Area East Committee

Wednesday 10 August 2011

9.30am (for this meeting)

Council Offices Churchfield Wincanton Somerset BA9 9AG

(location plan overleaf - disabled access is available at this meeting venue)

The public and press are welcome to attend.

Please note: Consideration of planning applications will commence no earlier than 10.30 am. (For this meeting)

If you would like any further information on the items to be discussed, please ring the Agenda Co-ordinator, Anne Herridge on Yeovil (01935) 462570 email:[email protected], website: www.southsomerset.gov.uk

This Agenda was issued on Tuesday 2 August 2011

Ian Clarke, Assistant Director (Legal & Corporate Services)

This information is also available on our Website: www.southsomerset.gov.uk

This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. South Somerset District Council - LA100019471 - 2011.

Meeting AE 04A 11:12 Date: 10.08.11 AE Area East Membership

Mike Beech Anna Groskop Lucy Wallace John Calvert Henry Hobhouse William Wallace Tony Capozzoli Tim Inglefield Nick Weeks Nick Colbert Mike Lewis Colin Winder

Somerset County Council Representatives

Somerset County Councillors (who are not already elected District Councillors for the area) are invited to attend Area Committee meetings and participate in the debate on any item on the Agenda. However, it must be noted that they are not members of the committee and cannot vote in relation to any item on the agenda. The following County Councillor is invited to attend the meeting:- Councillor Sam Crabb.

South Somerset District Council – Corporate Aims

Our key aims are: (all equal)

• To increase economic vitality and prosperity • Enhance the environment, address and adapt to climate change • To improve the housing, health and well-being of our citizens • To ensure safe, sustainable and cohesive communities • To deliver well managed cost effective services valued by our customers

Scrutiny Procedure Rules

Please note that decisions taken by Area Committees may be "called in" for scrutiny by the Council's Scrutiny Committee prior to implementation. This does not apply to decisions taken on planning applications.

Consideration of Planning Applications

Members of the public are requested to note that the Committee will break for refreshments at approximately 10.15 am for this meeting. Planning applications will not be considered before 10.30 am for this meeting in the order shown on the planning applications schedule. The public and representatives of Parish/Town Councils will be invited to speak on the individual planning applications at the time they are considered. Anyone wishing to raise matters in relation to other items on the agenda may do so at the time the item is considered.

Highways

A representative from the Area Highways Office will be available from 9.00 am to answer questions and take comments from Members of the Committee. Alternatively, they can be contacted direct through Somerset Highways direct control centre on 0845 345 9155.

Members Questions on Reports prior to the Meeting Members of the Committee are requested to contact report authors on points of clarification prior to the Committee meeting.

Meeting AE 04A 11:12 Date: 10.08.11 AE

Information for the Public

The Council has a well-established area committee system and through four area committees seeks to strengthen links between the Council and its local communities, allowing planning and other local issues to be decided at a local level (planning recommendations outside council policy are referred to the district wide Regulation Committee).

Decisions made by Area Committees, which include financial or policy implications are generally classed as executive decisions. Where these financial or policy decisions have a significant impact on council budgets or the local community, agendas will record these decisions as “key decisions”. Members of the public can view the council’s Executive Forward Plan, either online or at any SSDC council office, to see what executive/key decisions are scheduled to be taken in the coming months. Non-executive decisions taken by area committees include planning, and other quasi-judicial decisions.

At area committee meetings members of the public are able to:

• attend and make verbal or written representations, except where, for example, personal or confidential matters are being discussed;

• at the area committee chairman’s discretion, members of the public are permitted to speak for up to up to 3 minutes on agenda items; and

• see agenda reports

Meetings of the Area East Committee are normally held monthly at 9.00 am on the 2nd Wednesday of the month in the Council Offices, Churchfield, Wincanton. The August meeting will start at 9.30am

Agendas and minutes of Area Committees are published on the Council’s website www.southsomerset.gov.uk

The Council’s Constitution is also on the web site and available for inspection in council offices.

Further information about this Committee can be obtained by contacting the agenda co-ordinator named on the front page.

Public Participation at Committees

This is a summary of the Protocol adopted by the Council and set out in Part 5 of the Council’s Constitution.

Public Question Time

The period allowed for participation in this session shall not exceed 15 minutes except with the consent of the chairman of the committee. Each individual speaker shall be restricted to a total of three minutes.

Meeting AE 04A 11:12 Date: 10.08.11 AE Planning Applications

Comments and questions about planning applications will be dealt with at the time those applications are considered, when planning officers will be in attendance, rather than during the Public Question Time session.

Comments should be confined to additional information or issues, which have not been fully covered in the officer’s report. Members of the public are asked to submit any additional documents to the planning officer at least 72 hours in advance and not to present them to the Committee on the day of the meeting. This will give the planning officer the opportunity to respond appropriately. Information from the public should not be tabled at the meeting. It should also be noted that, in the interests of fairness, the use of presentational aids (e.g. PowerPoint) by the applicant/agent or those making representations will not be permitted. However, the applicant/agent or those making representations are able to ask the Planning Officer to include photographs/images within the officer’s presentation subject to them being received by the officer at least 72 hours prior to the meeting. No more than 5 photographs/images either supporting or against the application to be submitted. The Planning Officer will also need to be satisfied that the photographs are appropriate in terms of planning grounds.

At the committee chairman’s discretion, members of the public are permitted to speak for up to 3 minutes each and where there are a number of persons wishing to speak they should be encouraged to choose one spokesperson to speak either for the applicant or on behalf of any supporters or objectors to the application. The total period allowed for such participation on each application shall not normally exceed 15 minutes.

The order of speaking on planning items will be:

Town or Parish Council Spokesperson Objectors Supporters Applicant/Agent County Council Division Member District Council Ward Member

If a member of the public wishes to speak they must inform the committee administrator before the meeting begins of their name and whether they have supporting comments or objections and who they are representing. This must be done by completing one of the public participation slips available at the meeting.

In exceptional circumstances, the Chairman of the Committee shall have discretion to vary the procedure set out to ensure fairness to all sides.

The same rules in terms of public participation will apply in respect of other agenda items where people wish to speak on that particular item.

If a Councillor has declared a personal and prejudicial interest

Under the new Code of Conduct, a Councillor will be afforded the same right as a member of the public, except that once the Councillor has addressed the Committee the Councillor will leave the room and not return until after the decision has been made.

Ordnance Survey mapping/map data included within this publication is provided by South Somerset District Council under licence from the Ordnance Survey in order to fulfil its public function to undertake its statutory functions on behalf of the district. Persons viewing this mapping should contact Ordnance Survey copyright for advice where they wish to licence Ordnance Survey mapping/map data for their own use.

Meeting AE 04A 11:12 Date: 10.08.11 AE

Area East Committee

Wednesday 10 August 2011

Agenda

Preliminary Items

1. To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting held on 13 July 2011

2. Apologies for Absence

3. Declarations of Interest

In accordance with the Council's Code of Conduct, which includes all the provisions of the statutory Model Code of Conduct, Members are asked to declare any personal interests (and whether or not such an interest is "prejudicial") in any matter on the Agenda for this meeting. A personal interest is defined in paragraph 8 of the Code and a prejudicial interest is defined in paragraph 10. In the interests of complete transparency, Members of the County Council, who are not also members of this committee, are encouraged to declare any interests they may have in any matters being discussed even though they may not be under any obligation to do so under the code of conduct.

Planning Applications Referred to the Regulation Committee The following members of this Committee are also members of the Council's Regulation Committee:

Cllr Nick Colbert Cllr William Wallace

Where planning applications are referred by this Committee to the Regulation Committee for determination, in accordance with the Council's Code of Practice on Planning, Members of the Regulation Committee can participate and vote on these items at the Area Committee and at Regulation Committee. In these cases the Council's decision- making process is not complete until the application is determined by the Regulation Committee. Members of the Regulation Committee retain an open mind and will not finalise their position until the Regulation Committee. They will also consider the matter at Regulation Committee as Members of that Committee and not as representatives of the Area Committee.

4. Public Participation at Committees

a) Questions/comments from members of the public b) Questions/comments from representatives of parish/town councils

This is a chance for members of the public and representatives of Parish/Town Councils to participate in the meeting by asking questions, making comments and raising matters of concern. Parish/Town Council representatives may also wish to use this opportunity to ask for the District Council’s support on any matter of particular concern to their

Meeting AE 04A 11:12 Date: 10.08.11 AE

Parish/Town. The public and representatives of Parish/Town Councils will be invited to speak on any planning related questions later in the agenda, before the planning applications are considered.

5. Reports from Members Representing the District Council on Outside Organisations

6. Feedback on Reports Referred to the Regulation Committee

7. Chairman’s Announcements

Items for Discussion Page No.

8. Budget Monitoring Report for the Period Ending 30 June 2011 (Executive Decision)...... 1

9. Area East Priority Themes for 2011/12...... 7

10. Equine Research Project Implementation (Executive Decision) ...... 11

11. Area East Forward Plan...... 14

12. Items for Information ...... 17

13. Next Meeting...... 18

14. Planning Applications ...... 19

Please note that the decisions taken by Area Committees may be called in for scrutiny by the Council’s Scrutiny Committee prior to implementation. This does not apply to decisions taken on planning applications.

Meeting AE 04A 11:12 Date: 10.08.11 AE

Area East Committee – 10 August 2011

8. Budget Monitoring Report for the Period Ending 30 June 2011 (Executive Decision)

Chief Executive: Mark Williams, Chief Executive Assistant Director: Donna Parham, Assistant Director – Finance and Corporate Services Service Manager: Amanda Card, Finance Manager Lead Officer: Jayne Beevor, Principal Accountant Revenue Contact Details: [email protected] or (01935) 462320

Purpose of the Report

The purpose of this report is to update Members on the current budgetary position of the Area East Committee as at the end of June 2011.

Public Interest

This report gives an update on the financial position of Area East Committee after three months of the financial year 2011/12.

Recommendations:

(1) That Members review and comment on the current financial position of Area East Budgets:

(2) That funding of £1,220 is transferred from the Area East Reserve to fund the salary costs of the caretaker for 2011/12

REVENUE BUDGETS

Background

Full Council in February 2011 set the General Revenue Account Budgets for 2011/12 and delegated the monitoring of the budgets to the four Area Committees and District Executive. Area East now has delegated responsibility for the Area East development revenue budgets, which include revenue grants and regeneration, the Area East Capital Programme and the Area East Reserve.

Financial Position

The table below shows the position of revenue budgets as at June 2011. This includes transfers to or from reserves.

£ Approved base budget as at Feb 2011 366,380 Budget Carry forwards approved June 2011 59,380

Salary allocation for Communities AD post (21,000)

Revised Budget as at 30th June 2011 404,760

A summary of the revenue position as at 30th June 2011 is as follows:

Meeting AE 04A 11:12 1 Date: 10.08.11 AE

Element Original Revised Y/E Favourable Adverse Budget Budget Forecast Variance Variance %

£ £ £ £ £ Development 283,980 292,150 292,150 - - Grants 82,400 112,610 112,610 - - Area East

Total 366,380 404,760 404,760 - -

Manager’s Comments

After the first quarter the budgets are on track and there are no areas for concern at this stage.

The revised budget sum shown above includes the approved sums of committed money from last year that either supports projects and programmes spanning across financial years or approved grants that have yet to be completed and be paid. These were confirmed at the District Executive meeting in June.

The Area East Committee decided in the past that they wished to have the services of a caretaker. The post holder works 3 hours per week. This is not a post that forms part of the staff establishment and so is funded from the Committee’s revenue reserve. Members are asked to confirm the transfer of this sum.

Budget Virements

Under the financial procedure rules the Strategic/Assistant Directors & Managers can authorise virements within each individual service of their responsibility (as defined by Appendix B of the Annual Budget Report) and up to a maximum of £25,000 between services within their responsibility providing that the Assistant Director Finance & Corporate Services has been notified in advance. All virements exceeding these limits need the approval of District Executive. All virements between different Services, irrespective of value, need approving by District Executive. Area Committees can approve virements between their reserves and budgets up to a maximum of £25,000 per virement and £50,000 in any one financial year, provided that all such approvals are reported to the District Executive for noting. (In accordance with the constitution).

The following virements have taken place since the last report:

Amount From To Details £ 21,000 Area East Admin Communities Salary allocation for Communities AD Budget post

AREA RESERVE

The position on the Area East Reserve is as follows:

Meeting AE 04A 11:12 2 Date: 10.08.11 AE

£ £ Position as at 1st April 2011 72,630 Less amounts allocated Community Planning – Budget to be drawn (32,930) down as required in future years Securing derelict sites in Area East (4,000) Business Units in Area East (17,050) Retail Initiative Scheme (10,000) Millbrook Car Park Extension (2,925) (66,905) Uncommitted balance remaining 5,725

Members are asked to approve the transfer of £1,220 from the reserve to fund the salary costs of the caretaker. If this is approved the balance remaining in the reserve will be £4,505.

CAPITAL PROGRAMME

The revised capital programme for this financial year and beyond is attached following this report together with a progress report on each scheme either Area or District Wide that are current within Area East. The estimated spend for Area East programme in 2011/12 is £77,883.

There are the following reserve schemes within the programme:

£ Capital Reserves 40,080 Parish Infrastructure Fund 29,971 Community & Leisure Grants 14,247 Community Grants 10,000 Retail Support Initiative 5,000

Other Non Area East Budgets for which the Manager is Accountable

These have been included for information only:

Element Original Revised Y/E Favourable Adverse Budget Budget Forecast Variance Variance %

£ £ £ £ £ Local Strategic - - - Partnership 48,000 88,510 88,510

(Carry forwards of £40,510 for LSP were approved in June 2011, these relate to Somerset County Council funded schemes yet to be completed and programmed to take place later in the year).

If Members would like further details on any of the Area East budgets or services they should contact the relevant budget holder or responsible officer.

Meeting AE 04A 11:12 3 Date: 10.08.11 AE

Corporate Priority Implications

The budget is closely linked to the Corporate Plan.

Carbon Emissions & Adapting to Climate Change Implications (NI188)

There are no implications currently in approving this report.

Equality and Diversity Implications

When the Area East budget was set any savings made included an assessment of the impact on equalities as part of that exercise.

Background Papers – Financial Services Area East budget file

Meeting AE 04A 11:12 4 Date: 10.08.11 AREA EAST CAPITAL PROGRAMME 2010/11 - 2015/16

2011/12 Actual 2011/12 Future Estimated Spend to RemainingSpend Responsible Responsible Officer's Comment on Slippage & Performance Against Targets Officer (s) Spend 30/06/2011 Budget ££ ££ Health and Well Being

Mudford-Extension to Village Hall 525 0 525 Helen Rutter/Tim Cook Approved in Dec 09. Work completed. Final payment made. Bruton Football Club-Resurfacing pitch 6,000 0 6,000 Helen Rutter/Tim Cook Approved in Dec 10. Awaiting match-funding decision. Lytes Cary Allotment Assoc-Shepherd's Hut 2,000 1,528 472 Helen Rutter/Tim Cook Approved in Dec 10. Hut installed and in use Charlton Horethorne-Flooring 2,450 0 2,450 Helen Rutter/Tim Cook Approved in June 11. Due to start and complete project in August

Total Health and Well Being 10,975 1,528 9,447 0

Environment Barton St David-Solar panels 4,500 3,969 531 Helen Rutter/Tim Cook Approved in Dec 10. Panels installed. Milborne Port VH-Heating & lighting improvements 12,500 0 12,500 Helen Rutter/Tim Cook Approved in June 11. Lottery application unsuccessful - CDO to meet group to discuss options.

Total Environment 17,000 3,969 13,031 0

Economic Vitality Wincanton Heritage Scheme 4,111 (2,531) 6,642 Pam Williams Scheme closed for final payments on 31/3/06. Awaiting adoption of enhancement scheme by SCC - 'Give Way' sign to be replaced. Town Council agreed to adopt tree July 2011. Target late 2011. Wincanton-Footpath/cycle route Moor Lane 20,000 0 20,000 Pam Williams Combined planning application for submission summer 2011. Legal and other work progressing towards late Autumn 2011 implementation. Wincanton-Pedestrian/Cycle Link Common Lane 5,520 5,520 Pam Williams Legal agreements finalised. Combined planning application for submission July 2011.

Bruton Traffic Calming 19,599 0 19,599 Mike Allen Plox works delivered. SIDs operational then removed because SCC service was poor but data used. Final work on pavements done February 2011. BTC asked for final suggestions at August meeting to complete project.

Retail Support Initiative Schemes 678 0 678 0 Pam Williams Next Community Planning Sub Committee 28 September 2011.

Total Economic Vitality 49,908 (2,531) 52,439 0

Total East Capital Programme 77,883 2,966 74,917 0 2011/12 Actual 2011/12 Future Estimated Spend to RemainingSpend Responsible Responsible Officer's Comment on Slippage & Performance Against Targets Officer (s) Spend 30/06/2011 Budget ££ ££

Reserve Schemes Awaiting Allocation But Approved in Principle Unallocated Capital Reserve 10,080 0 10,080 30,000 Helen Rutter Additional £25k awarded in Feb 2011 for future allocation. Community Grants 10,000 10,000 0 Helen Rutter £10k awarded for Community Grants DX Feb 2011. Parish Infrastructure Fund 5,000 0 5,000 24,971 Pam Williams/Tim Cook Rolling fund including eligibility for supporting affordable housing approved at AEC June 2010. Retail Support Initiative 5,000 0 5,000 0 Helen Rutter £5k approved Aug 10. Community & Leisure Grants 14,247 14,247 0 Helen Rutter/Tim Applications assessed & considered in June 11. Fund topped up, in February 2011, Cook/Steve Barnes by £25k for 2011/12 Total Reserve Schemes 44,327 0 44,327 54,971

Summary East Capital Programme 77,883 2,966 74,917 0 Reserve Schemes (Unallocated) 44,327 0 44,327 54,971 Total Programme to be Financed 122,210 2,966 119,244 54,971

Corporate Capital Programme within Area East Market House 180,000 18,000 162,000 (16,000) Pam Williams £164k partnership funding secured. Phase 1 works consents obtained. Bruton Dovecote (9,000) (14,000) 5,000 0 Mike Allen Final invoices being brought in. Community Play Schemes 12,000 0 12,000 30,000 Rob Parr Current scheme for Milborne Port & future scheme for Ilchester. Youth Facilities 5,000 0 5,000 5,000 Rob Parr Current scheme for North Cadbury & future scheme for Yeovilton. Multi Use Games Area 70,000 0 0 0 Rob Parr Current schemes for Wincanton & Castle Cary. Grants for Parishes with Play Areas 25,000 (35,000) 60,000 0 Rob Parr Current schemes at Gainsborough, Milborne Port, Penn View & Rickhayes Wincanton.

Total Programme to be Financed 283,000 (31,000) 244,000 19,000 AE

Area East Committee – 10 August 2011

9. Area East Priority Themes for 2011/12

Portfolio Holder: Cllr Mike Lewis Strategic Director: Rina Singh, Place & Performance Assistant Director: Helen Rutter, Communities Service Manager: Helen Rutter, Area East Development Manager Lead Officer: Helen Rutter, Area East Development Manager Contact Details: [email protected] or (01963) 435012

Purpose of the Report

To highlight the priorities discussed and agreed at the Committee’s resources and priority setting workshop held in June and to draw attention to the resulting Area Development Plan for 2011/12.

Public Interest

Sets out the Area Committee’s work priorities for this year, based on needs analysis, councillor and community concerns.

Recommendation

Members are recommended to note and adopt the priorities agreed at the workshop and the Area Development Plan 2011/12.

Background

The Area East Committee, South Somerset District Council, revises its local priorities on an annual basis within the framework of the overall Corporate Plan. Through the Area Development Plan and other means, it seeks to influence progress against these priorities by allocating resources and working with partners and other services within SSDC to achieve results. There are revenue budgets and capital funding, which enable the Committee to progress its priorities and these are set annually. Progress against the annual Area Development Plan is monitored monthly by staff and reported to Committee half yearly. In addition the Committee receives quarterly budget monitoring reports.

This year is the start of the 4-year cycle of the Council, and the Corporate Plan will be updated this autumn. All councillors have been sent ward profiles setting out key facts and contact details for their ward. They have also identified particular problems and issues affecting their ward and indicated some longer-term ambitions. There is no Area Portfolio Statement for 2011/12. The Area Development Plan captures the main projects and programmes that the Development Team will work on over the year. This is in addition to the normal, day-to-day, responsive capability to work with councillors to address local problems and issues that arise throughout the year.

Area East Committee priorities

The table below sets out the priority themes, which have been retained for 2011/12. Members are asked to confirm that they are happy with these themes as discussed at the Members’ Workshop in June, which flow through into the more detailed Area Development Plan, which is the team’s work programme. The Plan itself has been sent to members as a hard copy and will be placed on the Council web site following the agreement of the Committee.

Meeting AE 04A 11:12 7 Date: 10.08.11 AE

These priorities have been developed from a wide range of evidence of need including: • Area East statistical profile April 2009, Ward profiles 2011 and Index of Multiple Deprivation 2010 • Feedback from the Annual Meeting with Parish Councils, parish plans and other consultation from community events • Feedback from Ward Members on local issues and more general ambitions • A review of the 2010/11 Area Development Plan

Priority Theme Main Areas of Work Envisaged 1 Work with communities & partners to Increase focus of the community office understand & address local service service to address needs of more needs & priorities vulnerable people

Engagement with parishes and community groups on localism and how their role can be strengthened 2 Support the local economy Work with businesses to better promote the area

Gain better understanding of skills, communication technology and workspace needs and develop practical responses

Support vitality of High streets through retail support scheme 3 Better places to live Support preparation and implementation of community led plans

Evidence of needs used to secure better community infrastructure from planned growth

Support development plan, Queen Camel

Support implementation of key regeneration projects (see details in Area Development Plan document) 4 Affordable housing for local people Help to quantify housing need and advocate for local lettings policies and schemes that meet needs of the aging population

Support establishment of community land trusts where wanted

Support development of small village schemes that are designed to meet local needs for affordable housing. 5 Better access to services & activities in Support and evaluate the programmes rural areas that improve what village halls can offer – energy efficiency, access and new activities

Meeting AE 04A 11:12 8 Date: 10.08.11 AE

Support parishes to provide better local recreational facilities

Use retail support scheme to help village and farm shops.

Promotion of community car schemes Support self help, young people and older people 6 Safer, more cohesive communities Work with housing associations to address social impact of housing developments

Work with parishes, police and other partners to tackle anti social behaviour, road safety and other local priorities Help groups of communities work with support agencies to provide more youth activities

Grants and advice for parish infrastructure improvement schemes 7 Better built & natural environment Complete conservation area appraisals in Ilchester, Milborne Port and Ansford

Tackle derelict sites / buildings and encourage their re use

Support community/ parish led public access, open spaces, food and growing schemes

Sign posting and sharing of best practice for emergency planning, such as extreme weather conditions.

Complete equine research and implementation project

Support the implementation of cycleway/ multi-user paths in Wincanton and Ilchester

Support car parking improvement schemes

Next Steps

Members are aware that an overall review of Area Working is underway which makes longer term planning for the 4-year lifespan of the Committee difficult to map out at this stage. It is suggested that when this review is complete with future working arrangements and resources more certain, we return to longer-term goals and planning later in the year.

Meeting AE 04A 11:12 9 Date: 10.08.11 AE

Financial Implications

The Area Development team consists of 3 Officers and an Area Support team providing front offices in the 3 main towns along with administrative support.

There are no new implications arising directly from this report at the present time. Financial implications of each project are shown in more detail in the Area Development Plan and are brought to Committee for full consideration when ready if authority to spend budgets is being sought. The report on budget monitoring elsewhere on the Agenda gives the Committee an overview of uncommitted resources.

Corporate Priority Implications

The priorities have been developed taking into account the current Corporate Plan, which gives the headings in the Area Development Plan.

Carbon Emissions & Adapting to Climate Change Implications (NI188)

This is considered on an individual project and programme basis as appropriate. The overall priority is to seek to create more balanced communities where people can live, work and get access to the services and facilities they need on a daily basis.

Equality and Diversity Implications

This is considered on an individual project and programme basis as appropriate. All Area Development teams have done an Equality Impact assessment and have an improvement plan in place.

Background Papers: Area Development Plan 2011/12, notes of Members workshop June 2011.

Meeting AE 04A 11:12 10 Date: 10.08.11 AE

Area East Committee – 10 August 2011

10. Equine Research Project Implementation (Executive Decision)

Portfolio Holder: Cllr Mike Lewis Strategic Director: Rina Singh, Place & Performance Assistant Director: Helen Rutter, Communities Service Manager: Helen Rutter, Area East Development Manager Lead Officer: Pam Williams, Regeneration Officer Contact Details: [email protected] or (01963) 435020

Purpose of the Report

To consider the allocation of the unallocated budget balance to Bridleway Improvements following the completion of the Equine Research project.

Public Interest

Improving countryside access for walkers and riders.

Recommendations

To allocate up to £3,300, as a maximum of 50% of costs, from Members Discretionary Budget (ringfenced for the Equine Project), towards Rights of Way improvements at Yenston and Babcary.

Background

Last year Members allocated funding to undertake research into the benefits which sought to:

- Create an understanding of the significance of the equine sector in the local Economy; - Assess the impact of equine related Planning Applications and; - Explore the potential to promote the Area as an equine tourism destination

In February this year the report was presented to Members and as the research had cost less than the allocated £5k budget, Members asked the Regeneration Officer to submit proposals which responded to the issues highlighted in the report which could be progressed within the £3,600 remaining project budget.

The equine study consistently identified that many parts of the Area provided limited safe hacking opportunities and that this was the single biggest issue which horse owners/riders raised. There were only a small number of exceptions to this where people had access to large estates such as Stavordale or Stourhead. Whilst respondents welcomed the idea that the Area should be promoted as an equine tourism destination the feasibility of doing this was hampered by limited safe places to ride. Members therefore supported the suggestion for a modest programme of bridleway improvement.

Issues

The table below shows the locations which were identified through the equine study and also during subsequent discussions with representatives of South Somerset Bridleways association as being the bridleways which most needed attention.

Meeting AE 04A 11:12 11 Date: 10.08.11 AE

Location Issue Action taken/proposed Charlton Horethorne – Sigwells Grazing animals No action proposed Stowey/Horsington former railway line Missing link Logged and for long term consideration Hanglands Impassable Works completed in partnership with SCC (£1,300 funded through AE Service Enhancement Programme) Broadmead Lane, Yenston Very deep Proposal to joint fund mud/rutting improvements Templecombe Lane Railway crossing Referred to Network issues rail for investigation Leigh Common Track erosion in Under investigation woods Beech lane, Stoke Trister Fallen branches and Partially resolved fencing narrowing route Mapperton Ridge Vehicle conflict Not designated as concerns – A303 slip bridleway road Lower Clapton Farm, Maperton Access denied Legal dispute about status – SCC pursuing Henstridge Marsh Overgrown hedge Works completed Lydford Lane, Babcary Muddy rutted Proposal to joint fund improvements

The County Council’s (SCC) Rights of Way Improvement Plan has identified the following high priority locations that are likely to be brought forward and funded from their budget in the current financial year – c£60k

• Clearance on a network of byways in North Cadbury, making access easier for riders. • Recent replacement of Loccombe Bridge in Limington • Bruton - Gants Mill, Huish Lane and Cole. • Crendle Hill, Milborne Port - new bridge and three new "easy access" bridleway gates.

In addition to the works scheduled by SCC we held exploratory discussions with representatives of South Somerset Bridleways Association to see if it would be possible to provide pump priming of equipment purchases and training to assist ‘self help’ projects. Given there has been limited interest from potential volunteers for this type of activity in the past, it was felt that it was not likely to be a viable option.

The County Council’s locally based Rights of Way Officer has visited most of the sites and recommended that of their non-priority locations, Broadmead Lane, Yenston and Lydford Lane, Babcary would be the locations needing the most urgent works. These works do not form part of SCC’s programmed works and are unlikely to be addressed in the short-term through the County Council’s improvement programme - unless partnership funding were to be forthcoming. On this basis it is suggested that the

Meeting AE 04A 11:12 12 Date: 10.08.11 AE unallocated balance of the Equine Research Project budget be targeted at these improvements.

Financial Implications

There is £3,600 remaining in the Members Discretionary Budget ringfenced for the Equine Study. If Members wish to support the proposals contained in this report - the allocation of up to £3,300 towards bridleway improvements (as a contribution of up to 50% of scheme costs) as a jointly funded project with Somerset County Council. It is suggested that the £300 (minimum) remaining budget is returned to balances.

Corporate Priority Implications

None directly arising from this report.

Carbon Emissions & Adapting to Climate Change Implications (NI188)

None directly arising from this report.

Equality and Diversity Implications

None directly arising from this report.

Background Papers: AEC minutes & agenda February 2011

Meeting AE 04A 11:12 13 Date: 10.08.11 AE

Area East Committee – 10 August 2011

11. Area East Forward Plan

Head of Service: Helen Rutter, Area Development Manager Lead Officer: Anne Herridge, Committee Administrator Contact Details: [email protected] or (01935) 462570

Purpose of the Report

This report informs Members of the agreed Area East Forward Plan.

Recommendation

Members are asked to:-

1. Comment upon and note the proposed Area East Forward Plan as attached at Appendix A.

2. Identify priorities for further reports to be added to the Area East Forward Plan, developed by the SSDC lead officers.

Area East Committee Forward Plan

The forward plan sets out items and issues to be discussed over the coming few months. It is reviewed and updated each month, and included within the Area Committee agenda, where members of the Area Committee may endorse or request amendments.

Members of the public, councillors, service managers, and partners may also request an item be placed within the forward plan for a future meeting, by contacting the agenda co- ordinator.

Items marked in italics are not yet confirmed, due to the attendance of additional representatives.

To make the best use of the Area Committee, the focus for topics should be on issues where local involvement and influence may be beneficial, and where local priorities and issues raised by the community are linked to SSDC corporate aims and objectives.

Further details on these items, or to suggest/request an agenda item for the Area East Committee, please contact the Agenda Co-ordinator; Anne Herridge.

Background Papers: None

Meeting AE 04A 11:12 14 Date: 10.08.11 AE

Area East Committee Forward Plan

Appendix A

Notes (1) Further details on these items, or to suggest / request an agenda item for the Area East Committee, please contact the Agenda Co- ordinator; Anne Herridge 01935462570 or e mail [email protected]

Meeting Agenda Item Background Purpose Lead Officer Date

14 Sep 11 6 mthly Streetscene update To update members of the service, plans for the autumn and Chris Cooper SSDC Street achievements during the summer Scene Manager 14 Sep 11 Caryford Leisure Centre Dual Use Centre performance report Lynda Pincombe

14 Sep 11 Welfare benefit Annual update report on the service Fiona Johnson

12 Oct 11 LDF Core Strategy To update Area East members Andy Foyne

12 Oct 11 Section 106 Monitoring report To update members on current position of 106 agreements Neil Waddleton

12 Oct 11 Annual Wincanton Peoples Plan An update on the current position of the Wincanton Peoples Plan Pam Williams SSDC Progress report

12 Oct 11 At risk buildings in Area East Annual report on conservation activities in Area East including a Adron Duckworth SSDC confidential section briefing Members on the status of all at risk TBC buildings across the Area 9 Nov 11 Budget 1/4rly Monitoring To inform Members of the 1/4rly position. Jayne Beevor SSDC

9 Nov 11 Retail Support Initiative update 6 monthly Outturn report Pam Williams/Mike Allen

9 Nov 11 Area Development Plan Report To inform Members of progress on activities and projects contained Helen Rutter ADM SSDC within the Area Development Plan

Meeting AE 04A 11:12 15 Date: 10.08.11 AE

Meeting Agenda Item Background Purpose Lead Officer Date

9 Nov 11 Community Health and Leisure Annual service update Lynda Pincombe Community Health and Leisure

9 Nov 11 Wincanton Sports Centre update Informal report on facilities available at centre, possibly on site in order Steve Joel / Jake Hannis for members to see for themselves 9 Nov 11 Asset management strategy To discuss with members the principles of the SSDC Asset Donna Parham/ Helen Management Strategy including asset transfer and the checklist now Rutter SSDC available for use.

7 Dec 11 Revs & Bens Annual update on the service Ian Potter Revs & Bens

7 Dec 11 Countryside Annual update Katy Menday Countryside Manager 7 Dec 11 Community & Leisure Grant applications 6 monthly update Tim Cook, Pam Williams, Mike Allen, Steve Barnes 7 Dec 11 Waste Services The collection and disposal of waste Vega Sturgess/SCC

7 Dec 11 Area Development Plan Quarterly monitoring report Helen Rutter ADM– East

Anne Herridge, Committee Administrator, (01935) 462570 Email: [email protected]

Meeting AE 04A 11:12 16 Date: 10.08.11 AE

Area East Committee – 10 August 2011

12. Items for Information

The following reports for information have been sent to members under separate cover and do not form part of this agenda – although they are available on the Council’s website:

• Action list from AEC 13 July 2011 • Appeals

Should members have questions regarding any of the items please contact the officer shown underneath the relevant report. If, after discussing the item with the officer, and with the Chairman’s agreement, a member may request the item to be considered at a future committee meeting.

Meeting AE 04A 11:12 17 Date: 10.08.11 AE

Area East Committee – 10 August 2011

13. Next Meeting

Members are asked to note that the next scheduled meeting of the committee will be at the Council Offices, Churchfield, Wincanton on Wednesday, 14 September 2011 at 9.00am.

Meeting AE 04A 11:12 18 Date: 10.08.11 AE

Area East Committee 10 August 2011

14. Planning Applications

Head of Service: Martin Woods, Assistant Director - Economy Lead Officer: As above Contact Details: [email protected] or tel. 01935 462723

The schedule of planning applications is attached following this report.

The inclusion of two stars (**) as part of the Head of Development and Building Control’s recommendation indicates that the application will need to be referred to the Regulation Committee if the Area Committee is unwilling to accept that recommendation.

The Lead Planning Officer, at the Committee, in consultation with the Chairman and Solicitor, will also be able to recommend that an application should be referred to Regulation Committee even if it has not been two starred on the Agenda.

Background papers: - individual planning application files referred to in this document are held in the Planning Department, Council Offices, Brympton Way, Yeovil BA20 2HT

Human Rights Act 1998 Issues

The determination of applications which are the subject of reports in this Plans List are considered to involve the following human rights issues:-

1. Article 8: Right to respect for private and family life

I. Everyone has the right to respect for his/her private and family life, his/her home and his/her correspondence.

II. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as in accordance with the law and as is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedom of others.

2. The First Protocol

Article 1: Protection of property

Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his/her possessions. No one shall be deprived of his/her possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law. The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws, as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.

Each report considers in detail the competing rights and interests involved in the application. Having had regard to those matters in the light of the convention rights referred to above, it is considered that the recommendation is in accordance with the law, proportionate and both necessary to protect the rights and freedoms of others and in the public interest.

Meeting AE 04A 11:12 19 Date: 10.08.11 AE

Planning Applications

Area East Committee 10 August 2011

Planning Applications will be considered no earlier than 10.30am for this meeting.

Members to Note: The inclusion of two stars (**) as part of the Head of Development and Building Control’s recommendation indicates that the application will need to be referred to the Regulation Committee if the Area Committee is unwilling to accept that recommendation.

Pitcombe

Page Application Proposal Address Applicant 21 11/02045/FUL Demolition of existing 10 Mill Lane Pitcombe Mr & Mrs E garage, two storey barn, Bruton Bond outside WC and store and erection of two storey extension (GR 367216/133182)

Pitcombe

Page Application Proposal Address Applicant 27 11/02046/CON Demolition of existing 10 Mill Lane Pitcombe Mr & Mrs E garage, two storey barn, Bruton Bond outside WC and store and erection of two storey extension (GR 367216/133182)

Charlton Musgrove

Page Application Proposal Address Applicant 32 11/00325/FUL The erection of two wind Land Part Of Keens turbines together with Moorhayes Farm Elm Cheddar Ltd ancillary development Lane Charlton (revised scheme) Musgrove (GR: 370173/130351)

North Barrow

Page Application Proposal Address Applicant 47 11/01899/FUL Use of land and the Higher Farm Mr And Mrs D erection of a Foddington Road Sutton garage/garden store with North Barrow first floor ancillary accommodation. (GR 360083/129467)

Meeting AE 04A 11:12 20 Date: 10.08.11 AE

Milborne Port

Page Application Proposal Address Applicant 54 11/00555/FUL Refurbishment and 13 Newtown Mrs S extension of existing Milborne Port Bromley, dwelling and erection of Sherborne Mrs B Garrett a new attached terraced & Mrs C dwelling with new Williams vehicular access and parking (GR: 366880/118814)

Henstridge

Page Application Proposal Address Applicant 63 11/02076/S73 Application to vary Church Farm Mr Paul condition 3 of planning Church Street Phillips permission Henstridge 10/04259/FUL (colour of rainwater goods) (GR: 372257/119735)

Wincanton

Page Application Proposal Address Applicant 68 11/00639/FUL Residential development Land Adjoining New Bovis Homes of 212 homes, ancillary Barns Farm West Hill Ltd buildings, open spaces Wincanton and associated infrastructure works (Revised scheme) (GR: 370427/128278)

Meeting AE 04A 11:12 21 Date: 10.08.11 AE

Area East Committee – 10 August 2011

Officer Report On Planning Application: 11/02045/FUL

Proposal: Demolition of existing garage, two storey barn, outside WC and store and erection of two storey extension (GR 367216/133182) Site Address: 10 Mill Lane Pitcombe Bruton Parish: Pitcombe TOWER Ward Mr Mike Beech (Cllr) Recommending Case Nicholas Head Officer: Tel: (01935) 462167 Email: [email protected] Target date: 21st July 2011 Applicant: Mr & Mrs E Bond Agent: Miss Jacqui Pollard 2 Farm Road Street Somerset BA16 0EH UK Application Type: Other Householder - not a Change of Use

Reason for Referral to Committee

The application is referred to Committee at the request of the Ward Member and with the agreement of the Area Chair, in view of the concerns and recommendations of neighbours and the Parish Council.

Site Description and Proposal

Meeting AE 04A 11:12 22 Date: 10.08.11 AE

The site is located on the south side of Mill Lane at the western end of a long group of stone cottages built hard up against the highway, with spacious rear gardens running down to the River Pitt. The north side of the lane is defined by mature hedging and dense vegetation running up the embankment which previously accommodated the railway line. The conservation area covers these cottages and their gardens, as well as the embankment on the north side of the road, giving protection to this part of the village with a distinct and unspoilt historic character.

The cottage under consideration is one of a pair of semi-detached cottages, in stone with tiled roofs. At the end of the cottage is a subservient barn structure with a similarly pitched roof to the main cottage, but set down by about 2m from the cottage roof apex, and considerably narrower than the cottage. Attached to this stone barn section is a lean-to concrete block garage structure of more recent construction.

It is proposed to demolish the garage and the barn structure and replace these with a new extension only slightly lower in height than the main cottage, including a two-storey extension southwards into the garden area, perpendicular to the main cottage building. A new off-road parking area is to be created to the west of the buildings, enabling the parking of three cars perpendicular to the highway.

History

No relevant recent history.

Policy

Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 repeats the duty imposed under S54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and requires that decision must be made in accordance with relevant Development Plan Documents unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

For the purposes of determining current applications the local planning authority considers that the relevant development plan comprises the saved policies of the Somerset and Exmoor National Park Joint Structure Plan Review and the saved policies of the South Somerset Local Plan.

The policies of most relevance to the proposal are:

Saved policies of the Somerset and Exmoor National Park Joint Structure Plan (April 2000):

STR1 - Sustainable Development STR6 - Development outside Towns, Rural Centres and Villages Policy 9 - The Built Historic Environment Policy 49 - Transport Requirements of New Development

Saved policies of the South Somerset Local Plan (April 2006):

ST3 - Development Areas ST5 - General Principles of Development ST6 - The Quality of Development EH1 - Conservation Areas EH2 - Demolition of Buildings in Conservation Areas

Meeting AE 04A 11:12 23 Date: 10.08.11 AE

Policy-related Material Considerations

National Guidance PPS1 - Sustainable Development PPS3 - Housing PPS5 - Planning for the Historic Environment PPS7 - Sustainable Development in Rural Areas PPG13 - Transport PPG25 - Flooding

South Somerset Sustainable Community Strategy Goal 1 - Safe and Inclusive Goal 3 - Healthy and Active Goal 3 - Healthy Environments Goal 7 - Distinctiveness Goal 8 - Quality Development Goal 9 - Homes Goal 10 - Energy Goal 11 - Environment

Consultations

Parish Council: No objection to the application, subject to the road side of the new building being stone rather than rendered.

Highways Authority: No objection, subject to suitable amendment of the submitted layout plan to reflect appropriate parking bay dimensions, and various conditions.

SSDC Area Engineer: Surface water disposal via soakaways.

SSDC Conservation Officer: (In response to this application and the parallel Conservation Area Consent application - 11/02046/CON to demolish the buildings) There are two elements to this proposal - the first is the removal of the existing extensions (the subject of the conservation area consent), and secondly the replacement with two-storey extensions (see 11/02045/FUL). The property stands within Pitcombe conservation area.

Demolition of existing extensions To the northwest of the existing two-storey cottage stand two extensions of differing quality and value. The outermost is a modern block work garage. I have no objection to the removal of this structure, as this will potentially enhance the character of the conservation area. However, between the garage and the main house stands a characterful modest outbuilding of a low two-storey form. This is a good quality stone building that contributes to the character of the conservation area in terms of its form and appearance. It would be harmful to the character of the area for this to be removed.

Proposed extensions Setting aside my concerns over the demolition of the existing building, the use of render is of concern where it faces the road. A rendered extension projecting into the garden could be accepted, but not facing onto the street. The continuous row of exposed stonewalls standing right at the edge of the road is characterful and would be eroded by the erection of a prominent rendered addition at the north-western end.

Meeting AE 04A 11:12 24 Date: 10.08.11 AE

Therefore I recommend the refusal of both applications. The loss of the existing stone building would harm the character of the conservation area, as would the erection of a large rendered extension in its position. This would be contrary to PPS5.

As an alternative I would suggest exploring the retention of the stone building and its extension. It could be extended in two-storey form towards the garden and single storey form alongside the road. I would have no objection to a rendered finish on the garden facing extension. This should achieve a similar level of accommodation on the ground floor, but will not achieve the same space upstairs.

Subsequently, the applicant has agreed to using stone walls along the road edge of the proposed extension, but retains the form and height of the proposed extension as originally submitted. The Conservation Officer remains opposed to the proposal: I am willing to accept the re-working of this outbuilding by extending it back into the garden. This could provide a generously sized master bedroom suite. However the scheme proposed involves the complete removal of the existing structure, and its replacement with a much larger building, overwhelming the scale of the original cottage.

I therefore still recommend refusal.

Environment Agency: No objection or comment offered, other than referring the LPA to the EA’s standing advice.

Representations

In response to the Conservation Area Consent application (11/02046/CON) one letter has been received from a neighbour, stating that the application is supported, but making the following negative comments:

- a rendered elevation is not acceptable - more information is needed about the lay-by; the existing one is too narrow - at present the lay-by is a useful passing place

Considerations

Policy Considerations and Principle of Development

The site is within the conservation area, where any work is required to respect, and ultimately enhance, the character of the area (Policy EH1 of the Local Plan, PPS5). Policy EH2 of the Local Plan specifically protects structures within the conservation area, and disallows demolition of parts of buildings unless the development would preserve or enhance the conservation area.

The principle of changes to the footprint of the dwelling, and the creation of a residential extension, are accepted, although the site is outside of the development area.

Any development should respect the residential amenity of neighbouring occupants (Policy ST6 of the Local Plan).

Impact on Conservation Area

The Conservation Officer has been clear in his advice, and recommends refusal of the application. The proposed change in materials to the front of the building (now to be stone) does not detract from the inappropriateness of the removal of the existing building, or the scale of the building onto the street front.

Meeting AE 04A 11:12 25 Date: 10.08.11 AE

The existing structures, which it is proposed to demolish, are visually very important in this narrow lane, and at the western approach to the heart of the village. The block-work garage building is of no value and is slightly at odds with the historic character of the area, and its removal is considered to be welcome, resulting in an enhancement of the conservation area.

The stone barn section of the building, however, is considered to have make an important contribution to the character and appearance of the area, and particularly this gateway site into the village. It is not considered that the much larger extension proposed to replace it would enhance the conservation area, notwithstanding the proposed amendment of materials on the road frontage. The conservation officer has set out a clear set of guidelines for the possible re-use of this structure which would more positively enhance the character of the conservation area, which the applicants have chosen not to follow.

It is considered that the demolition of the barn would be harmful to the character of the conservation area, and would be contrary to the requirements of Policy EH2 of the Local Plan and PPS5. The proposed replacement building, which extends the street frontage walls upwards, is considered to be of an inappropriate design and scale, and would, by virtue of its massing and appearance, fail to preserve or enhance the conservation area, contrary to Policy EH1 of the Local Plan and PPS5.

Residential Amenity

The proposal is not considered to have any negative on neighbouring residential amenity.

Flood Zone

The area of actual redevelopment, although adjacent to Flood Zone 3 as recorded on the Council’s mapping system, is not directly affected by the flood zone. It is not considered that there is any appreciable flood risk proposed by the development, given that the EA has raised no objection.

Highway - loss of Lay-By

A neighbour has referred to the existing lay-by. This land is owned by the applicant, and not public highway. There is therefore no expectation that it should be retained, and the Highways Authority is of the view that the proposed parking layout is acceptable.

Parish Council Recommendation

The Parish is of the view that the proposal is acceptable provided that stone is used for the road elevation. This view is not supported, for the various reasons set out above.

Conclusion

The proposal cannot be considered to respect the character of the conservation area, and fails in the requirement to preserve or enhance this character and appearance, as required by Policies EH1 and EH2 of the Local Plan, and government advice contained in PPS5. It is accordingly recommended for refusal, notwithstanding the recommendation of the Parish Council.

Meeting AE 04A 11:12 26 Date: 10.08.11 AE

S.106 AGREEMENT

Not relevant.

RECOMMENDATION

Refuse.

SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING:

01. The proposal, by reason of its design and scale, requiring the removal of a substantial proportion of the existing building, would unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the conservation area, contrary to the aims and objectives of PPS5 and Policies EH1 and EH2 of the South Somerset Local Plan, 2006.

Meeting AE 04A 11:12 27 Date: 10.08.11 AE

Area East Committee – 10 August 2011

Officer Report On Planning Application: 11/02046/CON

Reason for Referral to Committee

The application is referred to Committee at the request of the Ward Member and with the agreement of the Area Chair, in view of the concerns and recommendations of neighbours and the Parish Council.

Site Description and Proposal

Meeting AE 04A 11:12 28 Date: 10.08.11 AE

It is proposed to demolish the garage and the barn structure and replace these with a new extension only slightly lower in height than the main cottage, including a two-storey extension.

History

No relevant recent history.

Policy

Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires:- (1) In the exercise, with respect to any buildings or other land in a conservation area, of any powers under any of the provisions mentioned in subsection (2), special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area.

Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 repeats the duty imposed under 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and requires that decisions must be made in accordance with relevant development plan documents unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

Sections 16 and 66 of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 require authorities considering applications for planning permission or listed building consent for works that affect a listed building to have special regard to certain matters, including the desirability of preserving the setting of the building.

The policies of most relevance to the proposal are:

Saved policies of the Somerset and Exmoor National Park Joint Structure Plan (April 2000):

STR1 - Sustainable Development STR6 - Development outside Towns, Rural Centres and Villages Policy 9 - The Built Historic Environment

Saved policies of the South Somerset Local Plan (April 2006):

ST3 - Development Areas ST5 - General Principles of Development ST6 - The Quality of Development

Meeting AE 04A 11:12 29 Date: 10.08.11 AE

EH1 - Conservation Areas EH2 - Demolition of Buildings in Conservation Areas

Policy-related Material Considerations

National Guidance PPS5 - Planning for the Historic Environment

Consultations

Parish Council: Recommends approval, subject to the facing material of the front elevation being natural stone.

Highways Authority: No comment received.

SSDC Area Engineer: Surface water disposal via soakaways.

SSDC Conservation Officer: There are two elements to this proposal - the first is the removal of the existing extensions (the subject of the conservation area consent), and secondly the replacement with two-storey extensions (see 11/02045/FUL). The property stands within Pitcombe conservation area.

Meeting AE 04A 11:12 30 Date: 10.08.11 AE

I therefore still recommend refusal.

Environment Agency: No objection.

Representations

One letter has been received from a neighbour, stating that the application is supported, but making the following negative comments:

- a rendered elevation is not acceptable - more information is needed about the layby; the existing one is too narrow - at present the layby is a useful passing place

Considerations

The principle consideration is the impact of the proposed demolition on the character of the conservation area. Policy EH2 of the Local Plan requires any demolition to maintain or enhance the character and appearance of the area, and PPS5 goes somewhat further in requiring that work within a conservation area should enhance its character.

The existing structures which it is proposed to demolish are visually very important in this narrow lane, and at the western approach to the heart of the village. The block-work garage building is of no value and is slightly at odds with the historic character of the area, and its removal is considered to be welcome, resulting in an enhancement of the conservation area.

The stone barn section of the building, however, is considered to have an important contribution to the character and appearance of the area, and particularly this gateway site into the village. It is not considered that the much larger extension proposed to replace it would enhance the conservation area, notwithstanding the proposed amendment of materials on the road frontage. The conservation officer has set out a clear set of guidelines for the possible re-use of this structure, which would more positively enhance the character of the conservation area, which the applicants have chosen not to follow.

It is considered that the demolition of the barn would be harmful to the character of the conservation area, and would be contrary to the requirements of Policy EH2 of the Local Plan and PPS5.

The application is recommended for refusal.

S.106 AGREEMENT

Not relevant.

RECOMMENDATION

Refuse.

Meeting AE 04A 11:12 31 Date: 10.08.11 AE

SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING:

01. The proposal, resulting in the demolition of a substantial section of the existing building, would be harmful to the character and appearance of the conservation area, contrary to Policy EH1 and EH2 of the South Somerset Local Plan, 2006, and PPS5.

Meeting AE 04A 11:12 32 Date: 10.08.11 AE

Area East Committee – 10 August 2011

Officer Report On Planning Application: 11/00325/FUL

Proposal: The erection of two wind turbines together with ancillary development (revised scheme) (GR: 370173/130351) Site Address: Land Part Of Moorhayes Farm Elm Lane Charlton Musgrove Parish: Charlton Musgrove TOWER Ward Mr Mike Beech (Cllr) Recommending Case Andrew Collins Officer: Tel: 01935 462276 Email: [email protected] Target date: 15th April 2011 Applicant: Keens Cheddar Ltd Agent: Mr David Holmes Adams Holmes Associates Mill House Elmsfield Worcester Road Chipping Norton Oxfordshire OX7 5XS Application Type: Minor Other less than 1,000 sq.m or 1ha

Reason for Referral to Committee

This application is referred to the committee at the request of the Ward Member with the agreement of the Area Chairman as the comments of the Charlton Musgrove Parish Council, the adjoining parishes of Pen Selwood, Bratton Seymour and Shepton Montague and neighbours are contrary to the officer's recommendation.

Site Description and Proposal

Meeting AE 04A 11:12 33 Date: 10.08.11 AE

The site is located outside of development limits to the north of Wincanton Racecourse. To the south of the site is a public footpath and to the east of the site is a permissive path that is currently proposed to be altered to a restricted byway.

The farm covers 200 hectares (500 acres). The farm buildings and dwelling at Moorhayes Farm is located to the West of the site at the bottom of the valley off Verrington Lane, a classified road. The farm is a dairy farm and home of Keens Cheddar - 2 businesses. The businesses use 150,000kW of electricity per year and therefore two 50kW windturbines capable of producing between 100,00kW to 250,000kW per year are proposed. The turbines are proposed to generate electricity for use by the applicant for his businesses and to export any surplus to the National Grid.

This application seeks the erection of 2 wind turbines on land at the highest point of the farm. The turbines are proposed to be 24.6m to their hub and 34.2m to their blade tip. They are proposed to be located to 2 separate agricultural fields currently used for the grazing of dairy cattle. The turbine 1 is proposed to be located in the western field and be 55m from the Northern hedgerow boundary and 50m from the Eastern post and rail fence. Turbine 2 is to be located in the Eastern field 66m from the Northern hedge and 5m from the Western post and rail fence. Power lines to connect to the grid are proposed to be underground. Approximately 200m of trenching will be required.

Access to the site during construction and any maintenance is via Verrington Lane and through the farmyard and up the track over some of the footpath.

History

10/03697/FUL - The erection of two winds turbines together with ancillary equipment - Application Withdrawn - 11/11/10 This application was withdrawn due to lack of information in relation to visual impact and potential noise.

Policy

The policies of most relevance to the proposal are:

Saved policies of the Somerset and Exmoor National Park Joint Structure Plan (April 2000):

STR1 - Sustainable Development STR6 - Development Outside Towns, Rural centres and Villages Policy 1 - Nature Conservation Policy 3 - Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty Policy 5 - Landscape Character Policy 7 - Agricultural Land Policy 9 - The Built Historic Environment Policy 42 - Walking

Meeting AE 04A 11:12 34 Date: 10.08.11 AE

Policy 64 - Renewable Energy

Saved policies of the South Somerset Local Plan (April 2006):

ST3 - Development Areas ST5 - General Principles of Development ST6 - The Quality of Development EC1 - Protecting the Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land EC2 - Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty EC3 - Landscape Character EC8 - Protected Species EH5 - Setting of Listed Buildings EP2 - Pollution and Noise EP9 - Control Over Other Potentially Pollution Uses CR9 - Public Rights of Way and Recreation Routes

National Guidance PPS1 - Sustainable Development PPS5 - Planning and the Historic Environment PPS7 - Sustainable Development in Rural Areas PPS9 - Biodiversity and Geological Conservation PPS22 - Renewable Energy PPG24 - Planning and Noise

South Somerset Sustainable Community Strategy Goal 3 Goal 4 Goal 10

Other Relevant Documents

ETSU-R-97 - THE ASSESSMENT AND RATING OF NOISE FROM WIND FARMS - September 1996 Planning and Climate Change - Supplement to PPS1 Planning for Renewable Energy - A Companion Guide to PPS22 Wind Farms - The British Horse Society - April 2010

Consultations

Charlton Musgrove Parish Council - "The Parish Council object to this planning application for reasons of the noise impact, close proximity to a bridleway of which there is no mention in the application although reference is made to the fact that the turbines will have to be switched off during race meetings thereby virtually rendering the bridleway unusable as its used very regularly by horse riding parishioners. Very little effort has been put in this application than the previous one regarding the exact size and scale of the turbines on site in any detail as requested previously by this Parish Council. The visual materials especially photographs are inaccurate and misleading. The Parish Council feels that if this application was allowed it would set a precedent for future such applications."

Pen Selwood Parish Council (neighbouring PC) - "Pen Selwood Parish Council is opposed to all applications that could cause any detrimental effect upon the visual amenity of the village which is within an AONB. This application is for structures that are at least twice as high as any building on the neighbouring racecourse and will be noticeable from parts of this village and other areas within the AONB.

Meeting AE 04A 11:12 35 Date: 10.08.11 AE

We are also mindful that these structures can cause noise pollution and shadow flicker and we strongly support objections raised by people who would be affected by these forms of pollution.

Concern has also been expressed that this development would set a precedent for other, similar, developments and that if we are not careful these structures could spring up throughout the area and would blight the countryside around us.

Lastly we must express our concern about the viability of this kind of energy generation. We are aware that the Government subsidies available for this type of development make them a popular option but are concerned that any energy saved by the use of these structures is largely, if not totally, outweighed by the energy required to build, transport and install the devices.

We are opposed to this application."

Shepton Montague Parish Council (neighbouring PC) - "Since the last application was submitted, the Parish Council has received representations from several residents who have concerns regarding the loss of visual amenity and potential noise and vibration from the proposed turbines.

Fear has also been expressed about setting a precedent in allowing at first these two, and then other wind turbines which would spoil the natural beauty of the landscape in this area. The Parish Council would like to see conditions attached to any consent, if granted, to protect against noise, vibration and flicker from two turbines and to prevent the proliferation of turbines in the locality.

We note that several farms in the area are using solar panels to generate electricity and this method would seem a better alternative as it raises no issues of noise or visual scarring."

Bratton Seymour Parish Meeting (neighbouring PC) - "The Bratton Seymour Parish Meeting writes to state our objection to the proposal to install two windturbines and give the following reasons

We are concerned about the inaccuracies in the planning application documents with regard to Bratton Seymour. We estimate the visual impact will affect 19 out of 38 properties in the village and not just Bratton House and the Church as stated. In addition the main lane through the village and all rights of way will be affected. To say that the views will be filtered by tree cover is not accurate.

The photomontage supplied in Appendix F is totally inaccurate. The red circle shown is the wrong side of the racecourse. We enclose 2 new photographs, one take from the church and the other from the lane, which show their true position according to their site plan.

As a result of checking the above, we are concerned that there may be other inaccuracies in their application.

We believe that bats will be roosting and feeding close to the proposed location, and suggest that a bat survey is carried out. I am sure you are aware of the work done by Somerset County Council, documenting the adverse effect of wind turbines on the bat population.

Meeting AE 04A 11:12 36 Date: 10.08.11 AE

We understand that this area is classified as a low wind area, and can find no evidence in the application to the contrary. Furthermore we believe that had they undertaken a proper wind assessment, they would have found the wind inadequate. It has been proved locally that the National Average for Wind is not relevant in this area.

The wind turbines would cause an unacceptable level of visual blight in an historic landscape, for the village as a whole, and also for the congregation and visitors to our 12th Century church.

The site is visible from Alfred's Tower, part of the Cranborne Chase AONB, which would be to the detriment of the visual amenity of the AONB, who state many relevant objections in their letter to you.

The proposal is contrary to PPS1 to protect and enhance the natural and historic environment and the quality and character of the countryside.

The proposal does not comply with the PPS1 requirement that significant adverse impacts on the environment should be avoided and that planning authorities should seek to enhance the environment as part of development proposals.

PPS4 is clear that the local authority has a duty to ensure the countryside is protected for the sake of its intrinsic character and beauty and the diversity if its heritage, landscapes and wildlife, to ensure it may be enjoyed by all. This proposal would not comply with that duty.

We therefore hope that the above comments will persuade you to reject this planning application once and for all."

Wincanton Town Council (neighbouring TC) - "Recommend approval"

Highway Authority - No observations.

Area Engineer - No comment

Landscape Officer - Notes that the application site is not located within a designated landscape, and that a regional government study into renewables (2003) found the clay vale character area to be of medium sensitivity only in its consideration of the area's capacity to accommodate wind power development. Government guidance (PPS 22) is heavily weighted in favour of renewables, and at present South Somerset is well short of meeting targets for the generation of renewable power. Consequently, whilst I can offer you landscape policy grounds for a refusal of this application, I would concede that the weight of policy favouring such development is more substantive than that of the landscape position.

Climate Change Officer - " The two turbines proposed are likely to generate around 175,000 kWhy (equivalent to that required by 35 households.) It should be noted that there are factual inaccuracies within some of the other consultation responses, i.e.; That the energy produced by the turbines is outweighed by the energy required to construct them. The reality is that the average energy payback is 13 months (Cutler Cleveland, Boston University 2006) That overhead cabling will be required. This would not be expected for a 100 kW scheme and the DAS describes the actual underground means of grid connecting the turbines.

I have no objections."

Meeting AE 04A 11:12 37 Date: 10.08.11 AE

English Heritage - Do not wish to comment in detail, but they offer general observations. The most likely buildings to be affected are grade II* churches at Bratton Seymour and Charlton Musgrove. Consider that the supporting information relating to visual impact has not been as comprehensive as might have been expected but note the relatively small scale of turbines and not having a formal Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). It is not clear without a Zone of Visual Influence (ZVI) that the selection of historic sites covers all sites or whether they would be visible with the turbines. Consider that the Council’s Conservation staff would be in a better position to assess. They do note that just because turbines may be intervisible with such historic sites does not automatically harm their setting. However, the proximity, scale and location of wind turbines should avoid visually competing with such landmarks or interrupting key vistas relating to them. Recommend that the application should be determined in accordance with national and local policy guidance.

Conservation Officer - I think the impact on the setting of the Moorhayes Farm is potentially very significant. The turbines will be seen from the hill to the southwest of Moorhayes Farm and will most certainly affect the setting of the listed building and farmstead to a certain degree.

Environmental Protection - "Having carefully considered the information submitted by the applicant I recommend that should the application be successful a condition be applied in order to protect residential amenity."

Ecologist - Natural England guidance in relation to bats and wind turbines are relevant to this case. The landscape in the vicinity of the proposed turbine locations is characterised by fields managed for modern intensive agriculture, interspersed by hedges, hedge trees and small copses. It is possible that the 16th century house at Moorhayes itself could be used as a bat roost but there aren’t any built structures close (within 50 metres) to the turbine site.

Whilst it's feasible that bats may commute and/or forage in the area, it's likely that this will predominantly be close to the hedges and other woody features and the siting of turbines 55m away is unlikely to result in any significant impact to bats.

I don't feel there are any aspects of this case or in the context of the wider landscape to justify specific bat surveys nor to deviate from the Natural England guidance on this matter.

Ministry of Defence - The MoD has no objection to the proposal.

NATS (Air Traffic Control responsible for en route air traffic) - No objection.

Cranborne Chase & West Wiltshire Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty - Consider that the information submitted on the application in relation to landscape and visual impact are inadequate.

The AONB office has carried out works in relation to the visual impact and prepared cross section views from the AONB. In these cases there is land rising behind the turbines so that they might appear to appear on raised ground they would not break the skyline. But, there could be viewpoints within the District, where this is not the case.

They are concerned over a white colour turbine which could attract attention to them. Whilst it is noted that the current proposal is relatively modest, the AONB is concerned that it could be considered that larger turbines are acceptable within the setting of the AONB. There would also be a cumulative impact upon further proposals.

Meeting AE 04A 11:12 38 Date: 10.08.11 AE

It is considered that insufficient information has been provided to justify an approval, as vertical elements above tree lines are likely to be intrusive and change the character of the scene.

District Rights of Way - The Restricted Byway that runs from Elm Lane North Eastwards towards Knowle Rock is currently being legally diverted to run along the eastern side of the western field boundary containing the proposed Turbine 2 shown on the location plan OS sitemap extract. The diversion order is at the request of the landowner/applicant for the Planning permission.

SCC will also advise you that the rest of Elm Lane (to Verrington Lane) is the subject of an application for Restricted Byway status and that the majority of it is currently recorded as Public Footpath WN8/3.

County Rights of Way - The turbines appear not to oversail the rights of way and their separation distance is far enough to comply with the guidance distance of PPS22 of 200m to avoid frightening of the horses. However, there is a footpath from Elm Lane to Verrington Lane along the South of the site and this is subject of an application to upgrade the footpath to a restricted byway which could be used by horses. It is not possible to indicate when this will be investigated or the outcome of any investigation. Whilst not objecting to the application it is recommended that negotiations be made to re- site Turbine 2 to be outside of the exclusion zone. During the construction phase more information will be required to decide if a temporary closure of the footpath is required.

British Horse Society - Does not consider that the turbines are close enough to the public right of way to worry horses but raises concerns over the proximity to Wincanton racecourse. If there is any glint on the blades especially if it has been wet it could distract a horse and cause an accident. Also concerned that all racing on the site is jump racing and the turbines are sited in line with the back straight.

British Horseracing Authority - No comments received.

REPRESENTATIONS

A planning agent representing the Jockey Club and Wincanton Racecourse have raised the following concerns

• The windturbines would be located within 200m of Wincanton Racecourse and 220m from the track. On the basis of their location, scale and design and potential conflict with the racecourse object to the scheme. • The landscape and visual impact does not explain the methodology and no assessment has been made to existing landscape and character. There is insufficient information for a justified decision to be made. • The Design and Access Statement acknowledges that the turbines will be visible from the racecourse and that the turbines could be non-operational on race days. But the turbines would still be visible and will be a distraction to both horses and spectators whether moving or not. • Concerns over proposed noise in relation to the racecourse both on race days and non race days as the site also has a golf course and caravan site. • The proposed wind turbines will be aligned along the back straight of the racecourse and be significant in views by horses during racing. • No information has been supplied of shadow flicker which could affect race horses and potentially frighten them and result in health and safety problems at the course.

Meeting AE 04A 11:12 39 Date: 10.08.11 AE

• A copy of an appeal decision has been supplied that was dismissed as a wind turbine was aligned with a cricket pitch and impact was a significant material consideration. • If permission is granted they request a condition preventing increase in ambient noise levels beyond the site. Also wish to see any wording of any condition regarding the turbine not being operational on race days.

In addition 60 letters have been received of which 3 are international with a further 20 letters from residents across England who are frequent visitors. Of the 60 letters, 40 are signed 'template letters' including the South & West Wiltshire Hunt Branch of the Pony Club. The template letters raise the following areas of concern:-

• Proposal will cause visual blight. • The proposal is contrary to PPS1 where there is a requirement to protect and enhance the natural and historic environment and quality and character of the countryside. • The proposal is contrary to PPS1 in that significant adverse impacts on the environment will be avoided and local authorities should seek to enhance the environment as part of development proposals. • The proposal does not comply with PPS4 in relation to protection of the character and intrinsic nature of landscapes. • The site is visible from Alfred's Tower, part of the AONB and would be detriment to the visual amenity of the AONB.

In the other letters of representation the following concerns are made;

• Proposal will compromise visual amenity for individual short term gains. • Technology is changing quickly and wind turbines are not very efficient and will be redundant when other technologies are invented. • Concerns over the impact wind turbines have on birds. • Impact upon views. • The nearest adjoining property will be adversely affected through visual impact, noise and flicker. • Proposal is for commercial gain not solely for private use. • Council has duty to protect the countryside as detailed in PPS1 and PPS4. • Proposal will be visible from AONB and contrary to PPS7. • Proposal will be sited close to rights of way. • The turbines are located close to bridleway and Wincanton racecourse. • Visual blight. • Impact upon listed buildings. • Proposal could set an undesirable precedent. • Photovoltaics and biomass are much less visually intrusive or harmful in this area. • Consider that the submitted photos showing a single cherry picker cannot give a true representation of the site as is not the same height and has no moving blades. • Query the noise assessment carried out in November and December cannot show whether the survey data is typical. • Consider that the proposal will adversely affect tourism in the area. • There are only a few bridleways in the area and this proposal would impact upon 2 of them. • A local livery yard would be adversely affected by the proposal as bridleways would be unusable due to noise, size and motion of the turbines. Also riders in Charlton Musgrove would be affected. • The application is commercial taking advantage of Government Grants.

Meeting AE 04A 11:12 40 Date: 10.08.11 AE

• The agent has stated that the wind turbines could be turned off on race days, but there is no protection from the bridleways. • Consider that the wind turbines are too large.

CONSIDERATIONS

Principle/Policy

A lot of the representations have made reference to PPS1 (Sustainable Development) and PPS4 (Planning for Sustainable Economic Development) in relation to protecting and enhancing the natural and historic environment and the quality and character of the countryside and protecting the intrinsic character and beauty and diversity of its heritage, landscape and wildlife. But there is also a need for consideration of Planning and Climate Change a Supplement to PPS1, PPS22 (Renewable Energy), and Planning for Renewable Energy A Companion Guide to PPS22.

Planning and Climate Change

This document states the Government's commitment to address climate change. A significant element is reducing carbon from buildings but the promotion of low carbon energy production is equally important. The guide explains that it is not a requirement to demonstrate that there is a need to renewable energy or question the energy justification for a specific location.

The Companion Guide to PPS22 also states that there is no doubt about the technical feasibility of wind power and the UK is particularly well placed to utilise wind power, having access to 40% of the entire European wind resource. Developments in the technology and the electricity market over recent years now mean that wind power is found to be viable across the UK.

In assessing Government Guidance there is a strong presumption in favour of applications for renewable development in order for agreed renewable targets to be met.

The main issue is whether the benefits of providing renewable energy associated with the proposal would be outweighed by harm, if any, caused by the proposal to:

Visual Impact including upon the AONB Cumulative Landscape Effects Noise Impact Effect upon Wincanton Racecourse Effect Upon Listed Buildings Effect Upon Public Rights of Way

Visual Impact including upon the AONB

In assessing visual impact PPS22 states that the following factors should be considered;

5.19 Factors to consider in analysing the landscape and visual effect of individual applications include: - national designations; - landscape character areas; - landscape sensitivity; - landscape and visual analysis; and, - cumulative effects.

Meeting AE 04A 11:12 41 Date: 10.08.11 AE

In relation to national designations the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) is included. The guidance in PPS22 advises that buffer zones should not be created around nationally designated sites that prevent development of renewable energy projects. However renewable energy projects close to their boundaries will be a material consideration.

The AONB partnership has raised concerns over the information supplied by the agent in relation to the visual impact assessment and colour of the masts. Therefore the AONB partnership have carried out its own assessment of the proposals on the AONB and supplied this information to the Local Planning Authority. Due to contours and viewpoints blocked by vegetation the partnership consider that the application site can only be clearly visible from two points within the AONB. They are on the MacMillan Way near King Alfred's Tower and on the road North of Pen Selwood. They have provided cross sections from these points and note that the turbines would be seen with land rising behind the turbines in the background and therefore would not break the skyline. In considering their comments the colour of the masts can be conditioned and it is considered that the proposals would not have a significant impact upon the setting of the AONB.

The District Council has not designated a landscape character area. The site is however with the Blackmoor Vale and Vale of Wardour nationally identified area.

The landscape officer has noted that the application site is not located within a designated landscape, and that a regional government study into renewables (2003) found the clay vale character area to be of medium sensitivity only in its consideration of the area's capacity to accommodate wind power development. Government guidance (PPS 22) is heavily weighted in favour of renewables, and at present South Somerset is well short of meeting targets for the generation of renewable power.

It is noted by the landscape officer and the AONB Partnership that the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment is not as comprehensive as it could be. However it is considered that there is sufficient information submitted to make an assessment of the application. The scale of the proposal will give them prominence within their setting, and when viewed from the wider surround, they will have a capacity to draw the eye, particularly when moving, though the scale of the turbines are not so great as to make them dominant features beyond a 1.5 km distance. Impact is consequently regarded as being minor adverse, and on balance acceptable.

PPS22 requires that authorities individually assess visual impact and cumulative impact. There are no large-scale wind turbines in the vicinity. The nearest, as shown in the information submitted by the applicant, is a single mast located near Chewton Mendip to the North of Shepton Mallett. Therefore it is considered that there are no large-scale wind turbines in the immediate vicinity and as such there are no cumulative landscape effects.

In assessing all the above, comments made in the letters of representation and consultee responses it is acknowledged that the turbines will have some impact. However, on balance, in assessing the turbines number, size and location the proposals will not cause demonstrable harm to landscape character and therefore comply with Local Plan Policy EC3, Structure Plan Policy 5 and the advice given in PPS7.

Noise Impact

Following the withdrawal of the previous application a noise assessment of the area and details of the noise of the proposed turbines have been supplied. In assessing the details

Meeting AE 04A 11:12 42 Date: 10.08.11 AE of ETSU-R-97 (The assessment and rating of noise from wind turbines - an independent working group initially set up by the Dti) and PPG24 the Environmental Protection Officer does not object to the proposal. This is subject to a condition restricting noise from the turbines. This condition is similar to wording of a recent decision on a turbine from Cornwall Council. On this basis the proposal complies with Policies EP2 and EP9 of the Local Plan and the advice given in PPG24 and ETSU-R-97.

Effect upon Wincanton Racecourse

Other aspects in relation to noise and visual impact have been assessed above. However, of primary consideration is the letter of objection from the agent representing the racecourse raising concerns over the safety of the racecourse.

Wincanton racecourse is a jump course with 17 days of jump racing from October to May with an average of two meetings a month during this period. Concern has been raised regarding shadow flicker and the racehorses being affected by the rotating blades.

The agent for the applicant has provided further information in relation to any shadow flicker. Due to the orientation of the course to the application site - the turbines are proposed to the North of the site. As such there will be no shadow flicker across the racecourse.

In considering whether a highly trained racehorse would be affected by wind turbines the planning agent has provided a letter from Hexham Racecourse in Northumberland. The letter is from the chairman of the course and they are submitting a planning application for a wind turbine to be sited within 60m of the course. A course inspector for the British Horse Racing Authority has informed the letter writer that they have no problem siting 2 wind turbines of a similar scale 50m from the racecourse. The local authority also have a document on their website that identifies this proposal and is looking to make Hexham Racecourse the first carbon neutral racecourse in the country.

Whilst acknowledging the above, the agent has also suggested that a condition could be attached to ensure that the turbines are not operational on race days. However, no wording of any condition has been put forward and it is debatable as to whether any such condition would comply with Circular 11/95 in relation to enforcement.

The agent has also supplied a copy of an appeal statement relating to a wind turbine appeal being dismissed in Halifax with a consideration being the turbine lined up with the wicket. It is not considered that there are many parallels with this application. This is due to the site being in the Green Belt with the cricket pitch being well used. Therefore limited weight is given to this appeal.

In considering these elements, whilst it is noted that the turbines would be visible from the racecourse, it is not considered that there would be a significant demonstrable adverse effect upon the racecourse.

Effect Upon Listed Buildings

PPS5 is of relevance when considering the impact upon listed buildings. It is considered that 4 sites needs special consideration.

Grade II* Church of St Nicholas, Bratton Seymour

Grade II Lower Shalford, Moorhayes Farm itself and Gooselands all in Charlton Musgrove.

Meeting AE 04A 11:12 43 Date: 10.08.11 AE

The Conservation Officer considers that the proposal does not have an adverse impact upon the setting of the church in Bratton Seymour due to the distance from the site (2.5km) and the height of the turbines (2.4m to hub) and (34.2m to blade tip).

Also Lower Shalford Farm and Gooselands, both Grade II listed buildings, are located too far away to directly affect the setting of these buildings.

The Conservation Officer has raised concerns over the proposals impact upon Moorhayes Farm itself. Moorhayes Farm is a Grade II listed building located at the bottom of the hill accessed via Verrington Lane. The distance from the house to the nearest turbine is 340m and the farm is a current working dairy farm surrounded by modern agricultural buildings viewed in the same vista as the farmhouse. Along the roadside boundary there is also a great deal of vegetation and trees. The farmhouse and the turbines cannot be viewed in the same vista from a public right of way.

The Senior Landscape Officer considers that the proposals would have some impact upon Moorhayes Farm but in considering the current situation with the modern agricultural buildings and the distance to the proposed turbines would not significantly affect the setting of the dwellinghouse.

Effect Upon Public Rights of Way

The Companion Guide to PPS22 gives advice on the aspect of wind turbines and public rights of way especially bridleways. It states;

56. The British Horse Society, following internal consultations, has suggested a 200 metre exclusion zones around bridle paths to avoid wind turbines frightening horses. Whilst this could be deemed desirable, it is not a statutory requirement, and some negotiation should be undertaken if it is difficult to achieve this.

57. Similarly, there is no statutory separation between a wind turbine and a public right of way. Often, fall over distance is considered an acceptable separation, and the minimum distance is often taken to be that the turbine blades should not be permitted to oversail a public right of way.

The County Rights of Way Officer has not raised an objection in principle but has raised concerns over the distance that one of the turbines is from a footpath that being assessed as to whether it should be upgraded. Reference is made to the guidance from The British Horse Society referring to wind farms. Turbine 2 is proposed to be located 170m away from the footpath and therefore not within the 200m guidance. In considering these comments it is noted that this right of way is a footpath and an assessment for its upgrade may not be granted. Also reference has to be made to the information quoted above in the companion guide, stating that these distances are desirable and not a statutory requirement. In addition, due to the height of the turbines, the distance between the turbine and the right of way is well within the fall over distance and the blades would not oversail the right of way or cause shadow flicker.

The agent has also supplied information to address concerns in these matters. It is stated that the UK's first wind farm in Delabole Wind Farm in Cornwall houses a riding school and stud farm. In addition near the Holmside Wind Farm in County Durham is Holmside Hall Equestrian. This is run by a British Horse Society instructor that runs regular event days and regularly rides her horse within 5m of the base of the turbines and other riders and a local hunt run close to the turbines without incident.

Meeting AE 04A 11:12 44 Date: 10.08.11 AE

In assessing all the above, it is not considered that the turbines would have a demonstrable effect upon or cause the public rights of way to be less useable.

Other Issues

Protected Species

Comments have been made regarding the impact the proposals will have on bats. This aspect has been covered by the District Council's Ecologist. It is noted that the wind turbines are located more than 50m from hedgerows where bats are most likely to be feeding as outlined in Natural England guidance. On this basis it is considered that this would not be a demonstrable issue and comply with Policy EC8 and the advice given in PPS9.

Concern has also been raised over the impact the turbines will have on birds. This aspect is covered in the PPS22 Companion Guide. It states that:

60. Experience indicates that bird species and their habitats are rarely affected by wind turbine developments and the impact of an appropriately designed and located wind farm on the local bird life should, in many cases, be minimal.

In this instance it is not considered that it would be a significant risk due to the number and location of the turbines and their height.

Air Traffic Safeguarding / MoD

Both civil and military air traffic control have been consulted on the proposals and both do not raise any objections to the proposals.

Outstanding Neighbour Comments

Concerns have been expressed that the technology is quickly changing, wind is not very efficient and the other renewable energies are less intrusive. These comments are not material planning considerations and can only be given limited weight as part of this application as detailed in PPS22.

Neighbours also consider that the proposal is taking advantage of Government grants and is for commercial gain not private use. Again these comments are not material planning considerations and can only be given limited weight.

Conclusion

This is a fairly complex application with a number of different considerations that have been detailed in this report. The main issue is whether the benefits of providing renewable energy associated with the proposal would be outweighed by harm, if any, caused by the proposal.

In assessing its visual impact the Landscape Officer is satisfied that the landscape can cope with this scale of development and that renewable energy requirements are considered to outweigh any potential landscape effect.

The Environmental Protection Officer, subject to a condition is satisfied that the proposal will not adversely affect residential amenity. The proposals will not adversely affect radar by civil or military uses.

Meeting AE 04A 11:12 45 Date: 10.08.11 AE

Information has been supplied by the agent, to address concerns by the Jockey Club and Wincanton Racecourse: Hexham Racecourse are installing turbines on their course.

Notwithstanding the conservation comments, it is considered that the turbines would not have a significant adverse impact and the benefits of the scheme outweigh any potential harm. Therefore, in considering the size and scale of the turbines, they are acceptable in this location.

RECOMMENDATION

Grant conditional permission for the following reason

01. Notwithstanding the comments of the Parish Council's and the neighbours the proposal is by reason of its size and scale and the benefits from a renewable energy perspective, the proposal complies with saved Policies ST5, ST6, EC1, EC2, EC3, EC8, EH5, EP2, EP9 and CR9 of the South Somerset Local Plan and advice contained in PPS1 and PPS22.

SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING:

01. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: To accord with the provisions of section 91(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

02. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Location Plan received 20 January 2011 and Endurance wind Power drawing of wind turbine received 20 January 2011

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning. 03. No works shall be undertaken unless details of the colour and finish of the turbines have been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity in accordance with saved Policies EC2, EC3, ST5 and ST6 of the South Somerset Local Plan

04. Within 6 months of the cessation of use of the wind turbines hereby permitted they shall be removed and the site reinstated to its former condition.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity in accordance with saved Policies EC2, EC3, ST5 and ST6 of the South Somerset Local Plan

05. The level of noise emissions from the wind turbine generator when measured in accordance with the guidance contained in ETSU-R-97 shall not when measured from 1 meter from the façade of residential properties exceed, LA90, 10min of 35 dB(A) up to wind speeds of 10m/s at 10m in height.

Reason: In the interests of residential amenity in accordance with saved Policies EP9, ST5 and ST6 of the South Somerset Local Plan.

06. In the event of a complaint being received in writing by the planning authority in relation to noise from the wind turbines, the wind farm operator shall measure the level of noise emission from the wind farm at the location of the complainant's property (or, in the event that access is not possible, at the nearest publically

Meeting AE 04A 11:12 46 Date: 10.08.11 AE

accessible location acceptable to the planning authority). Where the noise levels specified in condition 5 above are exceeded, the wind farm operator shall take appropriate steps to ensure that the noise emissions from the wind farm are reduced to the specified levels or less, to the satisfaction in writing of the planning authority.

Reason: To provide sufficient information to investigate any complaints of noise nuisance and to ensure that residential properties are not adversely affected by justified noise nuisance in accordance with saved Policies EP9, ST5 and ST6 of the South Somerset Local Plan.

Informatives:

01. The applicant has stated that the turbines to be installed is an Endurance E series with a hub height of 24.6m and a power output of 50kW. Environmental Protection comments relate to this turbine only. Should the make or model of the turbine change, then these comments would not apply and the application would need to be reassessed.

Meeting AE 04A 11:12 47 Date: 10.08.11 AE

Area East Committee – 10 August 2011

Officer Report On Planning Application: 11/01899/FUL

Proposal: Use of land and the erection of a garage/garden store with first floor ancillary accommodation. (GR 360083/129467) Site Address: Higher Farm Foddington Road North Barrow Parish: North Barrow CARY Ward Mr N Weeks (Cllr) Mr H Hobhouse (Cllr) Recommending Case Nicholas Head Officer: Tel: (01935) 462167 Email: [email protected] Target date: 14th July 2011 Applicant: Mr And Mrs D Sutton Agent: Brimble Lea & Partners Wessex House High Street Gillingham Dorset Application Type: Other Change Of Use

Reason For Referral to Committee

The application is referred to the Committee at the request of a Ward Member and with the agreement of the Area Chair, in the light of the Parish Council's concerns.

Site Description and Proposal

The site is located in open country, on the north side of Foddington Road. The large farmhouse has a various extensions to its north side, with a walled formal garden to the south. The original farm buildings associated with the farm are now detached from the property, and converted for residential uses on sites north of the application site. The

Meeting AE 04A 11:12 48 Date: 10.08.11 AE residential curtilage is surrounded by open pasture, and a tarred driveway, lined with trees, approaches the house from the south.

It is proposed to make an extension to the residential curtilage 12m eastwards from the house, and to erect a multi-purpose double storey outbuilding, with garaging and storage space on the ground level, and ancillary residential accommodation (a 40sq m playroom space with 'cloakroom') at the upper level.

History

06/04081/FUL - Replace 3 rooflights with single dormer windows on extension to dwelling (amendment to planning permission 05/02604/FUL) - permitted with conditions 06/02721/FUL - The erection of a porch extension to front of property - permitted with conditions 05/02604/FUL - Erection of an extension to dwelling - permitted with conditions 05/00760/FUL - The erection of an extension and outbuilding - refused 03/03354/FUL - The erection of a new garage building - refused 00/02887/COU - The erection of a two storey extension to dwelling, the erection of a new garage/stable building, and the alteration to garden boundaries - permitted with conditions

Policy

The policies of most relevance to the proposal are:

Saved policies of the Somerset and Exmoor National Park Joint Structure Plan (April 2000):

STR1 - Sustainable Development STR6 - Development outside Towns, Rural Centres and Villages Policy 1 - Nature Conservation Policy 5 - Landscape Character Policy 11 - Areas of High Archaeological Potential

Saved policies of the South Somerset Local Plan (April 2006):

ST3 - Development Areas ST5 - General Principles of Development ST6 - The Quality of Development EC3 - Landscape Character EH12 - Areas of High Archaeological Potential and Other Areas of Archaeological interest.

Policy-related Material Considerations

Meeting AE 04A 11:12 49 Date: 10.08.11 AE

National Guidance PPS1 - Sustainable Development PPS5 - Planning for the Historic Environment PPS7 - Sustainable Development in Rural Areas

Consultations

Parish Council: The Parish Council does not object in principle to any development on this site but feels this proposal is too large and an over development of the plot. Objects to the proposal.

Highways Authority: No objection, subject to a condition tying the new accommodation to the main dwelling house.

SSDC Area Engineer: Surface water disposal via soakaways.

SSDC Landscape Officer: Whilst this proposal further aggregates built form on site, the proposed building arrangement remains compact, and the new build is subservient in scale to the main house, and of an appropriate scale. Consequently I raise no landscape issues.

SSDC Environmental Protection Officer: I can confirm that I have no concerns regarding the installation of an additional septic tank. I understand that a discharge consent, or exemption, is required for septic tanks but this process is administered by the Environment Agency

Representations

Two letters have been received, objecting to the proposal.

The first is from the owner/occupier, The Cider House, immediately north of the site. Objections include:

- windows facing east signify a separate dwelling, creating the possibility of a future use as separate accommodation; having windows west facing would give a different indication - the east facing windows overlook part of the north of the site and privacy and enjoyment of this property will be compromised

The second is from the owner/occupier, Poplar Tree Cottage, to the east of the site. Objections include:

- there is a concern at this additional development on the site. The footprint of which has already been extended, including additional rooms, garaging and garden stores

Meeting AE 04A 11:12 50 Date: 10.08.11 AE

- there is a concern at the scale and aspect of the proposal - continued development of the site will alter its character - the east-facing windows are contrary to the stated design intention to create a courtyard - the windows should face west - the east facing windows directly overlook Poplar Tree Cottage and gardens, denying the occupants privacy - adequate drainage will be problematic given the situation of the septic tank

Considerations

Policy Considerations

The site is in open countryside, where development is strictly controlled (Policy ST3 of the Local Plan). In the case of domestic development of existing dwelling houses, further appropriate development, at a reasonable scale, is acceptable, subject to compliance with other development plan policies. In particular, development should respect the landscape character, and not harm neighbouring residential amenity (Policies EC3 and ST6 of the Local Plan).

Principle of Development

The current development on site, which has been allowed incrementally by way of the various applications referred to above, is substantial. The original Victorian farmhouse has been respected in this process, with extensions taking place on the north (rear) side of the building. The house is approached by a formally planted avenue of trees lining a tarmac driveway. There is a semi-formal walled garden on the front (south) side of the house, with the driveway running around this and the east side of the house, to access the garages and storage areas.

In this context, what is proposed is a relatively minor curtilage extension to accommodate a two-storey outbuilding forming a courtyard to the rear of the east elevation of the house. The proposed building is to provide additional storage and parking space at ground level, with a 40 sq m room above for use as ancillary accommodation for the main dwelling house.

In the context, it is not considered that the proposed building is out of scale with the existing development, and is therefore a reasonable addition to this large residential property. It is not in a position that is highly visible from any public vantage point, and is considered compatible with the setting and the local landscape in this respect.

Visual and Landscape Impact

The proposal is a well-detailed building in timber, which will complement the existing complex of buildings. It is located appropriately in order to respect the character and setting of the main Victorian farmhouse building. Although it is not a small building, in the context of the existing development and layout of the grounds, it is not considered inappropriate or overwhelmingly out of scale with the existing.

As noted, the site is not highly visible from public vantage points. As set out by the Council's Landscape Architect, there is no principle landscape objection to the proposal. The building will be visible from adjoining land, but given the existing scale of development on the site, it is not considered that it will create an incongruous or harmful impact.

Meeting AE 04A 11:12 51 Date: 10.08.11 AE

Impact on Amenity

There are two dwellings on adjacent land: a converted barn to the immediate north, some 22m from the proposed building. This dwelling is faced by the north elevation of the proposed new building, which has only one upper window in the gable end. It is not considered that unacceptable direct window-to-window overlooking will result. Although the garden could be viewed from the building, its principle windows are on the east façade, looking essentially away from the garden area, with minor views of the end of the garden away from the dwellinghouse. It is not considered that this represents harmful overlooking that would result in unacceptable loss of amenity.

The second nearby dwelling is Poplar Cottage, which is more than 40m from the proposed building, towards the north-east of the building. There is no potential for unacceptable direct window-to-window overlooking. Although the upper windows will look towards the house's garden area, it would be over a distance of more than 30m, which is not considered to represent harmful overlooking.

Parish Council Concern

The Parish considers the proposal too large, and an overdevelopment of the plot. It is not clarified why the scale of development is considered harmful. As discussed above, the proposed building is considered to be of a reasonable scale given the scale of what exists on site, and its relatively remote setting. It is not considered that the scale of development, in itself, constitutes any demonstrable harm, to the landscape, the local setting, or to residential amenity. The Parish's concerns are therefore not considered to be sufficient reason to recommend refusal of the application.

Drainage

The site uses a septic tank for foul drainage. A neighbour has expressed a concern that the new development will not be able to connect to this. The applicant has advised that it is the intention to create a further, new tank for this purpose. The site is large, and there is adequate scope for the creation of further septic tank arrangements, which would be subject to building control approval. The matter has been discussed with the relevant Building Control Officer, who confirms that this is the case, and not considered a problem. Given the scale of the development (i.e. one additional toilet), it is not considered that drainage arrangements are a reason for refusal of the proposal. To ensure that the issue is properly addressed, it is proposed to include a condition requiring the submission and approval of drainage details prior to commencement.

Neighbour Concerns

The neighbour concerns have been summarised above, and fully taken into account in assessing the application. The following comments are particularly pertinent in respect of each of the objections:

1. Cider House: As set out above, it is not agreed that there would be harmful overlooking of the existing dwellinghouse or garden. The possible future use of the accommodation as a separate unit is not considered reason for refusal. It is proposed to make the permission subject to a condition limiting the use of the accommodation as ancillary to the main dwellinghouse. The objection assumes that the owners will contravene conditions of permission, or wish to have a separate dwelling immediately adjacent to this large existing house, which is not considered adequate reason for refusal.

Meeting AE 04A 11:12 52 Date: 10.08.11 AE

2. Poplar Cottage: Although the scale of development has been referred to, there is no indication if why this is considered harmful - as discussed, the scale is appropriate to the scale of the existing house and grounds. As set out above, there is not considered to be any unacceptable overlooking resulting from the proposal, given the distances involved. In respect of drainage (see above) it is considered that adequate provision can be made to provide drainage to the additional bathroom, and this is not regarded as a reason for refusal of the application.

Conclusion

The proposal for a residential curtilage extension and the erection of an outbuilding are considered to be of a design and scale appropriate to the setting and the existing development. Notwithstanding the objections of the Parish and adjoining neighbours, it is not considered that any demonstrable harm has been identified, and it is not considered that any sustainable reason for refusal of the development has been raised. It is accordingly recommended for approval.

S.106 AGREEMENT

Not relevant.

RECOMMENDATION

Grant permission.

01. Notwithstanding the objections raised by the Parish and neighbours, the proposal, by reason of its design, siting, scale and materials, is considered to respect the character and appearance of the setting and the landscape, and causes no demonstrable harm to residential amenity, in accordance with the aims and objectives of Policies ST3, ST6 and EC3 of the South Somerset Local Plan, 2006.

SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING:

01. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: To accord with the provisions of section 91(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

02. The accommodation hereby permitted shall be used solely in connection with the use of the existing house known as Higher Farm as a single family dwelling and shall not at any time be used as a separate unit of accommodation.

Reason: In the interests of sustainable development, and to accord with Policy ST3 of the South Somerset Local Plan, 2006.

03. No development hereby permitted shall be commenced unless foul and surface water drainage details to serve the development, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such details, once approved, shall be completed and become fully operational before the development hereby permitted is first brought into use. Following its installation such approved scheme shall be permanently retained and maintained thereafter.

Reason: In the interests of sustainable development, and to accord with Policy ST5 of the South Somerset Local Plan, 2006.

Meeting AE 04A 11:12 53 Date: 10.08.11 AE

04. No development hereby permitted shall be commenced unless details of the materials (including the provision of samples where appropriate) to be used for external walls and roofs have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such approved details shall be fully implemented and thereafter retained and maintained.

Reason: To safeguard the character and appearance of the area, and to accord with Policy ST6 of the South Somerset Local Plan, 2006.

05. No development hereby permitted shall be carried out otherwise than in complete accordance with the submitted plans and specifications, as represented in the drawings ref. 05017-8 Rev A, AULDEN-03 and AULDEN-04, received on 9 May and 19 May 2011.

Reason: In the interests of clarity.

Meeting AE 04A 11:12 54 Date: 10.08.11 AE

Area East Committee – 10 August 2011

Officer Report On Planning Application: 11/00555/FUL

Proposal: Refurbishment and extension of existing dwelling and erection of a new attached terraced dwelling with new vehicular access and parking (GR: 366880/118814) Site Address: 13 Newtown Milborne Port Sherborne Parish: Milborne Port MILBORNE PORT Ward Mrs L Wallace (Cllr) Recommending Case Andrew Collins Officer: Tel: 01935 462276 Email: [email protected] Target date: 14th April 2011 Applicant: Mrs S Bromley, Mrs B Garrett & Mrs C Williams Agent: Timothy Macbean, RIBA Georgian House Greenhill Sherborne Dorset DT9 4EP Application Type: Minor Dwellings 1-9 site less than 1ha

Reason for Referral to Committee

This application is referred to the Area East Committee at the request of the Ward Member, in agreement with the Chairman, as the comments of the neighbours are contrary to the officer's recommendation.

Site Description and Proposal

Meeting AE 04A 11:12 55 Date: 10.08.11 AE

The site is located with the development area and designated Conservation Area of Newtown.

Opposite the site is a pair of listed buildings. At the Eastern end of the terrace 2 dwellings have been erected under planning application 06/02472/FUL. To the West of the site is a terrace of 5 recon-stone dwellings (Victoria Terrace). Between Victoria Terrace and the site is a vehicular access to Field House.

The property is located in the South-eastern corner of Newtown. The property is an end terrace on the Western end constructed of natural stone with a corrugated metal roof and timber windows.

To the side of the dwelling is a single storey extension constructed of natural stone and plain clay tile. To the rear of the dwelling is a concrete block single storey extension. The dwelling is in a poor state of repair especially the side lean-to and rear extension. To the front of the dwelling is a porch constructed of timber with a metal roof. The dwelling has a 2 storey gable projection and whilst in a terrace the layout of the dwelling wraps around the neighbouring property. This results in a single room at ground floor and first floor in the projection whilst the build form behind belongs to No 12.

To the side of the property is a garden area accessed via a pair of timber gates. No hardstanding is laid down. At the rear of the garden is a single storey outbuilding covered in overgrown vegetation. A hedge and fruit trees separate the garden area and save for the access, the remainder of the site is bordered by hedgerows. To the East of the vehicular access is an existing telegraph pole containing electricity and telephone wires and a street lamp.

Planning permission is sought to erect an additional dwelling to the side of the existing dwelling. The new, proposed dwelling extends the terrace by 9m. The dwelling is 2 storey in height but the ridge height is set down by 0.3m. The front wall is also set back 0.5m. Therefore the new dwelling has a subservient appearance in the streetscene. A 2 storey gable projection is proposed to the front and a lean-to porch. The dwelling has a similar mirrored appearance to No 13. To the rear is a 2m gable projection that is set in from the end wall.

The proposed dwelling provides an area for the existing property. This incorporates a utility and wc on the ground floor and bathroom on the first floor accessed via the existing dwelling. The new dwelling provides a study, kitchen, living room utility and wc on the ground floor and 3 bedrooms and a bathroom on the first floor.

As part of the proposals the single storey rear extension at no 13 is to be demolished.

The out building in the rear garden is to be demolished and a 44m long new drive is proposed with parking for 4 vehicles on the site. This would provide 2 parking spaces for the existing and proposed dwellings.

The garden area will be divided to provide amenity space for both dwellings. This will be split along the line of the existing fruit trees and hedge. A footpath to No 13 is detailed. Along the Western elevation an existing hedge is to be retained.

During the course of the application a number of amended plans were submitted to address inaccurate surveys of the site by the agent and design concerns from the Conservation Officer.

Meeting AE 04A 11:12 56 Date: 10.08.11 AE

History

None

Policy

The policies of most relevance to the proposal are:

Saved policies of the Somerset and Exmoor National Park Joint Structure Plan (April 2000):

STR1 - Sustainable Development STR2 - Towns STR4 - Development in Towns Policy 9 - The Built Historic Environment Policy 33 - Provision for Housing Policy 49 - Transport Requirements of New Development

Saved policies of the South Somerset Local Plan (April 2006):

ST5 - General Principles of Development ST6 - The Quality of Development EH1 - Conservation Areas EH5 - Setting of Listed Buildings EU4 - Drainage TP7 - Residential Parking Provision HG1 - Provision of New Housing Development

Policy-related Material Considerations

National Guidance PPS1 - Sustainable Development PPS3 - Housing PPS5 - Planning and the Historic Environment PPS7 - Sustainable Development in Rural Areas PPG13 - Transport

South Somerset Sustainable Community Strategy Goal 3 - Healthy Environments Goal 4 - Services and Facilities Goal 8 - High Quality Homes Goal 9 - A Balanced housing Market

Other Relevant Documents Milborne Port Parish Plan

Meeting AE 04A 11:12 57 Date: 10.08.11 AE

Consultations

Milborne Port Parish Council - "The Parish Council's observations on this application remain the same - the council has no objection to the amendments."

Highway Authority - On the most recent amended plans comments, "Whilst the access to the parking area does not provide any opportunity for vehicles to pass each other, any manoeuvring that will need to occur in association with the parking spaces is located at least 30m from the highway.

I am satisfied that there is sufficient space for vehicles entering the site to turn within the site when all of the parking spaces are occupied and to avoid vehicles having to reverse excessively.

The buildings are set far enough back from the highway to allow sufficient visibility to be provided across the site frontage, so that vehicles exiting the site can see and be seen by adjoining road users.

Taking the above points into consideration, I would not wish to raise a highway objection and in the event of permission being granted I would recommend conditions are imposed."

Area Engineer - "Surface water disposal via soakaways and vehicular access and parking to be constructed with porous materials."

Conservation Officer - "I note the submission of further revised plans following our meeting (plans received 20th June 2011).

The massing of the extension of the terrace to form a new dwelling has been greatly improved by narrowing the depth of the build, allowing it to have a more comfortable subservient form. I note the various comments from local residents. In terms of the impact on the conservation area, we need to ensure that the proposal `preserves or enhances’ the areas character. I do not consider the construction of a new dwelling in this area, which still leaves a significant and important gap, to be harmful to the areas character. The massing of the new build has now been sensitively considered, taking into account the form and detail of Newtown buildings. I am content that the proposal preserves the character of the area, and I therefore have no objection.

If the permission is approved, I suggest the use of conditions."

Representations

17 letters were received on the initially submitted plans. 14 residents wrote again on the amended plans. Most consider that repairs to the existing dwelling should be carried out with possibly extensions to the property. They however raise the following areas of concern: -

• Parking concerns. Consider that 2 parking spaces for each dwelling is not sufficient especially in relation to the Newtown area. • Additional congestion / safety implications within Newtown. • Height of the new building will block out outlook from neighbouring property. • Overlooking and overshadowing of listed properties opposite. • Proposals do not preserve or enhance the Conservation Area.

Meeting AE 04A 11:12 58 Date: 10.08.11 AE

• Loss of the garden would be detrimental to the area and has always been garden / paddock. • Pollution to neighbouring area from parking area. • The proposal equates to garden grabbing for financial gain only. • Concerns over if allowed where contractors and builder's vehicles will park. • Site is much smaller than at No 9 which was previously developed and this had 10 parking spaces for 3 houses. • The gardens are too small not in keeping with the locality. • Access from the drive is very narrow and on a junction. • Size of the dwelling too large for the site. • The design / layout is not in keeping. There is no parking to the rear of any existing properties. • No consideration has been made about the existing telegraph pole. • Concerns over emergency vehicles access Newtown during building.

Considerations

Residents of Newtown consider that work needs to be done to Number 13 and that repairs should be carried out.

However, there is a strong local opposition from residents over the erection of the additional dwelling.

Principle

The site is located within the designated development area, where the principle of development is accepted, subject to compliance with other development plan policies.

There is a public perception that government policy has changed to prevent 'garden grabbing'. What, in fact, has occurred, is that PPS3 has been amended in two respects. First, there is no longer a minimum density requirement. This means that there is now no policy imperative requiring that any available land be used to the optimum effect. Secondly, gardens are now no longer regarded as 'previously developed land' (so-called 'brownfield' land). What this means is that local authorities are no longer compelled by policy to ensure optimum use of garden areas, which were defined as 'brownfield' land. However, this does not prevent the use of garden areas for additional housing, as most gardens in towns are within the identified development envelope of their settlement (as in this case), and in appropriate cases development can be permitted which would retain the existing character and not harm residential amenity. There is, therefore, no government policy preventing the use of this site for the erection of a single new dwelling, subject to compliance with other development plan policies (relating to protection of the character of the area, neighbour amenity, etc).

The key issues are therefore considered to be: -

Impact upon Conservation Area Impact upon Residential Amenity Highways - access, parking and additional traffic

Impact upon the Conservation Area

The site is located within the designated Conservation Area and therefore there is a requirement to either preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Area.

Meeting AE 04A 11:12 59 Date: 10.08.11 AE

During the course of the application, amended plans have been received to address the Conservation Officer's initial concerns. These plans show the proposed the new dwelling as a similar appearance as No 13, but handed and set down and dropped back.

The design and use of materials carefully replicates the form, scale and mass of the built environment of Newtown.

In considering the dwelling's impact it is considered that whilst an area of garden is to be lost it is not total and therefore the proposal preserves the character of the Area.

In considering the access, and its impact the access has upon the Conservation Area, there are other areas that do have access to the side and parking to the rear. Therefore this proposal is not uncharacteristic in the Conservation Area.

As such it is considered that the proposal complies with Policy EH1 and PPS5.

Residential Amenity

Concerns have been expressed by the owners of the properties opposite in relation to the proposal having an overbearing impact and will overlook their properties.

The building opposite is a Grade II listed building that is a unique style with a mix of roof form, height and roof materials. In the middle of the building are 2 half dormer windows facing towards No 13. In assessing the location of these windows they are in align with the existing single storey extension. In comparing this to the new windows in the dwelling, bedroom 3 faces towards this window. The distance between these windows is approximately 11.5m. But it is noted that the road exists between the 2 properties and this arrangement is similar to other distances within Newtown.

Concerns are also raised that the new dwelling will result in a loss of outlook of the properties opposite. The new dwelling is a minimum of 9m from the dwelling opposite and this is not considered unreasonable in relation to overbearing. It is also noted that loss of views are not a material planning consideration.

On this basis it is not considered that the proposal results in a loss of amenity. As such the proposals comply with Policies ST5 and ST6.

Highways

The County Highways Authority has carefully assessed the site and considers that the proposed layout and parking numbers are acceptable, subject to conditions. It is noted that whilst there is an existing access, there is currently no formal parking or hardstanding on site and the whole area is grassed. Therefore whilst a car could park on the site, this would not be appropriate during winter months. The proposals are proposing 4 car parking spaces and turning on the site. This is a vast improvement as no formal parking is currently available. Therefore as opposed to creating additional traffic on the road, the proposal will actually provide more parking off road. This is considered to be a net benefit and reduce some congestion within Newtown.

Due to the nature of Newtown, as pointed out by residents, vehicle speeds are very low and therefore access to the site, whilst near a junction is not considered to be an issue.

The form of the access is also similar to the access track to the west that gives access to Field House that is located behind Victoria Terrace.

Meeting AE 04A 11:12 60 Date: 10.08.11 AE

It is noted that concerns have been raised over emergency vehicles gaining access to Newtown and disturbance during potential construction. The road is maintained by the County and as detailed above the proposal will provide additional off road parking.

Disturbance during construction could be helped by a condition requiring the submission of a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP). This would require details of the phases of construction and mitigation measures to be submitted to minimise disturbance.

Conclusion

It is considered that the design, bulk, form and mass of the new dwelling respects the character of the Conservation Area and does not cause demonstrable harm to residential or visual amenity. In addition, the proposal provides sufficient parking for the existing and proposed dwellings. As such the proposal complies with saved Policies ST5, ST6, EH1, EH5, TP7 and HG1 of the South Somerset Local Plan.

RECOMMENDATION

Grant conditional permission for the following reason

01. Notwithstanding the neighbour comments it is considered that the design, bulk, form and mass of the new dwelling respects the character of the Conservation Area and does not cause demonstrable harm to residential or visual amenity. In addition, the proposal provides sufficient parking for the existing and proposed dwellings. As such the proposal complies with saved Policies ST5, ST6, EH1, EH5, TP7 and HG1 of the South Somerset Local Plan.

SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING:

01. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: To accord with the provisions of section 91(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

02. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: amended drawings S.2263/SP1.0, S/2263/3.4 and S/2263/4.3 received 20 June 2011

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

03. No work shall be carried out on site unless particulars of the materials (including the provision of samples where appropriate) to be used for external walls and roofs have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This shall include full details the new natural stonework walls, including the materials, coursing, bonding, mortar profile, colour, and texture along with a written detail of the mortar mix, supported with a sample panel to be made available on site and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The work shall be carried out in accordance with the agreed details, and the sample panel shall remain available for inspection throughout the duration of the work.

Reason: In the interests of preserving the Conservation Area in accordance with saved Policy EH1 of the South Somerset Local Plan.

Meeting AE 04A 11:12 61 Date: 10.08.11 AE

04. No work shall be carried out on site unless the following details have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority (once agreed these details shall not be altered without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority): 1. The design, materials and external finish for all new doors, windows, and openings. This will include detailed drawings including sections of at least 1:5. 2. The design details of all roof eaves, verges and abutments, including detail drawings at a scale of 1:5, and all new guttering, down pipes, other rainwater goods, and external plumbing. 3. The design and detail of the chimney, including the provision of samples of the brick. 4. The design and detail of the proposed porch. 5. Details of all external fixtures to the new building, including external lights, meter boxes, extract vents, flues etc.

Reason: In the interests of preserving the Conservation Area in accordance with saved Policy EH1 of the South Somerset Local Plan.

05. No works shall be undertaken unless a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) the development has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Subsequent development shall be carried out in accordance with the requirements of the approved CEMP.

Reason: In the interests of residential amenity and to protect the character of the Conservation Area in accordance with saved Policies ST6 and EH1 of the South Somerset Local Plan.

06. No works shall be undertaken unless details of the proposed driveway and parking finish is submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The complete area should be constructed of a porous material and the first 5m shall be properly consolidated and surfaced.

Reason: In the interests of drainage, visual amenity and highway safety in accordance with saved Policies EU4 and EH1 of the South Somerset Local Plan and Policy 49 of the Somerset and Exmoor Joint Structure Plan.

07. The development hereby approved shall not be occupied until the parking and turning area has been provided in the position as shown on the approved plan, drawing no. S/2263/4.3. The said spaces and access thereto shall thereafter be kept clear of obstruction and not used other than for parking and turning of vehicles or for the purpose of access.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety in accordance with Policy 49 of the Somerset and Exmoor Joint Structure Plan.

08. There shall be no obstruction to visibility greater than 900mm above adjoining road level forward of a line 2.4m back and parallel to the nearside carriageway edge over the entire site frontage. Such visibility shall be fully provided before the works commence on the erection of the dwelling hereby permitted and shall thereafter be maintained at all times.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety in accordance with Policy 49 of the Somerset and Exmoor Joint Structure Plan.

Meeting AE 04A 11:12 62 Date: 10.08.11 AE

09. Any entrance gates erected shall be hung to open inwards and shall be set back a minimum distance of 5m from the carriageway edge.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety in accordance with Policy 49 of the Somerset and Exmoor Joint Structure Plan.

10. The gradient of the proposed access shall not be steeper than 1 in 10.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety in accordance with Policy 49 of the Somerset and Exmoor Joint Structure Plan.

11. Before the access is first brought into use, provision shall be made within the site for the disposal of surface water so as to prevent its discharge onto the highway details of which shall have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety in accordance with Policy 49 of the Somerset and Exmoor Joint Structure Plan.

Informatives:

01. Having regard to the powers of the Highway Authority under the Highways Act 1980 the applicant is advised that a Section 184 Permit must be obtained from the Highway Service Manager, Yeovil Area Office, tel 0845 3459155. Application for such a Permit should be made at least three weeks before access works are intended to commence.

02. Your attention is drawn to the requirements of the Considerate Constructors Scheme. See www.considerateconstructorsscheme.org.uk

Meeting AE 04A 11:12 63 Date: 10.08.11 AE

Area East Committee – 10 August 2011

Officer Report On Planning Application: 11/02076/S73

Proposal: Application to vary condition 3 of planning permission 10/04259/FUL (colour of rainwater goods) (GR: 372257/119735) Site Address: Church Farm Church Street Henstridge Parish: Henstridge BLACKMOOR VALE Mr T Inglefield (Cllr) Mr W Wallace (Cllr) Ward Recommending Case Nicholas Head Officer: Tel: (01935) 462167 Email: [email protected] Target date: 27th July 2011 Applicant: Mr Paul Phillips Agent: Mr Paul Day Honeysuckle Cottage Church Street Kingsbury Episcopi Martock Somerset TA12 6AU Application Type: Other

Reason for Referral to Committee

The application is referred to the Committee at the request of the Ward Members in consultation with the Area Chair in the light of the views of the Parish Council which are contrary to the officer recommendation.

Site Description and Proposal

Meeting AE 04A 11:12 64 Date: 10.08.11 AE

The site is located centrally within the village, immediately adjacent to the Parish Church, a Grade 2* listed building. It is within the conservation area, and forms part of the historic core of the village. The buildings under consideration are the reconstructed farmhouse building with outbuildings, which have been converted into three cottages.

The final scheme was constructed contrary to the approved plans as approved under permission 09/00743/FUL. In a retrospective permission (10/04259/FUL) permission was granted for most of the changes, apart from the colour of the various gutter and eaves details. Condition 3 of the permission required that these be re-painted black, to conform to the original approved scheme:

03 Within six months of the date of this permission, all rainwater goods, including guttering and downpipes, as well as the flue at the west end of the building, and the soffits and fascia boards, shall be re-coloured black in accordance with a scheme of work which shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of this work. Once implemented, this colour scheme shall be permanently retained and maintained.

Application has been made to amend/delete this condition to allow the retention of the colour scheme currently existing (the various elements are painted 'Dulux Heritage Country Cream').

History

06/01026/FUL - Conversion of house and outbuildings into 3 No. dwellings and the erection of 2 No. cottages - permitted with conditions 07/05361/FUL - Conversion of house and outbuildings into 3 dwellings and the erection of 2 cottages (minor amendments to fenestration and doors as approved by application 06/01026/FUL) - permitted with conditions

The original permission allowed for the conversion of the farmhouse building into 3 dwellings, and the erection of a new pair of cottages towards the southern end of the site. The following changes were made to the original permission: - minor changes to four window/door openings on the southern façade of the farmhouse building - re-configuration of the three dwelling units within the converted farmhouse buildings - unit 3 is enlarged to a 3-bedroom unit from a 2-bedroom unit.

Subsequent to approval of the revised scheme, work commenced on site and resulted in the virtual demolition of the farmhouse and its attached outbuildings. This rendered the permissions invalid, and, as a consequence, application was made to allow for substantially the same development, but involving reconstruction.

09/00743/FUL - Partial reconstruction of house and outbuildings to form 3 dwellings and the erection of 2 cottages (revised application) - permitted with conditions (this permission related to the erection of the building with a roof ridge height 0.8m higher than originally approved).

10/01099/FUL - Proposed insertion of velux conservation rooflights to plots one and two and the erection of open porches to plots three, four and five - permitted with conditions

10/04259/FUL - Retrospective planning application for minor amendments to 3 cottages known as units 3, 4 & 5 on approved planning permission

Meeting AE 04A 11:12 65 Date: 10.08.11 AE

Condition 3 of the permission reads: Within six months of the date of this permission, all rainwater goods, including guttering and downpipes, as well as the flue at the west end of the building, and the soffits and fascia boards, shall be re-coloured black in accordance with a scheme of work which shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of this work. Once implemented, this colour scheme shall be permanently retained and maintained.

Policy

The policies of most relevance to the proposal are:

Saved policies of the Somerset and Exmoor National Park Joint Structure Plan (April 2000):

STR1 - Sustainable Development STR5 - Development in Rural Centres and Villages Policy 9 - The Built Historic Environment

Saved policies of the South Somerset Local Plan (April 2006):

ST5 - General Principles of Development ST6 - The Quality of Development EH1 - Conservation Areas EH5 - Setting of Listed Buildings

Policy-related Material Considerations

National Guidance PPS1 - Sustainable Development PPS5 - Planning for the Historic Environment

South Somerset Sustainable Community Strategy Goal 1 - Safe and Inclusive Goal 3 - Healthy Environments Goal 7 - Distinctiveness Goal 8 - Quality Development

Consultations

Parish Council: It was proposed and agreed to support the applicant's request to retain the cream colour of the rainwater goods as it has been for over 50 yrs.

Highways Authority: No observations.

SSDC Area Engineer: No comment.

Meeting AE 04A 11:12 66 Date: 10.08.11 AE

SSDC Conservation Officer: Black painted rainwater goods were specified on the plans originally submitted for the conversion scheme. Unfortunately this specification was not followed and a 'heritage cream' finish used instead.

We have already advised consistently that the rainwater goods need to be re-painted a dark colour such as black. This is far more appropriate historically and can be seen on many traditional buildings within the village. Where light colours have been used it is generally in the form of modern uPVC replacements or in the context of a new build. An additional problem that we need to deal with is the wide eaves and soffit that has been fitted to the building; this is again not in accordance with the approved detail. Using a dark colour will create a solid block of shadow, reducing the appearance of the badly detailed eaves, which is much more visible in a light colour.

I note that the application proposes to remove the entire condition. This includes the flue, which has also been finished in the very prominent cream colour. This should most certainly be repainted matt black.

I therefore recommend refusal. The proposed colour choice is harmful to the character of the conservation area and the setting of the adjacent Church, contrary to PPS5.

English Heritage: The application should be determined in accordance with national and local policy and guidance, and on the basis of your specialist conservation advice.

Representations

One letter has been received, from the owner, Cherry Hall, stating a preference for the cream heritage paint colour.

Considerations

Policy Considerations

The site is located within the conservation area, and the northern walls of the building form the boundary of the churchyard (within a few metres of the Grade 2* listed church building). Any development is required to respect this special setting, and should maintain or enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area and the setting of the listed building.

Assessment

Contrary to the originally approved details, the applicant completed the building with cream coloured guttering, and the eaves, soffits and the colour of the prominent flue do not comply with those approved details. As set out by the Conservation Officer, this light colour is not considered appropriate to the character of the building, and therefore the character of the conservation area. The guttering, eaves, soffits and flue are prominent elements of the buildings, and important determinants in their final appearance and character. For the reasons set out above, the colour they have been painted is considered inappropriate and ultimately detrimental to the character of the conservation area, and the setting of the nearby Parish Church.

Similar Considerations: Newbuild Element of the Scheme

Directly opposite the reconstructed buildings is a pair of newbuild semi’s, which were approved as part of the original conversion of the buildings and development of this site. It is noted that the new buildings also have inappropriate white guttering which has never

Meeting AE 04A 11:12 67 Date: 10.08.11 AE been approved. No enforcement action has, as yet, been taken in relation to this breach. The circumstances are slightly different (in terms of design of the soffits, position of the building, etc) but the determination of this current application will have a bearing on the approach to this breach of planning permission 09/00743/FUL.

The application is recommended for refusal.

S.106 AGREEMENT

Not relevant.

RECOMMENDATION

Refuse.

SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING:

01. The proposal, by reason of the colour of the finish of gutters, downpipes, soffits and flue, is harmful to the character and appearance of the conservation area, and the historic setting of the Grade 2_ listed Parish Church, contrary to the aims and objectives of Policies EH1 and EH5 of the South Somerset Local Plan, 2006, and PPS5.

Meeting AE 04A 11:12 68 Date: 10.08.11 AE

Area East Committee – 10 August 2011

Officer Report On Planning Application: 11/00639/FUL

Proposal: Residential development of 212 homes, ancillary buildings, open spaces and associated infrastructure works (Revised scheme) (GR: 370427/128278) Site Address: Land Adjoining New Barns Farm West Hill Wincanton Parish: Wincanton WINCANTON Ward Mr N Colbert (Cllr) Mr C Winder (Cllr) Recommending Case Adrian Noon Officer: Tel: 01935 462370 Email: [email protected] Target date: 25th May 2011 Applicant: Bovis Homes Ltd Agent: Mr Tom Barrows IDPartnership - Midlands 27 Spon Street Coventry West Midlands CV1 3BA Application Type: Major Dwlgs 10 or more or site 0.5ha+

Reason for Referral to Committee

This application is brought to Committee by the Development Manager in consultation with the Chairman and Ward Members, due to the strategic importance of this site.

Site Description And Proposal

Meeting AE 04A 11:12 69 Date: 10.08.11 AE

The site comprises 7.77 hectares of south facing, greenfield land located on the western edge of Wincanton. It sits on the northern slope of the River Cale valley. Ground levels rise from the southern part of the site to the higher, northern sections; in places the gradient is as steep as 1 in 5.

Mature, untrimmed hedgerows form the boundaries of the fields that make up the site. There are few hedgerow trees on the site, the most prominent trees being a row of horse chestnuts alongside the drive to New Barns Farm. There is an isolated ash, within the rear garden of a property on West Hill, on the northern boundary and a line of hedgerow ashes and an oak at the eastern end of the site.

To the north is existing residential development and King Arthurs Community School on West Hill. To the east, the site is bounded by the cemetery and the River Cale. To the south are already completed dwellings and flats, approved as part of a previous site approval of reserved matters. Open fields lie to the west, together with a small group of farm buildings known as ’New Barns’.

There are views of the town centre from the site as well as more distant views across the Blackmore Vale and the site is within walking distance of the town centre and an existing bus route runs along West Hill.

The land forms part of a ‘Keysite’, allocated by the adopted South Somerset Local Plan, for residential, employment, education and community uses (KS/WINC/1). The site as a whole has outline permission (05/00960/OUT) for residential development, a primary school, an extension to the cemetery and associated landscaped areas. Access from the business park and West Hill were agreed at outline stage.

Two reserved matters applications have been approved, 09/00979/REM for 283 houses, eleven employment units and an attenuation pond (to serve the whole development) and 10/00014/REM for medical centre, industrial units and retail units with 7 flats above.

This is a full application 212 houses on part of the site covered by application 09/00979/REM. It maintains the previously approved access points and road layout. No increase in the number of houses is proposed. The scheme is for: -

• 5 two bedroom flats • 23 two bedroom houses • 91 three bedroom houses • 93 four bedroom houses • and associated parking and open space

The houses are of a different design and modified layout to that previously approved. 25 houses would be ‘affordable’. The houses and 2 ‘flats over garages’ (FOGs) would be 2- storey, with a single 3-storey block of 3 flats attached to a previously approved apartment building and 3 split-level (part 2-storey/part 3-storey houses in the middle of the site just to the east of the New Barns complex. Proposed materials are a mix of brick, reconstituted stone and render with slate and tiled roofs.

The proposal has been amended and supplemented by additional details to address concerns raised by local residents. It is supported by a Flood Risk Assessment, an Ecological Survey and mitigation strategy and a Design & Access Statement. The applicants have agreed to be bound by the obligations previously agreed by S106 agreement attached to the outline approval.

Meeting AE 04A 11:12 70 Date: 10.08.11 AE

Relevant History

The South Somerset Local Plan (adopted April 2006) allocates this site for mixed-use development as Proposal KS/WINC/1 - Land at New Barns Farm.

05/00960/OUT Outline planning permission granted for mixed-use development of land together with new primary school, riverside park and associated infrastructure (28/12/06). An associated S.106 Agreement, which has been amended by a supplementary agreement covers:- • Affordable housing (33.9%) • Provision and maintenance of landscaped public open space and play facilities, including a LEAP (£92,000) • Provision of the cemetery extension site • Provision of a school site • Education contributions totalling £645,600 with provision for uplift if total development exceeds 200 houses; • Off-site highway and travel plan costs (£630,000).

09/00979/REM Reserved matters approved (03/09/09) for mixed use development including commercial units, 283 dwellings, balancing pond, open space and associated infrastructure and works. This scheme has been implemented with the erection of 69 affordable units on the lower part of the site.

09/04736/NMA Minor amendments agreed to 09/00979/REM to allow changes to plots 41-58, 94, 115, 116-139 and 143.

10/00014/REM Reserved matters approved for the erection of a medical centre, 3 industrial units, 4 retail units, 7 residential duplexes and associated works.

10/05038/FUL Planning permission refused for erection of a new Health Centre including Pharmacy.

10/05187/MNA Minor amendments agreed to 10/00014/REM to allow inclusion of photovoltaic and solar panels to the roof and 6 high-level sun-tube terminals to roof of medical centre.

11/00246/NMA Minor amendments agreed to 10/00014/REM to allow revisions to medical centre.

POLICY

Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 repeats the duty imposed under S.54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and requires that decision must be made in accordance with relevant Development Plan Documents unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

Meeting AE 04A 11:12 71 Date: 10.08.11 AE

The policies of most relevance to the proposal are:

The South Somerset Local Plan (adopted April 2006)

Proposal KS/WINC/1 allocates 14.7 hectares (36.2 acres) of land to the western side of the town to provide:- • Approximately 7.1 hectares (17.5 acres) for housing, providing about 250 dwellings including 35% affordable housing; • Approximately 2.1 hectares (5.2 acres) of employment land (classes B1, B2 and B8 of the use classes order); • Access via Dykes Way and West Hill; • Site for new primary school (1.5 hectares/3.8 acres); • Land for extension to cemetery (approx. 0.25 hectare/0.6 acre); • Structural landscaping/public open space (approx. 1.75 hectares/4.3 acres); • Children’s formal and informal play space; • Protection of existing footpaths and provision of new local bus services/footpaths/cycle paths to link the new development to the existing town.

ST5 - General Principles of Development ST6 - The Quality of Development ST7 - Public Space ST9 - Crime Prevention ST10 - Planning Obligations EC3 - Landscape Character EU3 - Water Services EU4 - Drainage TP1 - New Development and Pedestrian Movement TP4 - Road Design TP7 - Car Parking HG1 – Housing Targets HG4 – Housing Density HG7 – Affordable Housing CR2 - Provision for Outdoor Playing Space and Amenity Space in New Development CR4 - Amenity Open Space ME2 – Employment Provision

Other Policy Related Material Considerations

National Guidance PPS1 - Delivering Sustainable Development PPS3 - Housing PPG13 - Transport PPG17 - Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation PPS25 - Flooding

South Somerset Sustainable Community Strategy Goal 3 - Healthy Environments Goal 4 - Services and Facilities Goal 8 - High Quality Homes Goal 9 - A Balanced Housing Market

Meeting AE 04A 11:12 72 Date: 10.08.11 AE