has 2 entrance doors. While there is no directly applicable Environment Agency standing advice, taking the above together, the proposal is not considered to contribute to flood risk in the area, and the dangers arising from the risk of flooding on future workers and users is considered acceptable.

Assessment of impact on Archaeology: The site is within an Area of High Archaeological Potential, Area of Archaeological Interest, and Site of Archaeological Importance. However, the proposal does not include any ground works. The SCC Historic Environment Officer did not object to the proposal. The impact of the development on archaeological remains in the area is therefore considered to be in accordance with DP3.

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.

Other matters: Local residents have raised concerns regarding enforcement issues. This would be a matter for consideration for enforcement officers if there was a breach in planning controls, or the terms of a licence. Local residents raised concerns regarding the disposal of waste. The application form states that the rubbish would be stored in a bin. Local residents raised concerns regarding a toilet for the staff. Employers are required by law to provide adequate facilities for their staff. Local residents raised concerns regarding where food will be stored. Such catering units are designed to be self-contained. In addition, the previous site was considered to be well run at the time is was given permanent consent, when using the same facilities. Concerns were raised that the Planning section of the Mendip District Council’s website was too complicated, and whether this would lead to an inaccurate picture of public feeling. However, it is not necessary to use the website to make representations, as there is also a dedicated email address, and an address to send letters.

Conclusion: The proposal site is located within the town centre boundary, where some late night activity is to be expected. It is recommended that planning permission is granted for the temporary period of 18 months in order to ensure that the accumulation of

activity does not give rise to unacceptable harm to neighbour amenity. The detail of the day-to-day operation of the proposal site would be secured by conditions. Any breaches to these conditions, or separate licencing or civil matters would be subject to enforcement or civil action. The proposal is not considered harmful to the setting of the heritage assets or general character and appearance of the area, or highway safety.

Recommendation: Approve with conditions

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 setting of adjoining Listed Building would not be harmed. 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. 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:- CP1, CP3 and CP10 (principle of development), DP1 (local identity), DP3 (heritage), DP7 (design and amenity), DP8 (environmental protection), DP9 (transport impact of new development), DP10 (parking standards), DP21 (managing town centre uses), DP23 (managing flood risk) of the Mendip District Local Plan 2006-2029 (Part 1 Strategies and Policies - adopted 15th December 2014) National Planning Policy Framework Planning Practice Guidance The Countywide Parking Strategy (2013)

Conditions

1. The development hereby permitted shall be for a limited period expiring 18 months from the date of this decision. At the end of this period the use hereby permitted shall cease, all structures, materials and equipment brought on to, or erected on the land, or works undertaken to it in connection with the use, shall be removed, and the land restored to its condition before the development took place. Reason: Permission has only been granted on a temporary basis in the interests of ensuring neighbour amenity. 2. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with drawing number F1455/001 submitted for the application validated on 30th January 2018. Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interest of proper planning. 3. The use hereby approved shall be carried out only between the hours of 15:00 - 00:30 on Sundays to Thursdays, 15:00 - 01:00 on Friday and Saturday. Reason: To minimise the effect of noise from the development on occupiers of nearby properties in the interests of residential amenity.

List of Advices

1. 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. 2. The applicant is reminded that compliance with the conditions attached to this consent does not provide any guarantees that the requirements of either the Statutory Nuisance provisions of Part III of The Environmental Protection Act 1990 or the Licensing Act 2003 can be achieved and does not preclude the Council from taking action under those Acts. Good management using a clear well communicated management plan, updated to respond to needs, is key to preventing reasonable cause for annoyance for nearby residents. The aim is to prevent any anti-social behaviour and excessive noise being audible and discernible at any noise sensitive receptor, particularly after 23.00 hours. 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 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.

4. In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework the Council has worked in a positive and pro-active way and has imposed planning conditions to enable the grant of planning permission.

Agenda Item No. DM03 Case Officer Anna Clark Site Land At Dyehouse Lane Glastonbury BA6 9QS Application Number 2018/0433/FUL Date Received 19th February 2018 Applicant/ Harding and Tredger Organisation Application Type Full Application Proposal Change of use and enclosure of approximately 0.18 hectares of land at the field to the north west end of Dyehouse Lane, Glastonbury to form a permanent pitch for two coaches to be used as tea-rooms, including the provision of twelve car parking spaces and cycle parking complete with WC provision (x2) and the installation of a below ground self-contained sewage treatment unit. Access to and from the site via the existing fields access to the south and north ends of the field on to Dyehouse Lane. (Additional supporting statement received 9/3/18)

Ward Glastonbury St Benedicts Parish Glastonbury Town Council

This application is referred to the Planning Board following consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair as the parish council and ward member declared an interest. Description of Site, Proposal and Constraints: The application relates to a section of farmland on the western side of Dyehouse Lane, outside of the development limits of Glastonbury. The site is part of a plot of land used by an animal rescue centre known as “Teenage Wasteland Rescue Centre.” According to the Council’s records, the application site is within flood zone 2 (although the agent has demonstrated the Environment Agency classify it as flood zone 1) and a rhyne separates the site from the road frontage to Dyehouse Lane. The site is also within the Upper Brue Internal Drainage board area and is identified as being in a Tip Interest Zone. The site is surrounded by farmland, with residential uses on Northload Bridge and Meare Road (approx. 60m away) to the north and east and industrial uses in the distance (over 200m away) to the south. The proposal is for the change of use and enclosure of approximately 0.18 hectares of land to form a permanent pitch for two coaches to be used as tea-rooms. The proposal includes a wooden building for 2 toilets, installation of a below ground self- contained sewage treatment unit and car and cycle parking. Access would be gained 28

via the existing field accesses to the southern and northern ends of the field on to Dyehouse Lane. Following validation the following documents have been received

• Additional supporting statement (received 9/3/18)

• Visibility splays plan 18-07-18 (received 1/5/18)

• Letters of supports (received 3/5/18)

• Amended Block Plan 18-07_2A and Layout Plan 18-07_03A (received 5/06/18)

• Amended Design and Access Statement Revision A (received 26/06/18) The amendments change the scheme from a single and double decker to 2 single decker buses and provides additional detail in terms of the visibility splays for the accesses. The agent has advised they would be willing to provide green buses.

Relevant History: No planning history of relevance.

Summary of Ward Councillor comments, Town/Parish Council comments, representations and consultee comments: Ward Member: Declared an interest Glastonbury Parish Council: Declared an interest Highways Development Officer: Comments

• Satisfied with parking levels and trip generation following justification

• Advised that although the access arrangement appears to utilise existing accesses, one into the site and one for exiting the site, such access arrangements cannot be controlled and therefore each of the access points will need to provide appropriate visibility splays in either direction.

• Although visibility splays shown on additional plans raise concern that they utilise land not in the applicants control or adopted highway.

• Advises that if the visibility splays are not up to the required standard (2.4x 43m in either direction) the applicant will need to demonstrate that the vehicle speeds are commensurate with the 85 percentile of speeds along Dyehouse Lane. Environment Agency: Refer to standing advice MDC, Drainage Engineer: No objection.

• Advises that as this is an IDB area, the applicant will need to ensure that the relevant permissions are sought from the IDB. Drainage Board: No objection, request an informative

• Note there are insufficient details of how the foul water will be managed, but confirm this can be dealt with through the Land Drainage Consent Process and suggests an informative in this regard. Environmental Protection team: No objection subject to conditions

• Seek a condition restricting hours of use to 8am – 6pm weekdays and Saturdays; and 10am-4pm Sundays and Bank or Public holidays.

• Following review of comments from Somerset Drainage Board have no concern about the self-contained sewage treatment unit. Contaminated Land Officer: No objection, requests an informative

• Given the location of historic landfills from 130m south of the site advsies the applicant to keep a watching brief for potential hotspots of contamination and assess for visual/olfactory evidence of contamination during any groundworks. Particular attention should be made with the below ground self-contained sewage treatment unit.

• Advises, If any unforeseen contamination is found during excavations, Environmental Health must be notified immediately. This may include obvious visual or olfactory residues, asbestos, buried drums, drains, interceptors, additional fuel storage tanks or any other unexpected hazards that may be discovered during site works. Local Representations: 3 letters of objection have been received as a result of public consultation raising the following issues:

• Traffic generation, particularly given the narrow lane

• Flood risk and drainage concerns

• Impact on Ecology

• Impact on quiet enjoyment of nearby residential properties

• Associated infrastructure comprises development outside development limits

• Loss of greenfield/ agricultural land

• Lack of need for café/tea room

• Viability of the business

• Impact on nearby beekeeping business

4 letters of support have been submitted by the agent citing the following benefits: 5. Beneficial facility for tourists, visitors and members of nearby toruist attractions, accommodation and clubs 6. Broaden the appeal of the existing business 30

7. Benefit to rural economy

Full details of all consultation responses can be found on the Council’s website www.mendip.gov.uk

• Mendip District Local Plan Part I: Strategy and Policies (December 2014)

• Somerset Waste Core Strategy The following policies of the Local Plan Part 1 are relevant to the determination of this application:

• CP1 (Mendip Spatial Strategy)

• CP3 (Business Development and Growth)

• CP4 (Sustaining Rural Communities)

• 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)

• DP21 (Managing Town Centre Uses)

• DP23 (Managing Flood Risk).

Other possible Relevant Considerations (without limitation):

• National Planning Policy Framework

• National Planning Practice Guidance

• Somerset County Council Highways Development Control Standing Advice (June 2017)

• The Countywide Parking Strategy (2013)

Assessment of relevant issues: Principle of the Use: Whilst the site is outside of development limits, where development is strictly controlled in accordance with policy CP1 of the local plan, Policy CP4 (4.b) supports proposals for development of the rural economy which enable the establishment, expansion and diversification of business in a manner and of a scale which is appropriate to the location and constraints upon it. The NPPF also gives general support for economic growth in rural areas. Policy CP3 (among other matters) supports business development and growth where they accord with policies CP1 and CP4; assist the local economy; enhance the image of the area as a business location; limit the growth in demand for private transport; are accessible by sustainable transport modes; offer higher quality job opportunities to local people or improve the skills of the resident work force; and consider options for the use of local contractors and supply chains in the construction and subsequent running of the enterprise. Although a tea rooms would usually be a town centre use, the link to the existing site and proximity to local tourism accommodation and routes frequented by people enjoying outdoor pursuits (walking, cycling, bird watching) negates the need to undertake a sequential test. It would also mean that a high proportion of visitors would be travelling by sustainable modes of transport. The proposal would allow for the establishment of a new tea rooms which would diversify the tourism and visitor offer of the existing animal rescue centre business on the site. However, Policy CP4 only allows for the establishment of business in a “a manner and of a scale which is appropriate to the location and constraints upon it” As is discussed in the section below the proposed buses are considered to be alien features in the open landscape setting of the application site. Accordingly the arrangement of a tea rooms in buses, set away from the nearby building on the wider site, is not considered to be an appropriate manner of development given the site’s constraints as an open landscape visible in several long views. Given the landscape impact, the principle of development fails policy CP4 and accordingly CP1 and 3.

Design of the Development and Impact on the Street Scene and Surrounding Area: The proposal, as amended, is for two single storey buses as opposed to one double decker and one single decker bus and for them to be green as opposed to red. Irrespective of these amendments, it is considered the buses would have an unacceptable visual impact. The site has a wide open frontage to Dyehouse Lane and is on the levels which are characteristically flat and open. There are clear views of the site from Dyehouse Lane and Northload Bridge. The buses would be alien features in the landscape that would be out of character with the rural character of the area. Their siting away from any other buildings would make them even more prominent, especially given the open flat landscape they are sited within.

The visual and landscape impact is therefore considered unacceptable contrary to policies DP1, DP4 and DP7

Impact on Residential Amenity: The Environmental Protection team have sought to limit the hours of use to 10am- 4pm Sundays and Bank or Public holidays, instead of the 8am-6pm as sought on the application form. However, given the nearest residential properties are approximately 60m away from the nearest part of the site the requested hours of operation (8am- 6pm everyday) are considered acceptable and would ensure there would not be any unacceptable adverse impact on the living environment of nearby properties. A condition would be required in this regard if planning permission were to be approved.

Assessment of Highway Issues: The parking levels have been justified with reference to the parking standards and anticipated visitors and are considered acceptable. The trip generation is not considered significant enough to have an unacceptable impact on the free flow of the highway or highway safety as accepted by the Local highway Authority. The LHA have raised a concern that the visibility splays shown utilise land not in the applicants control or adopted highway. They further advise that if the visibility splays are not up to the required standard (2.4x 43m in either direction) the applicant will need to demonstrate that the vehicle speeds are commensurate with the 85 percentile of speeds along Dyehouse Lane. Given the slow speeds vehicles would be travelling at when approaching and leaving the junction with Meare Road a short distance to the north of the application site a reduced visibility is not considered to have an unaccepbtle impact on highway safety in this instance.

Flood risk and Drainage: Although the Council records show the site to be within flood zone 2, the agent has demonstrated the Environment Agency classify it as flood zone 1. Irrespective the level of development is below that which triggers a requirement to follow the sequential test. Due to the nature of the development and use of permeable surfaces for the parking and roadways the proposal is acceptable in terms of flood risk and surface water drainage. The site is within the Upper Brue Internal Drainage board area. Whilst, from the point of view of the drainage board it is noted that there are insufficient details of how the foul water will be managed, this is covered outside of the planning system by the Land Drainage Consent Process and so the Drainage board are satisfied that an infoirmative advsiing the applicant as such would be sufficient there is sufficient information to satisfy the Council that a non-mains drainage system would be acceptable in this instance.

Contamination: The site is identified as a tip interest zone, due to historic landfills at least 130m south of the site. Whilst it is not considered likely that the application site is contaminated, as a precaution the Contaminated Land officer requests an informative to advise the applicant to keep a watching brief for potential hotspots of contamination and assess for visual/olfactory evidence of contamination during any groundworks.

Such an informaitrve is considered sufficient to safeguard against potneital contamination, especially given the minimal ground disturbance.

Ecology: The land is not subject to any specific ecological designation and no protected species or habitats would be affected. The proposal results in little built development and would result in minimal disturbance to the grassland compared to the existing grazing. The ecological impact is therefore considered acceptable.

Refuse Collection: The proposal shows adequate provision for refuse storage.

Environmental Impact Assessment This development is not considered to require an Environmental Statement under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017. Other Matters: The impact of the proposal on a nearby beekeeping business as a result of bringing the public closer to the hives and is not a material planning consideration.

Conclusion: It is recommended that planning permission be refused as the development would have an unacceptable impact on the visual character of the area by virtue of the nature, character and siting of the proposed buses and would therefore have a harmful impact on the countryside's intrinsic character and appearance.

Recommendation: Refuse

Reason/s for Recommendation 1. The site lies in open countryside outside the Settlement Limits of Glastonbury, where development is strictly controlled in the interests of the character and appearance of the countryside. Due to the proposed buses being alien features in a prominent part of the site, within a clearly visible open landscape, the proposal would be out of character with the area and have a harmful impact on the countryside's intrinsic character and appearance. Accordingly the development would therefore be of a manner inappropriate to the location and the constraints upon it, contrary to policies DP1, DP4 and DP7 and CP4 and therefore also CP1 and CP3 of the Mendip District Local Plan 2006 - 2029 Part I (adopted December 2014); and the National Planning Policy Framework, particularly in regard to 'Achieving Sustainable Development' and 'Core Planning Principles' and sections 7 and 11. 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. 34

2. This decision relates to drawings 18-07-01; 18-07-02A; 18-07-03A; 18-07-04; 18-07-05; and 18-07-06; Design and Access Statement Revision A; Supporting Statement received 9th March; and Ventilation and Extraction Statement dated February 2018.

Agenda Item No. DM04 Case Officer Mr Howard Warren Site The Old Butcher Shop Ditcheat Shepton Mallet Application Number 2018/0077/HSE Date Received 12th January 2018 Applicant/ Mr Martin Hillard Organisation Application Type Householder Application Proposal Proposed replacement porch with larger porch and wc to dwelling/Grade II Listed Building. Ward The Pennards And Ditcheat Parish Ditcheat Parish Council

This application is referred to Planning Board after consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair (the Ward Member having declared an interest). Site Description and Proposal This application relates to the grade II listed Old Butcher Shop in Ditcheat. The building was listed in 1988. This application seeks planning permission to extend the porch into a lean-to extension on the front elevation.

Summary of consultee comments, any objections or conflicts with the recommendation Parish Council – Recommend Approval Relevant Planning History 059879/001 – 1999 - Conversion to Self contained annexe – Approved with Conditions

Policy Context 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 - CP1 (principle of development), DP1 (local identity), DP3 (Heritage Conservation), DP7 (design and amenity), DP9 (transport) and DP10 (parking) of the Mendip District Local Plan 2006-2029 (Part 1 Strategies and Policies - adopted 15th December 2014) 36

Material Considerations - National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) - National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG)

Assessment of relevant issues The main issues to consider are the impact of the proposals on the significance of affected designated heritage assets in this case the grade II listed building the Old Butcher’s Shop.

The NPPF deals with determining 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.

Paragraph 132 of the NPPF states that substantial harm to or loss of a heritage asset should be exceptional. Paragraph 133 goes on to note that where a proposed development would lead to substantial harm to or total loss of significance of a designated heritage asset, consent should be refused unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm or loss is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh the harm or loss. The NPPG says that ‘substantial harm’ is a high test, so it may not arise in many cases. For example, in determining whether works to a listed building constitute substantial harm, an important consideration would be whether the adverse impact seriously affects a key element of its special architectural or historic interest.

Paragraph 134 says that where a proposed development will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use.

Policy DP3 of the adopted Local Plan Part 1 takes a similar approach as the NPPF insofar as it requires proposals to justify any harm to a heritage asset and demonstrate the overriding public benefits which would outweigh the damage to that asset or its setting. DP3 says that the greater the harm to the significance of the heritage asset, the greater justification and public benefit that will be required before the application could gain support.

Summary of the legislative background (Listed Buildings) Section 16(2) of the Planning (Listed buildings and Conservation Area) Act 1990 states that ‘In considering whether to grant listed building consent for any works the local planning authority or the Secretary of State 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.’

It is one of the core principles of the NPPF that heritage assets should be conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance. Chapter 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework at paragraph 129 sets out that the local planning authority should identify and assess the particular significance of any heritage asset. They should take this assessment into account when considering the impact of a proposal on a heritage asset, to avoid or minimise conflict between the heritage asset’s conservation and any aspect of the proposal.

Paragraphs 131-135 set out the framework for decision making relating to heritage assets and this assessment takes account of the relevant considerations in these paragraphs.

The Old Butcher Shop is estimated to be an 18th century building which has both special architectural and historic interest.

Architecturally the building demonstrates craftmanship and architectural choices that were typical of the period and this is most in evidence on the front elevation. Two of the most prominent design features are the quoins and the decorative Flemish bond brickwork with burnt headers. The front elevation has clearly been designed to be the most architecturally impressive elevation. The original craftmanship involved in the construction of these elements are also of interest and merit preservation.

The design choices are of historic interest as they demonstrate architectural trends and fashions of the earlier period. For example, Flemish Bond with decorative brickwork became popular from the late 17th century. Brickwork was historically not unusual in Ditcheat and this is one of the best examples in the village. The front elevation and the associated architecture is a key element in the building’s significance.

The proposal is to convert the porch into a lean-to front extension to accommodate a WC. This extension would appear awkward over the quoins, clearly reading as a contrived later addition on the most important elevation and compromising the original architectural intention. It would also conceal and potentially harm the quoins and a large portion of decorative brickwork. A lean-to extension that does not fit comfortably will be more prominent than the porch that is relatively modest. Even though the principle of a lean-to extension is considered to be harmful, the harm would have been slightly mitigated had the proposal reduced its size so it did not protrude over the quoins.

It is not believed there are any public benefits with this application, only private benefits. It is regarded as a relatively modest property and therefore a downstairs WC is not required to secure the building’s optimum viable use. It has also not been demonstrated within the application that other parts of the building, which was previously subject to sub-division and has an inappropriate extension on the rear, could not be utilised to incorporate a downstairs WC which would have less invasive alterations to significant fabric.

Other matters

The proposed extension is of a scale and siting such as to ensure it would cause no material harm to neighbour amenity or the access/parking arrangements serving the dwelling.

Conclusion

Having regard to the above therefore, the proposal will have a small to moderate degree of ‘less than substantial harm’ to the significance of the designated heritage asset. In line with paragraph 134 of the NPPF it is necessary to weigh this against any public benefit. In this instance no public benefit has been identified and therefore, having due regard to Section 16 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and DP3 (Heritage Conservation) of the Mendip District Local Plan 2006-2029 (Part 1 Strategies and Policies – adopted 15th December 2014 consent should be refused.

Reason/s for Recommendation

1. The proposed works to the grade II listed building will have a detrimental impact on the architectural and historic value of the designated heritage asset. The proposal would cause a level of 'less than substantial harm' to the significance of the designated heritage asset which would not be outweighed by any associated public benefits. The proposal therefore fails to accord with the provisions of Policy DP3 of the Mendip District Local Plan 2006-2029 (Part 1 Strategy and Policies) and the National Planning Policy Framework (2012).

List of Advices

2. This decision relates to drawings 1374/002 and 1374/001

Agenda Item No. DM05

Case Officer Mr Howard Warren

Site The Old Butcher Shop Ditcheat Shepton Mallet

Application Number 2018/0078/LBC

Date Received 12th January 2018

Applicant/ Mr Martin Hillard Organisation Application Type Listed Building Consent

Proposal Proposed replacement porch with larger porch and wc to dwelling/Grade II Listed Building.

Ward The Pennards And Ditcheat

Parish Ditcheat Parish Council

This application is referred to Planning Board after consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair (the Ward Member having declared an interest). Site Description and Proposal This application relates to the grade II listed Old Butcher Shop in Ditcheat. The building was listed in 1988. The applications seeks Listed Building Consent to extend the porch into a lean-to extension on the front elevation.

Policy Context 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 - DP3 (Heritage Conservation) of the Mendip District Local Plan 2006-2029 (Part 1 Strategies and Policies - adopted 15th December 2014)

Material Considerations - National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) - National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG)

desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.’

Paragraphs 131-135 set out the framework for decision making relating to heritage assets and this assessment takes account of the relevant considerations in these paragraphs.

The Old Butcher Shop is estimated to be an 18th century building which has both special architectural and historic interest.

Conclusion

Reason/s for Recommendation

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 listed building consent. However, the proposal remains contrary to the planning policies set out in the reasons for refusal.

2. This decision relates to drawings 1374/002 and 1374/001