Planning Board DATE: 19Th December 2018 NOTES

Planning Board

DATE: 19th December 2018 NOTES:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Planning Board Report 19th December 2018 Page 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Planning Board - 19th December 2018

Item Page Application Ward/Site Case Number Officer DM01 4 2018/2573/OTS Land At Coalpit Lane, Mr James Stoke St Michael, Shepton U'Dell Mallet, Somerset,

Coleford And Holcombe DM02 13 2018/1476/OTS Shireways, Cannards Mr James Grave Road, Shepton U'Dell Mallet, BA4 4LX

Shepton East DM03 27 2018/1868/OTS Upper Row Farm, Row Mr Carlton Lane, Laverton, Bath, Langford Somerset, BA2 7RB

Ammerdown DM04 33 2018/1348/OTS Land At 362511 144804, Mr Charlie Bolters Lane, Downside, Bladon Shepton Mallet, Somerset,

Shepton East DM05 40 2018/1951/FUL 52 Bove Town, Mr Rob Glastonbury, Somerset, Palmer BA6 8JE

Glastonbury St Edmunds DM06 49 2018/1952/LBC 52 Bove Town, Mr Rob Glastonbury, Somerset, Palmer BA6 8JE

Glastonbury St Edmunds DM07 55 2018/1902/HSE Church Cottage , Church Mr John Walk, Baltonsborough, Shaw Glastonbury, BA6 8RL

Butleigh And Baltonsborough DM08 61 2018/1829/HSE The Old Foundry , Dudwell Mr John Lane, Chewton Mendip, Shaw Wells, BA3 4NE

Chewton Mendip And Ston Easton DM09 66 2018/2169/FUL 82 Stockhill Road, Mr John Chilcompton, Radstock, Shaw BA3 4JH

Ashwick, Chilcompton And Stratton

Planning Board Report 19th December 2018 Page 2

Agenda Item No. DM01

Case Officer Mr James U'Dell

Site Land At Coalpit Lane Stoke St Michael Shepton Mallet Somerset

Application Number 2018/2573/OTS

Date Received 10th October 2018

Applicant/ Mr Nigel Cheshire Organisation

Application Type Outline - Some Matters Reserved

Proposal Application for Outline Planning Permission (all matters reserved) for the erection of 2 detached dwellings

Ward Coleford And Holcombe

Parish Stoke St Michael Parish Council

Chair and Vice Chair Referral

This application is referred to the Planning Board under the discretionary powers of the Development Management Team Leader. The Ward Members have also requested that the application be heard by the Planning Board.

Site Description and Proposal

This application seeks outline planning permission with all matters reserved for the erection of two detached dwellings on land at Coalpit Lane, Stoke St Michael.

The application site is part of an agricultural field lying to the south of a property called ‘Bloomfield’ and is currently accessed via a public right of way, which is located to the south of the application site. The public right of way does not run through the site. The main village of Stoke St Michael lies approximately 50m to the south of the site.

Outline planning permission was approved in 2014 at this site for two dwellings, at a point in time when the Local Planning Authority (LPA) could not demonstrate a five year housing supply. However this permission expired in January 2017, as the reserved matters were not submitted within 3 years of the permission being granted. Indicative plans have been provided with the application submission, however these are purely provided for illustrative purposes, as all matters (access, layout, scale, appearance and landscaping) are reserved for further consideration, in the event that outline permission is granted.

Planning History

2018/0575/PREAPP - Erection of two detached dwellings following outline planning permission 2013/1573 – Informal advice offered on the 23rd March 2018.

2013/1573 - Development of part of a field adjacent to Coalpit Lane for the erection of two detached dwellings – Approved 09/01/2014. (This permission expired on 9th January 2017 as the reserved matters had not been approved within 3 years of the outline permission).

Planning Board Report 19th December 2018 Page 3

Consultations and Representations

Ward Member(s)

Requests that the application is heard by the Planning Board.

Parish Council

Recommend refusal on the following grounds:

- Lies outside the current development limit of the village; - Lies outside the emerging development limit included in the draft Local Plan Part II; - Inconsistent with the policies adopted by the Parish Council for identifying sites for development; - Inconsistent with the views submitted by the Parish Council in respect of future development sites subsequently incorporated within the Local Plan Part II.

Local Highway Authority (SCC)

Recommend standing advice applies.

County Ecologist (SCC)

No objections subject to the attachment of relevant conditions.

Representations

The Local Planning Authority has received 3 letters of OBJECTION, raising the following points (summarised):

- Scale of dwellings; - Harmful visual impact; - Increase in traffic; - Impact to highway safety; - Impact to ecology/ wildlife; - Site is located outside the development limits of the village; - Loss of light; - Coalpit Lane needs to be widened before any new houses are allowed;

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

Planning Analysis

Policy Context

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

- Mendip District Local Plan Part I: Strategy and Policies (December 2014) - Somerset Waste Core Strategy

Planning Board Report 19th December 2018 Page 4

The following policies of the Local Plan Part 1 are relevant to the determination of this application:

 CP1: Mendip Spatial Strategy  CP2: Supporting the Provision of New Housing  CP4: Sustaining Rural Communities  DP1: Local Identity and Distinctiveness  DP4: Mendip’s Landscapes  DP5: Biodiversity and Ecological Networks  DP6: Bat Protection  DP7: Design and Amenity  DP8: Environmental Protection  DP9: Transport Impact of New Development  DP10: Parking Standards  DP23: Managing Flood Risk

Other Material Considerations:

 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), 2018  Planning Practice Guidance (PPG), 2012  Somerset County Council Parking Strategy, 2013  Somerset County Council Standing Advice, 2015

Key Issues

Principle of the Proposal:

Given that the previous outline planning permission has expired and the LPA can now demonstrate a secure 5 year housing supply, this application has to be considered afresh as an application for new build-dwellings outside the development limits of Stoke St Michael, in a location where development of this nature is strictly controlled.

Core Policy 1 (CP1) of the Adopted Mendip District Local Plan says that to enable the most sustainable pattern of growth for the Mendip District the majority of development will be directed to towards the five principal settlements (Frome, Shepton Mallet, Wells, Glastonbury and Street).

The application site is located outside the defined development limits of Stoke St Michael, where Policy CP1 states that any proposed development will be ‘strictly controlled’ and will only be permitted where it benefits economic activity or extends the range of facilities available to the local community. The development would only contribute two general, open market dwellings towards the supply of housing within the District and any economic benefits will be limited to the construction process. As such it is considered that there are no exceptional circumstances associated with the provision of the dwellings in question.

Core Policy 2 (CP2) states that the delivery of new housing will be secured from three sources: (a) Infill, conversions and redevelopments within Development Limits defined on the Proposals Map, (b) Strategic Sites identified on the Key Diagrams for each town associated with Core Policies 6-10 and (c) other allocations of land for housing and, where appropriate, mixed use development, outside of Development Limits through the Site Allocations process (Part II). None of which apply to this site.

Policy CP2 makes it clear that the allocation of sites for housing outside of Development Limits should be secured through the 'Site Allocations' process in line with the housing requirements for each area identified in the supporting text to that policy,, the informed views of the community and the subsequent consents and

Planning Board Report 19th December 2018 Page 5 capacity within development limits. This site lies outside the development limits of Stoke St Michael, so clearly allowing development before the Site Allocations process has taken place would conflict with this policy. Therefore there is an ‘in principle’ objection to the development of this site. Furthermore, there is no indication that a proposal on the limited scale of this scheme would provide any significant benefits to economic activity or extend the range of facilities available to the l o c a l community.

Policy CP4 seeks to sustain rural communities through: planned provision for housing within primary and secondary villages in line with Policy CP1 and 2; identifying and delivering opportunities for affordable housing in line with Policy DP11 and 12; making allowance for occupational dwellings in line with Policy DP13; supporting proposals for the development of the local economy as set out in Policy CP3 and supporting viable schemes which extend the range of community infrastructure. The scheme proposed is located outside the development limits of Stoke St Michael and includes two general market dwellings not aimed at any of the special exceptions identified above. As such the proposal would not meet the provisions of Policy CP4.

As such the proposed development does not meet the requirements of Policies CP1, 2 and 4 of the Local Plan and does not accord with the plan-led approach to the allocation of housing.

Local residents and the Parish Council object to the principle of the development and significant weight is afforded to the Mendip District Local Plan 2006-2029, Part 1: Strategies and Policies, which was formally adopted on the 15th December 2014. Recent appeal decisions have afforded significant weight to the Core Policies of the Local Plan and appeals have been successfully defended against developments outside development limit boundaries.

Allowing permission at this stage would prejudice the overall site allocations process (Part II of the Local Plan) and be contrary to recent appeal decisions. As such the proposal is unacceptable in principle as it would represent the erection of dwellings against the objectives of the Mendip Spatial Strategy and is contrary to Policy CP1, 2 and 4 of the Local Plan and there are no material considerations that would justify a departure (as outlined above).

Design and Impact on the streetscene, Character and appearance of the area

Policy DP1 of the Local Plan states that development proposals should contribute positively to local identity and distinctiveness; and be formulated with an appreciation of the built and natural context of their locality. Policy DP7 states that proposals should be of a scale, mass, form, and layout appropriate to the local context. Policy DP4 recognises the quality of Mendip’s landscapes and suggests that proposals should demonstrate that their siting and design are compatible with the pattern of natural and man-made features.

The current application is in outline with all matters reserved, as such the plans provided are only illustrative of how such a development could come forward. Details of the layout, scale, appearance and landscaping would be the subject of a reserved matters application, in the event that outline permission were to be granted. Nevertheless the likely visual impact of the new residential development proposed has been considered, in general terms, in light of the objections to the principle of development.

The general context of this site is a rural one, outside the substantive built form of the village, in an edge of village location with a rural backdrop of countryside beyond. The site also represents a natural green gap between the main village and the dwelling of Bloomfield.

Whilst emphasising the economic and social benefits of development, including new housing, the NPPF makes it clear that the planning system also has an environmental role.

Planning Board Report 19th December 2018 Page 6

To achieve sustainable development, the economic, social and environmental roles of the planning system should not be undertaken in isolation, as they are mutually dependent. In defining the environmental role of the planning system, Paragraph 8 of the NPPF emphasises the need to protect and enhance the natural and built environment and paragraph 70 of the NPPF also emphasises the need to protect and enhance valued landscapes and recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside.

The proposal includes two dwellings outside the development limits of Stoke St Michael, which would add to the urban sprawl of development into the open countryside, creating a harmful visual impact on the character and appearance of the site and the wider area as the site would become significantly more urbanised as a consequence of the built form, including hard-surfacing treatments, outbuildings and domestic paraphernalia that comes with such residential development. The development would also result in a significant loss of hedgerows along Coalpit Lane, to facilitate the proposed access to each dwelling, which introduces further visual harm to the rural character of the site and wider area.

The proposals would result in visual intrusion of housing into the countryside in a location where development of this nature is strictly controlled, which does not respect the presumption in favour of sustainable development or the need to preserve the intrinsic character of the countryside for its own intrinsic value and beauty.

The dwellings have been assessed against the special exemptions for isolated dwellings as set out under Paragraph 79 of the NPPF and it has been found that the proposal does not meet the requirements to be considered acceptable under Paragraph 79.

On the basis of the above assessment it is considered that the development will create adverse visual harm to the intrinsic character and appearance of the area/ countryside and would not represent sustainable development.

The agent argues that the LPA accepted the visual impact of the development under the previous outline permission and suggests that there would be no further harm under this scheme. However it must be stressed that at the point that the outline permission was approved the LPA did not have a secure five year housing supply and therefore the spatial strategy (within the local plan) could not be afforded significant weight. The balance in favour of the development therefore outweighed the visual impact at that point in time. The current planning balance is now tilted against the development as the LPA has a secure housing supply and a spatial strategy (under Policies CP1, 2 and 4) that is afforded significant weight in decision making. The site is located outside development limits and the principle of development is not supported, as such the erection of two dwellings in this location would not preserve the intrinsic character of the countryside for its own intrinsic value or beauty, for the reasons outlined above.

Residential amenities

Policy DP7 of the MDLP states that new development should protect the amenities of neighbouring occupiers and users, and provide an adequate standard of amenity for the benefit of the proposal’s future occupiers. Policy DP8 states that development should not give rise to unacceptable adverse environmental impacts, including in relation to residential amenity.

The plans demonstrate that two dwellings could be accommodated within the application site without causing adverse harm to the amenities of neighbours. The indicative layout shows that the site could accommodate the dwellings without causing adverse harm to existing or future residential amenities. It is also considered that the indicative proposal would provide each dwelling with a good standard of amenity space, for the enjoyment of future occupiers.

Planning Board Report 19th December 2018 Page 7

Local residents would have the opportunity to comment on the reserved matters application at the appropriate stage, in the event outline consent is granted.

Given the above assessment, it is considered that the proposal could be designed (within the reserved matters application) to accord with the provisions of Policy DP7 and DP8 of the adopted Local Plan Part 1 (2014).

Access and Parking

Policy DP9 and DP10 of the MDLP sets out a range of criteria to ensure that new development provides safe access arrangements that avoid causing traffic or environmental issues on the transport network; avoid direct access onto National Primary or County Routes; and, where appropriate, demonstrate how sustainable modes of transport would be promoted.

Access is a reserved matter. The indicative plans show two adjoining access points onto Coalpit Lane. The layout of the site and the associated parking and access arrangements are not under consideration, however the indicative layout shows sufficient turning and access space could be accommodated within the site to serve the development.

The County Highways Authority has confirmed they were happy with the previous indicative access arrangements and it is considered that suitable access, turning and parking arrangements can be secured under a reserved matters application. The creation of suitable visibility splays would however necessitate the loss of substantial sections of hedgerow along Coalpit Lane.

The objections raised relating to the inadequate width of Coalpit Lane are noted, however the Local Highway Authority has not requested any widening and the current application would not be expected to contribute towards highway widening improvements, under relevant planning obligations, as it would not meet the tests set out under paragraph 56 of the NPPF, as it would not be necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; directly related to the development and be fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development proposed.

Given the above assessment, it is considered that access, turning and parking arrangements could be satisfactorily designed into a reserved matters proposal to safeguard highway and pedestrian safety to accord with the provisions of Policy DP9 and DP10 of the Local Plan.

Rights of Way

The development will not impact the adjoining public right of way as it is located a suitable distance away from its course.

Flooding and drainage

The site is not located within a high risk flooding zone and could be designed (under a reserved matters application) to adequately control surface water run-off. As such it is considered that the development will not adversely increase flood risk.

Ecology

The County Ecologist has raised no objections to the application, subject to the attachment of relevant conditions. With the attachment of these relevant conditions it is considered that a reserved matters application can be fully assessed to ensure that the development will not have a harmful ecological impact, in accordance with the provisions of Policy DP5 and DP6 of the Local Plan.

Planning Board Report 19th December 2018 Page 8

Refuse and recycling

The indicative layout demonstrates that each dwelling unit would have adequate outdoor amenity space to provide refuse and recycling bins/ containers, which would be brought out to the highway on collection day. These arrangements are considered to be acceptable.

Environmental Impact Assessment

This development is not considered to require an Environmental Statement under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017.

Conclusion

Bearing in mind the above assessment it is recommended that planning permission be REFUSED.

Recommendation REFUSE

Reason/s for Recommendation

1. The site lies in the countryside outside defined development limits where development is strictly controlled and the proposal would not accord with the Council's plan-led approach for the allocation of housing within the District. The proposed development would have limited benefits for economic activity or for extending the range of facilities available to the local community. These limited benefits do not outweigh or override the requirements of Core Policy CP2 in regard to the Site Allocations process or Policy CP1 in regard to the spatial strategy for the District. The development would therefore be contrary to the provisions of Saved Policies CP1, CP2 and CP4 of the Mendip District Local Plan 2006-2029, Part 1: Strategy and Policies (Adopted Dec 2014) and the guidance contained under Part 2 of the National Planning Policy Framework in regard to 'The presumption in favour of sustainable development'.

2. The proposed development would fail to maintain or enhance the environment and its urbanising effect and encroachment into the countryside would have a harmful impact on the countryside's intrinsic character here. The development would therefore be contrary to the provisions of Saved Policy DP1, 4 and 7 of the Mendip District Local Plan 2006-2029, Part 1: Strategy and Policies (Adopted Dec 2014) and the advice contained under Part 15 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Informatives:

1. This decision relates to drawings: OS Mastermap (location plan); Drawing No.1 rev. B; Drawing No.2 and 'Ecological Appraisal' validated on the 11th October 2018 only.

2. In determining this application the Local Planning Authority considers it has complied with the aims of paragraph 38 of the National Planning Policy Framework. The submitted application has been found to be unacceptable for the stated reasons. The applicant was advised of this, however despite this, the applicant chose not to withdraw the application and having regard to the need to avoid unnecessary delay the Local Planning Authority moved forward and issued its decision.

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

Planning Board Report 19th December 2018 Page 9

Agenda Item No. DM02

Case Officer Mr James U'Dell

Site Shireways Cannards Grave Road Shepton Mallet BA4 4LX

Application Number 2018/1476/OTS

Date Received 13th June 2018

Applicant/ Hartlake Homes Organisation Hartlake Homes

Application Type Outline - Some Matters Reserved

Proposal Outline application with all matters reserved save for access for the erection of 9 dwellings (Revised plans received 2nd Nov 2018)

Ward Shepton East

Parish Shepton Mallet Town Council

Ward Member/ Chair and Vice Chair Referral

This application is referred to the Planning Board as the applicant is related to a District Councillor.

Site Description and Proposal

The application relates to land adjoining Shireways located off Cannards Grave Road in Shepton Mallet.

Shireways is a single storey bungalow set within a generous sized plot. Part of the application site is garden that belonging to Shireways which has since been sub-divided with fencing with the remainder of the site being agricultural fields that were formally part of the Mid-Somerset Showground, but these have also been fenced off by the applicant.

The application seeks outline planning permission with all matters reserved, save for access, for the erection of 9 dwellings.

Some fairly detailed plans have been provided by the applicant to show an indication of the site layout, including some elevations. However it should be noted that these plans have been provided for ‘illustrative purposes only’, as matters of layout, scale, landscaping and appearance are reserved. It does however give an idea of how the site could come forward as part of a reserved matters application.

The access arrangements shown on the plans are under full consideration, however this does not extend to how the site is laid out in regards to parking spaces and turning areas, which would be considered under the reserved matter of ‘layout’.

The site is located within the development limits of Shepton Mallet and adjacent to the Shepton Mallet Conservation Area (not within it). The agricultural land is classified as grade 3b, which means it has a low agricultural value.

A period of public re-consultation ended on the 21st November 2018 and the comments received have been summarised below.

Planning Board Report 19th December 2018 Page 10

Planning History

No relevant planning history.

Consultations and Representations

Ward Councillors (Shepton East)

Cllr Bente Height:

I would like to see this application going to full Council. The reason being overdevelopment, out of keeping with the area. The risk of flooding, do not believe that the attenuation pond is capable of dealing with the increase in buildings and therefore more water that will only have one way and that is out on the road.

I understand that Shepton Mallet Town Council has recommended refusal and I am in agreement.

Cllr Jeannette Marsh:

I would request that this application goes to the Planning Board because of its complex nature regarding design, flooding potential and impact on the image of the entrance to Shepton Mallet.

Shepton Mallet Town Council

Members did not support this application on the grounds that there are too many houses for the site and the proposed properties at the front of the development are too high.

Conservation Officer (MDC)

No objections raised.

Highways Officer (Somerset County Council)

No objections, subject to the attachment of relevant conditions.

Drainage Officer (MDC)

No objections, subject to the attachment of a relevant condition.

County Ecologist (SCC)

No objections subject to the attachment of a relevant condition.

Tree Officer (MDC)

Raises objections regarding the loss of trees (already felled), which are considered to be an important local feature in landscape terms, although not currently protected under a TPO or by the Conservation Area. Suggests that suitable replacement planting should be incorporated.

Historic Environment Officer (SCC)

No objections.

Planning Board Report 19th December 2018 Page 11

Representations

The Local Planning Authority has received 4 letters of objection and 1 letter of support, raising the following issues (summarised):

Objections:

- Flooding and drainage issues; - Loss of trees and the landscape feature they provided; - Impact to listed buildings/ heritage assets; - Impact to conservation area; - Harmful visual impact on the Cannards Grave Road approach to the town; - Out of character; - Need for affordable and social housing; - Increased density of housing; - Plots 1 to 6 are too close to the road; - Excessive size of dwellings fronting the road; - Victorian terrace of Field View should not be used as a precedent; - Highway safety concerns; - Overdevelopment of the site.

Support:

- Will provide for a variation of housing types; - Increased diversity of buildings; - Support small developments such as this; - Better aimed at first time buyers.

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

Planning Analysis

Policy Context

The Council’s Development Plan comprises: 1. Mendip District Local Plan Part I: Strategy and Policies (December 2014) 2. Somerset Waste Core Strategy

The following policies of the Local Plan Part 1 are relevant to the determination of this application:

 CP1: Spatial Strategy  CP2: Housing  CP9: Shepton Mallet Town Strategy  DP1: Local Identity and Distinctiveness  DP3: Heritage Conservation  DP4: Mendip’s Landscapes  DP5: Biodiversity and Ecological Networks  DP6: Bat Protection  DP7: Design and Amenity of New Development  DP8: Environmental Protection

Planning Board Report 19th December 2018 Page 12

 DP9: Transport Impact of New Development  DP10: Parking Standards  DP11: Affordable Housing  DP14: Housing Mix  DP23: Managing Flood Risk

Other Material Considerations:

 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), 2018  Planning Practice Guidance (PPG), 2012  Somerset County Council Parking Strategy, 2013  Somerset County Council Standing Advice, 2015  Conservation Area Character Appraisal & Management Proposal Shepton Mallet, 2007

Key Issues

Principle of the Proposal

Whilst the site is classified as a Greenfield site (i.e: not previously developed land - not brownfield), it is located within the Development Limits of Shepton Mallet, which is one of Mendip’s principal settlements where Policy CP1 of the Mendip District Local Plan supports the general principle of housing development.

The emphasis of Policy CP1 is to secure development within development limits and under part 3 states:

“In identifying land for development the Local Plan’s emphasis is on maximising the re-use of appropriate previously developed sites and other sites within existing settlement limits as defined on the Proposals Map, and then at the most sustainable locations on the edge of the identified settlements. Any proposed development outside the development limits will be strictly controlled and will only be permitted where it benefits economic activity or extends the range of facilities available to the local communities”.

The site is contained wholly within the development limits of the town.

The projected housing numbers for Shepton Mallet, put forward under Policy CP2, are treated as a ‘minima’ and do not represent an absolute cap on housing numbers since many further units may come forward on appropriate sites in order for the Council to demonstrate a continuous (rolling) 5 year supply of housing within the District.

The Town Council have objected on the basis that there are too many houses for the site.

The indicative site plan illustrates that up-to 9 dwellings could be accommodated within the site, however a reserved matters application would consider the detailed layout and mix of the dwellings should outline consent be granted.

The pre-text to Policy CP2 (under para 4.43) confirms that “The Council does not intend to impose a rigid housing density policy for new residential developments” and therefore each site has to be considered on their own individual merits.

It should be highlighted at this point that the site lies adjacent to the Former Mid-Somerset Showground Site, which is allocated under Policy CP9 of the Local Plan to provide a mixed use development of around 500 dwellings. The outline application for this development is currently under consideration under application reference 2018/1843/OTS. The current application is nevertheless a standalone scheme that has to be considered on its own

Planning Board Report 19th December 2018 Page 13 individual merits, but in the context that it will, at some point in time, be adjoined by a much larger housing development.

The NPPF requires LPAs to significantly boost the supply of housing and considers that proposals that involve the delivery of housing should be considered significant benefits where they are sustainable developments. The site is located within walking distance of the main town centre and represents a sustainable location for such development.

Bearing in mind the steer of Polices CP1, CP2 and CP9 of the Local Plan and the guidance contained within the NPPF, the principle of the development is considered to be acceptable and is therefore supported.

Housing mix and type

Policy DP14 of the Local Plan requires the provision of a greater proportion of 2 and 3 bedroom units. Given the layout and size of dwellings indicated on the plans (and the number of parking spaces indicated), it is highly likely that the development will offer a mix of 2 and 3 bedroom units, some single storey (bungalows), aimed at the local and District wide need for smaller family sized dwellings. It is therefore considered that the scheme (under a reserved matters application) can be designed to accord with the requirements of Policy DP14 of the Local Plan.

Affordable Housing

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) has been revised (adopted July 2018) and under paragraph 63 states that the “Provision of affordable housing should not be sought for residential developments that are not major developments, other than in designated rural areas (where policies may set out a lower threshold of 5 units or fewer). To support the re- use of brownfield land, where vacant buildings are being reused or redeveloped, any affordable housing contribution due should be reduced by a proportionate amount”. The application site is not within a designated rural area and the development proposed is not a major development (10 units or a site area of 1 hectare or more). The Government has confirmed that they will revise the PPG to align with the NPPF and as such the NPPF must be afforded significant weight in decision making. Therefore the revised affordable housing thresholds are afforded significant weight under the consideration of this planning application.

Given the revisions to the affordable housing thresholds in the NPPF, the development would not be expected to provide any affordable housing or any associated contributions towards its provision elsewhere. The development therefore complies with Paragraph 63 of the NPPF and overrides the provisions of Policy DP11 of the Local Plan.

Heritage Assets

The site is located adjacent to (not within) the Shepton Mallet Conservation Area and lies 40 metres to the South of grade II listed buildings (‘The Field’ and ‘The Cottage’), which are located on the opposite side of Cannards Grave Road.

There is a duty under Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 in considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.

It is one of the core principles of the NPPF that heritage assets should be conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance. Chapter 16 of the National Planning Policy Framework at paragraph 190 sets out that the local planning authority should identify and

Planning Board Report 19th December 2018 Page 14 assess the particular significance of any heritage asset. They should take this assessment into account when considering the impact of a proposal on a heritage asset, to avoid or minimise conflict between the heritage asset’s conservation and any aspect of the proposal.

Paragraphs 192-197 sets out the framework for decision making in planning applications relating to heritage assets and this application takes account of the relevant considerations below.

Given that the application is in outline with matters of layout, scale, appearance and landscaping being reserved, the LPA cannot make a full assessment of the impact of the development on designated heritage assets. However it is considered that the development can be carefully designed (under a reserved matters application) to ensure that the designated heritage assets are not materially harmed, having due regard to the requirements of Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Area) Act 1990 and the provisions of Policy DP3 of the Mendip District Local Plan 2006-2029 (Part 1 Strategies and Policies - adopted 15th December 2014) and Chapter 16 of the NPPF. It should also be noted that the Conservation Officer has raised no objections.

Layout, Scale, Appearance and Landscaping (Reserved Matters)

The application site is located on the southern-side of Cannards Grave Road, adjacent to the former Mid-Somerset Showground. The current dwelling at Shireways is a single storey bungalow, however the remainder of properties along this section of Cannards Grave Road are two storey, some detached and some semi-detached with a mixed pallet of materials. On the opposite side of Cannards Grave Road is a 3 storey Victorian terrace (Field View) and on land adjacent to 9 Field View (which is 2 storey detached dwelling) there is a recent infill development of 5 dwellings under construction, including a 3 storey terrace of three dwellings fronting onto Cannards Grave Road, although these three units have not yet been constructed. As such the scale and appearance of dwellings along this section of Cannards Grave Road is mixed and includes examples of infill developments, such as the one proposed under this application.

The indicative plans provided with the application show a 2 storey staggered terrace of five dwellings fronting onto Cannards Grave Road with two pairs of semi-detached single storey bungalows to the rear with a central parking area and attenuation pond. These plans are only indicative however it is highly likely that the development will take this form, given the constraints of the site and the position of neighbours and the dwellings themselves. It is also considered that the indicative layout is sufficient to accommodate appropriately sized gardens and parking arrangements, and that the development as a whole would not have an adversely cramped or contrived appearance.

The LPA is confident that the layout, scale, appearance and landscaping of the development could be done in a manner that will be sensitive to the character and appearance of the area and the wider street-scene, which would be secured as part of a reserved matters application, in the event outline permission is granted. A reserved matters application will also be subject to further consultation.

Given the above assessment, the LPA are confident that the proposal can be designed (within the reserved matters application) to accord with the provisions of Policy DP1, DP4

Planning Board Report 19th December 2018 Page 15 and DP7 of the adopted Local Plan Part 1 (2014) and Part 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Residential Amenities

It is considered that the dwellings could be accommodated within the site without causing adverse harm to the amenities of neighbours. The indicative layout shows that the site could accommodate the dwellings without causing adverse harm to existing or future residential amenities, provided that the dwellings at the rear retain a single storey scale/ appearance to mitigate for impacts of overlooking/ loss of privacy; overbearing potential; overshadowing and loss of light impacts, given their indicated positions, proximity and orientation.

It is considered that the indicative proposal would provide each dwelling with an adequate standard of amenity space for the enjoyment of future occupiers. Within the development itself, it is considered that the proposed dwellings, with the layout and scale indicated, would relate to one another in a way that would not result in significant harm to the amenities of the development’s future occupiers or those of adjoining occupiers.

Local residents would have the opportunity to comment on the reserved matters application at the appropriate stage, however it should be noted that no objections have been raised by local residents/ neighbours on residential amenity grounds.

Given the above assessment, it is considered that the proposal can be designed (within the reserved matters application) to accord with the provisions of Policy DP7 and DP8 of the adopted Local Plan Part 1 (2014).

Open Space

The development does not provide an area of public open/ recreation space on site and there is no requirement for the provision of commuted sums to be secured by way of a planning obligation, as per the guidance contained under Paragraph 31 of the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG), which confirms that:

“Contributions should not be sought from developments of 10-units or less, and which have a maximum combined gross floorspace of no more than 1000sqm (gross internal area)”.

The development proposes less than 10 residential units (‘9’) and the combined gross floorspace is likely to be less than 1000sqm, as such no planning obligations are to be sought.

Access and Parking

Planning Board Report 19th December 2018 Page 16

Archaeology

The Historic Environment Officer at Somerset County Council has raised no objections to the proposal in relation to impacts to archaeology.

Conclusion

On the basis of the above assessment it is recommended that outline planning permission should be APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS.

Recommendation APPROVE

Reason/s for Recommendation

1. The proposal accords with the Council's settlement strategy for the location of new development as the site is located within the development limits of Shepton Mallet. It is considered that the appearance, landscaping, scale and layout of the development could be designed to respect the character and appearance of the area; preserve the setting and appearance of heritage assests; safeguard the amenities of neighbouring residents and adjoining land users under a reserved matters application. The proposal has been tested against the following Development Plan policies. In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, and subject to the conditions below, the proposal is acceptable:- CP1: Spatial Strategy, CP2: Housing, CP9: Shepton Mallet Town Strategy, DP1: Local Identity and Distinctiveness, DP3: Heritage Conservation, DP4: Mendip's Landscapes, DP5: Biodiversity and Ecological Networks, DP6: Bat Protection, DP7: Design and Amenity of New Development, DP8: Environmental Protection, DP9: Transport Impact of New Development, DP10: Parking Standards, DP14: Housing Mix and DP23: Managing Flood Risk of the Mendip District Local Plan 2006-2029, Part 1: Strategies and Policies, adopted 15th December 2014 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), 2018 Planning Practice Guidance (PPG), 2012 Somerset County Council Parking Strategy, 2013 Somerset County Council Standing Advice, 2015 Conservation Area Character Appraisal and Management Proposal Shepton Mallet, 2007

Conditions

1. Outline Time Limit (Compliance) The development hereby approved shall be begun either before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission, or before the expiration of two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved whichever is the latest. Reason: This is an outline permission and these matters have been reserved for the subsequent approval of the Local Planning Authority, and as required by Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

2. Reserved Matters Time Limit (Compliance) Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the Local Planning Authority before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason: As required by Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning permissions.

Planning Board Report 19th December 2018 Page 17

3. Reserved Matters (Pre-commencement) Approval of the details of the (a) layout (b) scale (c) appearance and (d) landscaping of the site (hereinafter called the reserved matters) shall be obtained from the Local Planning Authority before any development is commenced. Reason: This is an outline planning permission and these matters have been reserved for the subsequent approval of the Local Planning Authority under the provisions of Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act (as amended) and Parts 1 and 3 of the Development Management Procedure Order 2015.

4. Reserved Matters (Compliance) Plans and particulars of the reserved matters referred to in condition 3 above shall include details of: (a) measures for controlling surface water from the site; (b) foul drainage details; (c) refuse and recycling details; (d) ecological impact assessment and mitigation strategy; (e) external lighting details; (f) any information relevant to the adopted validation requirements for such an application. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with these approved details. Reason: This is an outline permission and these matters require detailed consideration by the Local Planning Authority.

5. Plans List (Compliance) The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with drawing number: S5803 100E validated on the 22nd June 2018 in so far as it relates to the access details only. Reason: To define the terms and extent of the permission.

6. Flood Risk and Drainage Scheme Details (Pre-commencement) No development shall commence, except ground investigations and demolition works, until a surface water drainage strategy, based on sustainable drainage principles, is submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority under the reserved matters application. The scheme shall include details of gullies, connections, soakaways and means of attenuation on site and shall be based on an assessment of the hydrological and hydro-geological context of the development. The scheme shall also include details of how the scheme shall be maintained and managed after completion. Provision shall also be made within the site for the disposal of surface water so as to prevent its discharge onto the highway. The scheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details and be maintained and retained as such thereafter. Reason: To prevent any increased risk of flooding to the development and wider area, to improve and protect water quality and to improve habitat and amenity and in the interests of highway safety, having regard to the provisions of Policies DP7, DP8, DP9 and DP23 of the Mendip District Council Local Plan (2006-2029).

7. Foul Drainage Details (Pre-occupation) No development shall commence, except ground investigations and demolition works, until a detailed scheme for the disposal of foul drainage from the development has first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority under the reserved matters application. The works shall be installed prior to the occupation of the development. Reason: In order to ensure the provision of satisfactory foul drainage arrangements and to avoid pollution of the environment, having regard to the provisions of Policies DP7, DP8 and DP23 of the Mendip District Council Local Plan (2006-2029).

Planning Board Report 19th December 2018 Page 18

8. Wildlife Protection and Enhancement (Pre-commencement) No works shall commence on site, including groundworks and vegetative clearance, until an ecological impact assessment and mitigation strategy has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To fully assess the impact of the development to ecology and biodiversity and prevent ecological harm and provide biodiversity gains in accordance with the provisions of Policy DP5 and DP6 of the Mendip District Local Plan Part 1: Strategy & Policies 2006-2029 (Adopted 2014).

9. Removal of Permitted Development Rights (Compliance) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no development falling within Classes A, B, C, D and E of Part 1 of that Order shall be carried out to any of the dwellings hereby approved. Reason: The introduction of further curtilage buildings and extensions requires detailed consideration by the Local Planning Authority in the interests of the character and appearance of the area and the living conditions of the occupiers and neighbouring properties, in accordance with Policy DP7 of the Mendip District Local Plan Part 1: Strategy & Policies 2006-2029 (Adopted 2014).

10. Access Details (Compliance) The proposed access shall be constructed in accordance with the details approved under drawing number: S5803 100E validated on the 22nd June 2018, and shall be made available for use prior to the occupation of the dwellings hereby approved. The access shall be maintained and retained in accordance with these approved details thereafter. Reason: To ensure that suitable access is provided and thereafter retained in the interests of highway safety in accordance with Policies DP9 and DP10 of the Mendip District Local Plan Part 1: Strategy & Policies 2006-2029 (Adopted 2014).

11. Access Construction (Compliance) No dwelling shall be occupied until the approved vehicular access has been constructed with a bound and compacted surfacing material (not loose stone or gravel) for the first 6 metres of its length as measured from the edge of the adjoining carriageway. The access shall be retained as such thereafter. Reason: To prevent loose material spilling onto the highway in the interests of highways safety in accordance with Policy DP9 of the Mendip District Local Plan Part 1: Strategy & Policies 2006-2029 (Adopted 2014).

12. Removal of Permitted Development Rights - Vehicle Visibility Splay (Compliance) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order) at the proposed access there shall be no obstruction to visibility greater than 300 millimetres above adjoining road level within the visibility splays shown on the approved plan, drawing number: S5803 100E validated on the 22nd June 2018. The development hereby approved shall not be brought into use or occupied unless such visibility is available and shall be retained permanently thereafter. Reason: To secure appropriate visibility splays onto the highway in the interests of highways safety, in accordance with Policy DP9 of the Mendip District Local Plan Part 1: Strategy & Policies 2006-2029 (Adopted 2014).

13. Stopping up of existing access (Compliance) The new access hereby approved shall not be brought into use until the existing access has been permanently closed in accordance with details which have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The

Planning Board Report 19th December 2018 Page 19

development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and be maintained and retained as such thereafter. Reason: To ensure that the development is served by a safe access in the interests of highway safety in accordance with Policy DP9 of the Mendip District Local Plan Part 1: Strategy & Policies 2006-2029 (Adopted 2014).

14. Construction Management Plan (Pre-commencement) No development shall take place until a Construction Method Statement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority under the reserved matters application. The Statement shall provide for: a) the parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors; b) loading and unloading of plant and materials; c) storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development; d) wheel washing facilities; e) measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction; f) delivery and construction working hours. The development shall thereafter be constructed in accordance with the approved Construction Method Statement. Reason: To ensure that safe operation of the highway and in the interests of protecting residential amenity in accordance with Policy DP7, DP8 and DP9 of the Mendip District Local Plan Part 1: Strategy & Policies 2006-2029 (Adopted 2014). This is a condition precedent because any initial construction or demolition works could have a detrimental impact upon highways safety and/or residential amenity.

15. Plots 6-9 - Single storey only (Compliance) The proposed dwellings within the rear of the site (indicated as Plots 6-9) shall be single storey in scale and appearance only. Reason: In the interests of the appearance of the development and the surrounding area and to protect the residential amenities of the future occupiers of the development and neighbours, having regard to the provisions of Policy DP7 of the Mendip District Local Plan Part 1: Strategy & Policies 2006-2029 (Adopted 2014).

16. Plots 1-5 - Two storey only (Compliance) The proposed dwellings within the front of the site (Plots 1-5), fronting Cannards Grave Road, shall be two storey in scale and appearance only. Reason: In the interests of the appearance of the development and the surrounding area and to protect the residential amenities of the future occupiers of the development and neighbours, having regard to the provisions of Policy DP7 of the Mendip District Local Plan Part 1: Strategy & Policies 2006-2029 (Adopted 2014).

Informatives

1. In determining this application the Local Planning Authority considers it has complied with the aims of paragraph 38 of the National Planning Framework by working in a positive, creative and pro-active way.

2. Condition Categories Your attention is drawn to the condition/s in the above permission. The heading of each condition gives an indication of the type of condition and what is required by it. There are 4 broad categories:

Compliance - The condition specifies matters to which you must comply. These conditions do not require the submission of additional details and do not need to be discharged. Pre-commencement - The condition requires the submission and approval of further information, drawings or details before any work begins on the approved

Planning Board Report 19th December 2018 Page 20

development. The condition will list any specific works which are exempted from this restriction, e.g. ground investigations, remediation works, etc. Pre-occupation - The condition requires the submission and approval of further information, drawings or details before occupation of all or part of the approved development. Bespoke Trigger - The condition contains a bespoke trigger which requires the submission and approval of further information, drawings or details before a specific action occurs.

Please note all conditions should be read fully as these headings are intended as a guide only.

Failure to comply with these conditions may render the development unauthorised and liable to enforcement action. Where approval of further information is required you will need to submit a conditions application and pay the relevant fee, which is Ł116 per request (or Ł34 where it relates to a householder application) and made payable to Mendip District Council. The request must be made in writing or using the Standard Application form (available on the council's website www.mendip.gov.uk ). For clarification, the fee relates to each request for the discharge of condition/s and not to each condition itself. There is a no fee for the discharge of conditions on a Listed Building Consent, Conservation Area Consent or Advertisement Consent although if the request concerns condition/s relating to both a planning permission and Listed Building Consent then a fee will be required.

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

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

5. Please note that your proposed work may also require Building Regulations approval, which is a separate consent process to the consideration of a planning application. The Council's Building Control team are available to provide Building Regulations advice from pre-application stage to completion of a development and can be contacted on 0300 303 7790. Further details can also be found on their website http://www.sedgemoor.gov.uk/SomersetBCP/

6. The applicant should be aware that it is likely that the internal layout of the site will result in the laying out of a private street, and as such under Sections 219 to 225 of the Highways Act 1980, will be subject to the Advance Payments Code (APC). Given the constraints of the existing access, it will not be possible to construct an estate road to a standard suitable for adoption. Therefore in order to qualify for an exemption under the APC, the road should be built and maintained to a level that the Highway Authority considers will be of sufficient integrity to ensure that it does not deteriorate to such a condition as to warrant the use of the powers under the Private Streetworks Code. ng and the 9 new dwellings. The actual layout of the site and the associated parking and ac

Planning Board Report 19th December 2018 Page 21 ess arrangements are not under consideration, however the indicative layout shows sufficient turning and access space can be accommodated within the site to serve Agenda Item No. DM03

Case Officer Mr Carlton Langford

Site Upper Row Farm Row Lane Laverton Bath Somerset

Application Number 2018/1868/OTS

Date Received 18th July 2018

Applicant/ Mrs And Ms Jessica And Emma Hendy Organisation

Application Type Outline - Some Matters Reserved

Proposal Application for outline planning permission (all matters reserved) for the erection of an agricultural workers dwelling.

Ward Ammerdown

Parish Hemington Parish Council

This application has been brought before the Planning board as the agent for the application is a member of the Planning board.

Description of Site, Proposal and Constraints:

The application relates to Upper Row Farm an established agricultural holding situated within the Parish of Hemmington. The site comprises the main farmhouse, a Grade II Listed Building, several curtilage buildings one which has a separate industrial use, one a holiday let use and another which is used for educational training. There are also a collection of more modern agricultural building. There is also a Public Right of Way which transverses the site.

The application is for outline planning permission with all matters reserved for the erection of an agricultural workers dwelling to be sited to the south of the site behind 3 agricultural sheds with access derived from the existing access which serves the wider holding.

This application merely seeks whether in principle there is an essential functional need for the dwelling and that there are no key planning constraints which might preclude the development such as flood risk or in this case the setting of the heritage asset (Listed Farmhouse). Details pursuant to the scale, layout, appearance, landscaping of the development and access thereto are to be considered at a later date.

Relevant History:

There is no planning history which relates to the current proposal.

Summary of Ward Councillor comments, Town/Parish Council comments, representations and consultee comments:

Ward Member: No comments received.

Town/Parish Council: No comments received.

Planning Board Report 19th December 2018 Page 22

Highways Development Officer: Standing advice.

Conservation Officer: no objection to the principle of a structure at the location shown, however, it is advised that the design of such a structure be carefully considered during the reserved matters stage. It is advised that an agricultural design be considered so that it can be read as an extension to the traditional farmyard.

Local Representations: There have been no public representations received.

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

Summary of all planning policies and legislation relevant to the proposal:

The Council’s Development Plan comprises:

- Mendip District Local Plan Part I: Strategy and Policies (December 2014) - Somerset Waste Core Strategy

The following policies of the Local Plan Part 1 are relevant to the determination of this application:

- CP1, CP4, DP1, DP3, DP4, DP7, DP8, DP9, DP10 and DP13.

Other possible Relevant Considerations (without limitation):

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

Assessment of relevant issues:

Principle of the Use:

The site lies outside of any settlement limits and in open countryside.

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

Policy CP2 states that the delivery of new housing will be secured from three sources (a) Infill, conversions and redevelopments within Development Limits defined on the Proposals Map, (b) Strategic Sites identified on the Key Diagrams for each town associated with Core Policies 6-10 and (c) other allocations of land for housing and, where appropriate, mixed use development, outside of Development Limits through the Site Allocations process.

CP4 states that rural settlements and the wider rural area will be sustained by making planned provision for housing within the Primary and Secondary Villages in line with CP1 and CP2 and making allowance for occupational dwellings in rural locations where there is a

Planning Board Report 19th December 2018 Page 23 proven and essential functional need, to support agricultural, forestry and other rural-based enterprises.

These aims are consistent with the NPPF which is quite clear at Paragraph 79 that new isolated houses in the countryside should be avoided unless there are special circumstances.

The first example of an applicable circumstance given at paragraph 79 is of particular note in this case, it refers to isolated homes in the countryside where:

- there is essential need for a rural worker, including those taking majority control of a farm business, to live permanently at or near their place of work in the countryside

The Local Plan policy DP13 also relates to accommodation for rural workers and at section 1. states proposals for rural workers accommodation will be supported where:

It can be demonstrated that:

i) the dwelling and its proposed location are essential to support or sustain the functioning of the enterprise;

ii) there is a need for permanent occupation which relates to a full-time worker or one who is primarily employed by the business;

iii) all alternative accommodation options have been explored and no satisfactory alternative means of providing accommodation has been identified;

iv) the size of the proposed dwelling is commensurate with the established functional requirement for the enterprise;

v) the design and siting of the proposal does not conflict with the intentions of Development Policy 5, particularly in relation to Natura 2000 sites and Development Policy 4: Mendip’s Landscapes.

 The Council will support proposals for permanent rural workers’ dwellings where:  The enterprise has been established on the unit for at least 3 years;  Business accounts for the preceding 3 years indicate that at least one of those years has been profitable, and the enterprise is currently financially sound and has a clear prospect of remaining so;  The criteria in clause 1a) continue to be satisfied.

An assessment against the above criteria is dealt with in turn below:

The Holding is operated by Mrs Jessica Hendy and her daughter Mrs Emma Hendy. Both Mother and daughter along with Mrs Emma Hendy’s partner and children reside in the main farmhouse. Emma Handy has recently returned to the farm to help run the business along the same lines as Mrs Jessica Handy had done with her late husband.

The proposal would suggest that Mrs Jessica Handy will continue to occupy the main farmhouse whilst Mrs Emma Handy is to occupy, with her family, the proposed dwelling.

The Agricultural Planning Appraisal accompanying the application concludes that the labour requirements for the holding amount to 1.46 standard man days i.e. 1.5 workers.

The appraisal also concludes that the business has been profitable over the last 3 years and is financially sound and the accounts conform this.

Planning Board Report 19th December 2018 Page 24

From the above appraisal, it can be deduced that 1 full time workers along with 1 part time worker are necessary to operate the farm and this is how the enterprise has been operated for the last 30 years and therefore no change to the operations on site. Having regard for the criteria as set out Policy DP13, it would seem that the holding has operated/functioned effectively with only 1.5 workers and from the existing farmhouse and as such, there is no essential need for an additional dwelling to support or sustain the functioning of the enterprise. Furthermore, with only one full time and one part time worker required to operate the business and the full time worker already occupies the main farmhouse, there is no requirement for the part time worker to live on site permanently.

Policy DP13 requires that alternative accommodation options should be explored and only when no satisfactory alternative means of providing accommodation have been identified, should the Council consider new dwellings. The apparels fails to provide any evidence that there is no other suitable accommodation either on site or in the surrounding area.

However, in this case with the existing dwelling on site is considered sufficient to meet the functional needs of the holding and therefore there is no requirement for another dwelling on site.

Whilst the proposed development would be convenient for the family, there is no essential need for the additional accommodation at this time. As such, the proposal is contrary to Policies CP1, CP2 and CP13 of the Local Plan.

Design of the Development and Impact on the Street Scene and Surrounding Area:

Without prejudice to the view that the dwelling is not essential to support or sustain the functioning of the enterprise; it is considered that through a reserved matters application the Council could ensure the size of the dwelling is commensurate with the established functional requirement for the enterprise. However, as there is no special justification for the proposed dwelling, the proposed development would constitute an isolated home in the countryside encroaching into countryside and having a harmful impact on the character of the rural landscape contrary to Policies DP1 and DP7 of the Local plan.

Notwithstanding the dwelling resulting in harmful development encroaching into the countryside, it is not considered that the proposed development being isolated from the setting of the listed farmhouse would have a harmful impact on the setting or significance of the heritage asset and as such, the development accords with Policy DP3 of the Local Plan.

Impact on Residential Amenity:

Provided the accommodation is essential for a rural worker to live permanently at their place of work, in this case to meet the functional needs of the farming enterprise. The occupiers of the accommodation will not be adversely affected from potential odour or noise nuisance associated with the nearby agricultural activities and therefore the accommodation will provide a satisfactory environment for the end users.

The siting of a dwelling at this site will not raise any significant amenity issues of overlooking or overshadowing which would warrant its refusal having regard for Policies DP7 and DP8 of the Local Plan.

Assessment of Highway Issues:

Whilst access is a matter reserved for later consideration, there is an existing access to the farm which is acceptable in terms of highway safety and access to the site itself could easily be achieved without harm to the character of the area or setting of the heritage asset.

Planning Board Report 19th December 2018 Page 25

Parking is also a matter for later consideration but again the site is sufficient in area to accommodate not only a dwelling but also off-street parking provision which would accord with the Countywide Parking Strategy (2013).

The proposed development therefore is acceptable having regard for Policies DP9 and DP10 of the Local Plan.

Notwithstanding highway safety and parking provision, an isolated dwelling within the countryside remote from services and facilities will foster the growth in the need to travel contrary to the Core Principles of the Local Plan CP1.

Environmental Impact Assessment

This development is not considered to require an Environmental Statement under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017.

Other issues:

Whilst the site is in close proximity to a public right of way, the development will not block or obstruct the right of way.

Conclusion:

Having regard for the above, the application fails to demonstrate that there is an essential need for a new agricultural workers dwelling to support the functional needs of the holding and as such, the proposed development constitutes an isolated home in the countryside harmful to the rural setting and fostering the growth in the need to travel and is recommended for REFUSAL.

Recommendation REFUSE

Reason/s for Recommendation

1. The site lies in open countryside outside of the adopted development limits, where development is strictly controlled as a matter of principle, in the interests of the character and appearance of the countryside and to ensure a sustainable pattern of development. The application fails to demonstrate that there is an essential need for an additional agricultural workers dwelling on the farm holding and notwithstanding there being no requirement for an additional agricultural workers dwelling on the farm holding, it has not been adequately demonstrated that all other alternative accommodation options have been fully explored and that no satisfactory alternative means of providing accommodation are available. The development therefore represents an unsustainable isolated home in the countryside resulting in the harmful domestic encroachment of the rural landscape and a development which will foster the growth in the need to travel contrary to Policies CP1, CP2, CP4 and DP13 of the Mendip District Local Plan Part 1 Strategy and Policies (adopted December 2014), and the policies contained within the National Planning Policy Framework, in particular paragraph 79 and National Planning Practice Guidance.

Informatives:

1. This decision relates to Location and Site Plans validated on the 17 July 2018.

Planning Board Report 19th December 2018 Page 26

Agenda Item No. DM04

Case Officer Mr Charlie Bladon

Site Land At 362511 144804 Bolters Lane Downside Shepton Mallet Somerset

Application Number 2018/1348/OTS

Date Received 31st May 2018

Applicant/ Mr & Mrs Mark & Emma Boakes Organisation

Application Type Outline - Some Matters Reserved

Proposal Outline application (with matters of access, scale and layout considered) for a proposed dwelling incorporating full disabled access

Ward Shepton East

Parish Shepton Mallet Town Council

Description of Site, Proposal and Constraints:

This application relates to land to the east of the undefined settlement of Downside which is currently an agricultural field in the open countryside. The land slopes downhill towards the south and is flanked to the west and over the road to the north by housing. To the south and east are open fields with mature boundary trees and hedgerows. There is an existing field gate around 220 metres to the east which serves as the existing field entrance.

The site is just outside of the settlement limits as defined by Mendip District Local Plan Part I: Strategy and Policies (December 2014) (MDLP).

The application seeks outline planning permission for one detached single storey three bed dwelling with integral garage, with a new access from Bolters Lane on the north boundary. The site access, layout and scale are being considered as part of this application; appearance and landscaping are reserved for subsequent approval.

Relevant History:

There is no planning history relevant to the current application.

Summary of Ward Councillor comments, Town/Parish Council comments, representations and consultee comments:

Ward Member: No comments received.

Shepton Mallet Council: Recommended approval due to the extenuating health reasons.

Highways Development Officer: Please refer to Standing Advice.

Local Representations: We have received three letters of support.

Planning Board Report 19th December 2018 Page 27

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

Summary of all planning policies and legislation relevant to the proposal:

The Council’s Development Plan comprises:

- Mendip District Local Plan Part I: Strategy and Policies (December 2014) (MDLP) - Somerset Waste Core Strategy

The following policies of the Local Plan Part 1 are relevant to the determination of this application:

 CP1 – Mendip Spatial Strategy  CP2 – Supporting the Provision of New Housing  CP4 – Sustaining Rural Communities  DP1 - Local Identity and Distinctiveness  DP4 - Mendip’s Landscapes  DP5 - Biodiversity and Ecological Networks  DP7 - Design and Amenity  DP8 - Environmental Protection  DP9 - Transport Impact of New Development  DP10 - Parking Standards  DP14 – Housing Mix and Type  DP23 – Managing Flood Risk

Other possible Relevant Considerations (without limitation):

- National Planning Policy Framework - National Planning Practice Guidance - The Countywide Parking Strategy (2013) - Somerset County Council Highways Development Control Standing Advice (2017) - Equalities Act 2010

Assessment of relevant issues:

Principle of the Use:

The site is located outside the settlement limits.

Policy CP1 states that any proposed development will be strictly controlled where it is outside the settlement limits and will only be permitted where it benefits economic activity or extends the range of facilities available to the local communities. In this case there is no indication that a proposal on the very limited scale of this current scheme would provide any significant benefits to economic activity or extend the range of facilities available to the community. As such it does not benefit economic activity in line with the requirements of Policy CP1.

Core Policy 2 (CP2) of the Local Plan states that the delivery of new housing will be secured from three sources (a) Infill, conversions and redevelopments within Development Limits defined on the Proposals Map, (b) Strategic Sites identified on the Key Diagrams for each

Planning Board Report 19th December 2018 Page 28 town associated with Core Policies 6-10 and (c) other allocations of land for housing and, where appropriate, mixed use development, outside of Development Limits through the Site Allocations process.

Core Policy 4 (CP4) does make allowance for occupational dwellings in rural locations, where there is a proven and essential functional need, to support agricultural, forestry and other rural-based enterprises but this case is not being made as part of this application.

The land is very open in character with the housing along the lane being more sporadic and the landscape rural in character. The development of this site would clearly have an urbanising effect on the character of the area and would intrude unacceptably into the countryside.

In pulling these points together the application site lies outside of the Development Limits where development is strictly controlled in accordance with CP1 and the application is in advance of the site allocations process expressed in CP2. As such the principle of a new build, open market dwelling in this location is considered unacceptable insofar as it does not accord with the settlement strategy & policy for the provision of new houses.

The dwelling is not essential to support agricultural, forestry and other rural-based enterprises.

Therefore there is an ‘in principle’ objection to development of this site in open countryside outside of the Settlement Limits.

Layout and Scale:

The detailed design appearance and landscaping of the proposed development are reserved for subsequent approval, although a full set of elevation drawings have been submitted which give an indication of the potential form of the dwelling and are the only indication of scale. The Layout and Scale of the proposed development are submitted for consideration at this time. The proposed dwelling would be positioned away from the boundaries of the site and due to the sloping topography it is indicated that the dwelling would be set down at a lower level than the adjacent highway. The drawings indicate a single pitch roof design with a maximum height of 3.6 metres and a footprint with maximum 17.8 metres by 10.2 metres excluding the attached garage, giving a floor area of around 160 square metres. It is considered that the scale of the proposed dwelling is significantly larger than the nearest existing dwellings but not significantly larger than some of the dwellings on the other side of the undefined settlement of Downside. On balance, taking account of the size of the plot and the single storey plan form of the dwelling it is considered that the scale of the proposed dwelling is acceptable.

However as for the reasons given above, in terms of the principle of development it is considered that the proposed layout would have a harmful impact on character of the area.

Impact on Residential Amenity:

The detailed appearance including window placement is reserved for subsequent approval, however it is likely that a suitable scheme could be accommodated on the site without significant detriment to neighbour amenity. The scale and layout of development are such that the proposed dwelling would not have an overbearing impact on the nearest neighbouring properties.

Assessment of Highway Issues:

The proposed access would be formed on the north boundary of the site with Bolters Lane. The access would be within the 30 mph speed limit part of the lane, the national speed limit

Planning Board Report 19th December 2018 Page 29 begins approximately 22 metres east of the proposed site access. The County Highways Authority has indicated that the proposal should be assessed against the Highways Authority Standing Advice guidelines. The submitted drawings indicate an access width of 4 metres and visibility splays of 43 metres in both directions. This is considered acceptable in respect of Highways Standing Advice in this instance. There is also adequate provision for parking and turning space within the site. However the proposal would require the removal of 4 metres of mature field boundary hedgerow and the relocation or setting back of a further 86 metres of hedgerow either side of the new access to provide the necessary visibility splays. It is considered that this work would have a harmful urbanising impact on the rural character of the area.

The proposal is therefore contrary Policy DP1 of Mendip District Local Plan Part I: Strategy and Policies (December 2014) in respect of the harmful visual impact of the proposed access and visibility splays on local character.

Drainage:

Policy DM23 seeks to secure water management measures to reduce surface water run-off. The application form indicates that surface water will be disposed of via a sustainable drainage system and there are such features in relation to the dwelling on the plans submitted but as these are indicative at this stage the details in respect of the dwelling cannot be confirmed. However it is considered that there is sufficient space within the site for provision of a sustainable drainage system.

Environmental Impact Assessment

This development is not considered to require an Environmental Statement under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017.

Other Matters:

The development is put forward on the basis that it would provide a dwelling for the applicant which caters to his particular needs. The Parish Council has offered support for the proposal in light of the applicant’s needs and the agent refers to Policy DP14 in support of the proposal, specifically the third paragraph which mentions provision of care homes and other specialist accommodation, and in exceptional circumstances the provision of such facilities beyond settlement limits in open countryside locations where there is a clear justification. However this policy refers to facilities to serve the needs of the public and not private homes for individuals.

Nevertheless, the applicant’s particular care needs are legitimate and therefore I have had due regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) contained in section 149 of the Equalities Act 2010. The application is supported by a design and access statement which describes efforts made to find suitable accommodation available locally to meet the applicant’s needs. This consists of signing up to a property sales website and registering details with one ‘high street’ estate agent. The statement is supplemented with a brief table listing several local properties for sale that were discounted as unsuitable for various reasons.

Whilst it is acknowledged that steps have been taken to find suitable accommodation it is clear that the submitted information is lightweight and lacking in detail. It is considered that the evidence provided is not sufficient to demonstrate that the proposed development is the only means by which the specific accommodation needs of the applicant could be met. The information submitted in relation to the description of the applicant’s particular needs is accepted at face value and is not in doubt, however it is noteworthy that the applicant did not seek a disability exemption from the planning application fee in relation to the proposal.

Planning Board Report 19th December 2018 Page 30

Conclusion:

The site lies in countryside outside of defined Settlement Limits, where development is strictly controlled as a matter of principle in the interests of the character and appearance of the countryside and to ensure a sustainable pattern of development. The applicant’s particular accommodation needs are duly noted however they are not considered to override the Policy principle objection noted above. As such the application is recommended for REFUSAL.

Recommendation REFUSE

Reason/s for Recommendation

1. The site lies in the countryside, outside the defined Development Limits of the village, where development is strictly controlled. The proposal would not accord with the Council's plan-led approach for the allocation of new housing within the District. The proposed development would have only limited benefits for economic activity or for extending the range of facilities available to the local community. These limited benefits do not override the requirements of Policy CP1 in regard to the spatial strategy for the District or Policy CP2 in regard to the Site Allocations process. The development would therefore be contrary to policies CP1 and CP2 of the Mendip District Local Plan 2006-2029, Part 1: Strategy and Policies (Adopted December 2014) and the National Planning Policy Framework.

2. The works required to provide the site access and visibility splays would have a harmful urbanising effect on the rural character of the locality, contrary to policy DP1 of the Mendip District Local Plan Part I: Strategy and Policies (December 2014).

Informatives

1. In determining this application the Local Planning Authority considers it has complied with the aims of paragraph 38 of the National Planning Policy Framework by working in a positive, creative and pro-active way. Despite negotiation, the submitted application has been found to be unacceptable for the stated reasons. The applicant was advised of this, however despite this, the applicant chose not to withdraw the application and having regard to the need to avoid unnecessary delay the Local Planning Authority moved forward and issued its decision.

2. This decision relates to drawings: 0118/02 Rev.2, 0118/03 Rev.2, Site Location Plan.

Planning Board Report 19th December 2018 Page 31

Agenda Item No. DM05

Case Officer Mr Rob Palmer

Site 52 Bove Town Glastonbury Somerset BA6 8JE

Application Number 2018/1951/FUL

Date Received 2nd August 2018

Applicant/ Ms Alison Keeling Organisation

Application Type Full Application

Proposal Erection of a new dwelling within the curtilage of No. 52 Bove Town on the site of previous consent 104639/016, alterations to existing parking arrangements of 52 No. Bove Town.

Ward Glastonbury St Edmunds

Parish Glastonbury Town Council

Referral to Ward Member/Chair and Vice Chair:

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

Description of Site, Proposal and Constraints

The application relates to 52 Bove Town, Glastonbury. The property is Grade II Listed Building which also lies within the Glastonbury Conservation Area and an Area of High Archaeological Potential. The application seeks full planning permission for the ‘Erection of a new dwelling within the curtilage of No. 52 Bove Town on the site of previous consent 104639/016, alterations to existing parking arrangements of 52 No. Bove Town’.

Summary of parish comments, representations and consultee comments

Ward Member – no comments received

Glastonbury Town Council - recommend approval

Conservation Officer (internal) – there are no objections from a conservation perspective with regards to the design of the proposed dwelling which is in-keeping with the modest agricultural character of the courtyard.

The part demolition and repositioning of the front and western boundary walls would cause a small amount of less than substantial harm to the significance of the designated heritage assets (52 Bove Town). In line with paragraph 196 of the NPPF it is necessary to weigh this against any public benefit associated with the application - there are no heritage benefits identified.

County Highway Authority – standing advice applies

Planning Board Report 19th December 2018 Page 32

County Archaeologist - An archaeological assessment was submitted to support an earlier proposal on this site that suggests a condition be attached to permission. This does appear to be the best way to deal with the potential archaeological issues associated with the proposal.

For this reason I recommend that the applicant be required to provide archaeological monitoring of the development and a report on any discoveries made as indicated in the revised National Planning Policy Framework (Paragraph 199). This should be secured by the use of a condition attached to any permission granted (draft wording of condition provided).

Conservation Advisory Panel: This involves setting back the listed wall to Woodlands, and as such is regrettable, but appears inevitable to provide additional car parking, but only if the remote new dwelling is otherwise acceptable. Conditions regarding the matching of materials and mortars to the existing wall should be included in any consent.

Other Representations – 15 objections were received. The concerns raised are summarised below: - Existing issues with on-street parking - Removal of the existing telegraph pole - Existing parking bays on the road are not shown on the proposed plans - Road has existing drainage and surface run-off issues - Highway safety, visibility and speed of traffic - Site is a blind spot for traffic accidents - Potential for unlawful backing into the highway - Demolition of listed boundary wall - Risk to pedestrians - Impact on character of listed building and conservation area - Impact on neighbouring amenity and security

Relevant planning history

Appeal Ref: APP/Q3305/W/17/3182722 52 Bove Town, Glastonbury, dismissed January 2018. 2016/3106/FUL | Erection of a new dwelling within the curtilage of No. 52 Bove Town on the site of previous consent 104639/016, refused March 2017 for the following reason: The proposed development fails to provide the visibility splays required in respect of both pedestrian visibility for the footway and vehicular visibility for vehicles emerging onto the highway which are necessary to make safe and satisfactory provision for access. The proposed development would therefore be to the detriment of the safe and free flow of pedestrians and traffic in these areas and is considered to be contrary to DP9 (Transport Impact) of the Mendip District Local Plan 2006-2029 (Part 1 Strategies and Policies - adopted 15th December 2014) and advice contained in Somerset County Council's Highway Development Control Standing Advice for Planning Applications document (June 2015).

2016/3107/LBC | Erection of a new dwelling within the curtilage of No. 52 Bove Town on the site of previous consent 104639/016, approved with conditions

February 2017 2015/2443/FUL Erection of a new dwelling within the curtilage of No. 52 Bove Town on the site of previous consent 104639/016, withdrawn

2015/2444/LBC Erection of a new dwelling within the curtilage of No. 52 Bove Town on the site of previous consent 104639/016, withdrawn

Planning Board Report 19th December 2018 Page 33

2015/1125/FUL Erection of a new dwelling within the curtilage of No. 52 Bove Town on the site of previous consent 104639/016, refused July 2015

2015/1126/LBC - Erection of a new dwelling within the curtilage of No. 52 Bove Town on the site of previous consent 104639/016, Listed Building Consent refused July 2015 for the following reason:

The proposed works by virtue of the design and scale of the proposed dwelling would not be subservient to the adjoining Grade II Listed building, a designated heritage asset. The new dwelling would be taller than the adjoining wing of the existing Listed Building and it is not clear how the design, including the fenestration, has taken account of the context of the site.

The proposed dwelling by virtue of its design and scale would give rise to less than substantial harm to the appearance and setting of the Grade II Listed no. 52 Bove Town. The public benefits of providing a single new house would not outweigh the less than substantial harm identified to the heritage asset. In balancing these impacts considerable weight is given to the duty to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building and setting of the Listed Buildings set out in with Section 66(1) of the Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act. The proposal is considered to be contrary to DP3 (heritage) of the Mendip District Local Plan 2006-2029 (Part 1 Strategies and Policies - adopted 15th December 2014) and the National Planning Policy Framework, with particular regard to Chapter 12.

104639/016 and 015 - Renewal of consents 104639/010 and 104639/011 - Repairs and minor alterations to the existing outbuilding/cottage and erection of one separate dwelling adjacent and repair to east boundary wall, approved 2004

104639/011 - Erection of dwelling on site of previous consent 104639/005, 1999

104639/010 - Repairs and minor alterations to the existing outbuilding/cottage. Erection of one separate dwelling adjacent, and repair to east boundary wall, approved 1999

104639/006 and 007 - Listed Building Consent and Planning Permission for repair and alterations to the coach house to form self-contained annexe to 52 Bove Town, approved 1997

104639/004 and 005 - Renewal of Listed Building Consent 104639/003 and planning permission 104639/002, approved 1994

104639/002 and 003 Listed Building Consent and Planning Permission for alterations to existing cottage with extension to form one dwelling and adjustments to east boundary wall, approved 1989

104639/000 and 001 Erection of a new dwelling and formation of access, approved 1984

Summary of all planning policies relevant to the proposal

The Council’s Development Plan comprises:

 Mendip District Local Plan Part I: Strategy and Policies (December 2014)  Somerset Waste Core Strategy

Planning Board Report 19th December 2018 Page 34

The following policies of the Local Plan Part 1 are relevant to the determination of this application:

 CP1 (Spatial Strategy)  CP2 (Housing)  DP1 (Local Identity and Distinctiveness),  DP3 (Heritage)  DP4 (Mendip’s Landscapes)  DP5 (Biodiversity and Ecological Networks)  DP6 (Bat Protection)  DP7 (Design and Amenity)  DP8 (Environmental Protection)  DP9 (Transport Impact of New Development),  DP10 (Parking Standards) and  DP14 (Housing Mix and Type)

Other possible Relevant Considerations (without limitation):

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

Assessment of relevant issues

The current application is for a similar proposal to that previously refused (2016/3106/FUL) and dismissed at appeal (APP/Q3305/W/17/3182722) with regards to the erection of the proposed dwelling. This application differs in so much that it proposes parking for the proposed dwelling to be located separately to the west of the proposed dwelling alongside No.50 Bove Town. The acceptability of the current application therefore principally turns on whether any changes made in the current application address the previous reasons for refusal (provided within planning history) and don’t raise any additional reasons for the scheme to be refused.

Impact on the character and appearance of the area, including the Listed Building and Conservation Area

The NPPF deals with determining planning applications that affect heritage assets in paragraphs 192 to 197. Paragraph 193 sets out that when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be.

Significance is defined in the NPPF as the value of a heritage asset to this and future generations because of its heritage interest. That interest may be archaeological, architectural, artistic or historic. Significance derives not only from a heritage asset’s physical presence, but also from its setting, the setting of a designated heritage asset is defined in the Framework as the surroundings in which a heritage asset is experienced. It goes on to note that significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. Paragraph 196 says that where a proposed development will lead to ‘less than substantial’ harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including, where appropriate, securing its optimum viable use.

In general terms, ‘substantial’ harm (referred to in paragraph 195 of the NPPF) is a high test, so it may not arise in many cases. For example, the PPG says that in determining whether

Planning Board Report 19th December 2018 Page 35 works to a listed building constitute substantial harm, an important consideration would be whether the adverse impact seriously affects a key element of its special architectural or historic interest.

In the Barnwell Manor Wind Energy Limited v. East Northamptonshire District Council and others [2014] EWCA Civ 137 the Court of Appeal’s decision makes it clear that the statutory duty in Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 applies to all listed buildings, including when the harm is judged to be less than substantial. The Court of Appeal judgment found that Parliament’s intention in enacting the statutory duty was that decision-makers should give ‘considerable importance and weight’ to the desirability of preserving the listed building and its setting when carrying out the balancing exercise. The statutory duty therefore requires more than a straightforward balancing exercise, where all matters have equal weight, as it is necessary to have ‘special regard’ (or give considerable weight) to the importance of the desirability of preserving the Listed Building and its setting in that overall assessment.

Similarly, Section 72 of the Act requires that LPAs pay special attention in the exercise of planning functions to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a conservation area. The dwelling proposed would be within the curtilage of, and attached to, a Grade II Listed Building (52 Bove Town) and the site is also within the Conservation Area, the key point for the purposes of the Framework is how that impact would bear on significance.

No. 52 is a large house which, according to its List description, is probably from the early C19. The Listed building is 2 storeys and constructed with a roughcast render exterior, there is a two storey coach-house adjoining the front of the main dwelling, the coach house then abuts the back edge of the pavement. It is considered that the significance of the Listed Building is primarily its architectural and historic interest associated with it being an example of an early C19 dwelling. The proposed dwelling would sit behind the coach-house and would be attached to the more informally styled, lias stone constructed eastern wing of the main house (the stone-faced wing to which the new dwelling would be attached is of a smaller-scale than the principal part of 52 Bove Town and, according to the historic maps, is seemingly from the late 19th century).

This part of the Glastonbury Conservation Area is characterised by the predominance of 18th and 19th-century buildings of a domestic scale of mainly two storeys with a mixture of cottages and slightly larger town houses, many of which make a positive contribution to the significance of the conservation area as a whole. The scheme for the new dwelling has been approved under 2016/3107/LBC and as such, subject to appropriate materials and detailing it is considered that this individual element of the application is acceptable with regards to impact on heritage assets.

The proposed scheme, however, does involve the demolition and re-positioning of the listed stone boundary wall to the front of No.52 to increase the width of the opening to allow vehicular access and the formation of 3 parking spaces to serve the proposed dwelling.

The Council’s Conservation Officer has raised concerns that the part demolition and repositioning of the front and western boundary walls undermine their integrity and authenticity as surviving historic structures, and as such a degree of ‘less than substantial’ harm would be caused to the identified designated heritage assets (No.52 Bove Town and the Glastonbury Conservation Area).

The ‘Mendip Conservation Advisory Panel’ has also raised concern over the setting back of the listed boundary wall, as have a number of local residents.

Having regard to the above therefore, the proposal will cause less than substantial harm to the significance of the identified designated heritage assets (52 Bove Town and Glastonbury

Planning Board Report 19th December 2018 Page 36

Conservation Area). In line with paragraph 196 of the NPPF it is necessary to weigh this against any public benefit associated with the application – there are no heritage benefits identified.

Due to the other issues raised above with regards to impact on neighbouring amenity and highways safety, it is not considered that the construction of an additional dwelling can be satisfactorily achieved from a planning perspective. Therefore no public benefit associated with the application can be identified.

Impact on Residential Amenity:

The new dwelling would be attached to the gable end of the lias stone two storey wing of 52 Bove Town; a property that benefits from a large garden to the south (rear). To the east of the application site is a tall stone boundary wall that separates the development from no. 60, the side elevation of which also abuts the application site.

It is considered in the context of the layout of the site, the existing boundary treatments and extent of the plot and land belonging to no. 52 that the development would not have a significant impact on the amenity of the closest neighbours. No. 52 has a very large garden, a small portion of which would be donated to the new dwelling however it is considered that both the existing and proposed dwellings would be afforded adequate outdoor amenity space.

With regards to the impact of the proposed parking area on neighbouring amenity, it is considered that the introduction of parking spaces and resultant vehicular movements would have an impact on the living environments of No. 50 Bove Town. This is due to the proximity of the ground floor dining room window to the surface of the proposed parking area and the detrimental impact that vehicle exhaust fumes and the lights of any vehicles would have on the living environment of the dining room.

As a result, it is considered that the amenity of the inhabitants of No. 50 Bove Town would not be protected and therefore the proposals are contrary to Policy DP7 of the Mendip District Council Local Plan.

Assessment of Highway Issues:

The application site is located fairly close to Glastonbury High Street and though there is a reasonable incline from the town centre up to the site the occupiers of the new dwelling would be served by a range of services and facilities which for most future occupiers would be in walking and cycling distance.

The County Highway Authority has advised the LPA to apply its ‘Standing Advice’ (2017) in respect of highway and parking matters. Policy DP9 of the Mendip District Local Plan states that development proposals will be supported where they make safe and satisfactory provision for, amongst other things, the parking of motor vehicles and access for all means of travel. DP10 says that parking standards for specific types of development are set out in the Somerset Parking Strategy 2013 (SPS).

The proposed parking area and associated access is shown to be located to the west of the main property (No.52) alongside No.50 Bove town. The proposed site plan (DWG No. 0485.P.03_A) shows there to be three parking spaces provided for the property, with visibility splays at the point of access of 43m to the west and 25m to the east.

The applicant has also provided traffic survey data for the submission of 2016/3106/FUL for a 7 day period in April 2016, this reports that the average speed for westbound vehicles was 20. 4 mph (and the 85th Percentile Speed, which is the speed that 85 percent of vehicles do

Planning Board Report 19th December 2018 Page 37 not exceed, was 26 mph) and for eastbound vehicles the average was 24.2 mph (and the 85th percentile speed was 30 mph). The Standing Advice requires visibility splays of 2.4 x 43 metre in either direction for a 30 mph speed limit such as this. If it is accepted that vehicle speeds are on average lower than the 30 mph speed limit, as reported in the traffic survey, the visibility levels required, for example within a 20 mph speed limit splays of 25 metres would be required.

The Planning Inspector in his assessment of APP/Q3305/W/17/3182722 for the access into the existing courtyard, came to the conclusion that visibility should be around 25 metres to the west of the entrance and around 33 metres to the east. However, it is considered that this is actually meant to read 25 metres to the EAST (rather than west) and 33 metres to the WEST (rather than east).

The proposed site plans show these visibility requirements to be met, however, the plans as drawn do not take into account the presence of parked cars on the highway, which would have a clear and demonstrable impact on the level of visibility which could be realistically achieved. The inspector, in his assessment of the access to the courtyard stated that ‘the visibility available from the entrance is likely to be restricted in practice due to on-street parking on either side.’ Taking this into account, the available visibility when accounting for vehicles parked on the highway would be around 20 metres to the east and 16 metres to the west, this is far below the required levels. As a result, the proposal would be likely to result in a significant increase in the risk of vehicles emerging from the entrance coming into conflict with passing traffic.

A footpath passes in front of the proposed entrance. The inspector also notes this in his assessment stating ‘due to the absence of a pedestrian facility on the opposite side of the street and given the built-up surroundings, the footway is likely to be well-used by pedestrians accessing shops and other facilities in the town centre.’ Although the proposed site plan does show the required 2.4m x 2.4m pedestrian visibility to be achieved, this does not take into account vehicles leaving the access west of centre of the proposed driveway and the impact that this would have on pedestrian visibility past No.50 to the west. It is therefore considered that the proposals would result in an increase in the risk of conflict between vehicles and pedestrians.

The increase in risk highlighted above would be further exacerbated by the fact that there would not be adequate space within the proposed parking area for vehicles to enter and leave in a forward gear. This would therefore lead to unsafe entry to the highway.

An additional factor for consideration would be that should the proposed scheme be approved, there would be little control over the actual use of the additional parking spaces as opposed to those existing within the courtyard. As a result, there is an increased risk of the intensification of the use of the current access into the courtyard which has substandard levels of vehicle and pedestrian visibility at the entrance as outlined within the inspector’s decision for APP/Q3305/W/17/3182722. Whilst an additional dwelling with associated access has historically been found acceptable in previous permissions, the last planning permission (104639/015) was granted some time ago (in 2004) and therefore were granted before the publication of the County Council’s Standing Advice (in 2017) and does not form a legitimate ‘fallback’ position. The highway & pedestrian safety impact of the access therefore warrants a reason for refusal.

Environmental Impact Assessment This development does not fall within the scope of the Town & Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 and so Environmental Impact Assessment is not required.

Conclusion

Planning Board Report 19th December 2018 Page 38

This application is recommended for refusal as adequate levels of highways and pedestrian safety cannot be demonstrated, the proposals would not protect the amenity of neighbouring land users, and ‘less than substantial’ harm would be caused to identified designated heritage assets (52 Bove Town and Glastonbury Conservation Area) which would not be outweighed by any associated public benefit).

Recommendation REFUSE

Reason/s for Recommendation

1. The proposed development fails to demonstrate a safe and satisfactory provision for access for vehicles emerging into the highway. The proposed development would therefore be to the detriment of the safe and free flow of pedestrians and traffic in these areas. The proposals are therefore considered to be contrary to Policy DP9 (Transport Impact) of the Mendip District Local Plan 2006-2029 (Part 1 Strategies and Policies - adopted 15th December 2014) and advice contained in Somerset County Council's Highway Development Control Standing Advice for Planning Applications document (2017), and Section 9 of the NPPF.

2. The proposed development fails to protect the amenity of neighbouring land users by virtue of the detrimental impact of vehicular movements in close proximity to the window to the ground floor dining room to No.50 Bove Town. The proposals are therefore considered to be contrary to Policy DP7 (Design and Amenity) of the Mendip District Local Plan 2006-2029 (Part 1 Strategies and Policies - adopted 15th December 2014) and Section 12 of the NPPF.

3. The demolition and re-positioning of the front boundary wall will cause less than substantial harm to the significance of 52 Bove Town and the Glastonbury Conservation Area as designated heritage assets which would not be outweighed by any associated public benefit. The proposals are therefore considered to be contrary to Policy DP3 (Heritage Conservation) of the Mendip District Local Plan 2006-2029 (Part 1 Strategies and Policies - adopted 15th December 2014) and Section 16 of the NPPF.

Informatives:

1. This decision relates to 0485.P.002_A, 03_A, 09_B, 10_D, 11_b, 12_D, 13_D and 015_B.

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

3. In determining this application the Local Planning Authority considers it has complied with the aims of paragraph 38 of the National Planning Policy Framework. The submitted application has been found to be unacceptable for the stated reasons. The applicant was advised of this, however despite this, the applicant chose not to withdraw the application and having regard to the need to avoid unnecessary delay the Local Planning Authority moved forward and issued its decision.

Planning Board Report 19th December 2018 Page 39

Agenda Item No. DM06

Case Officer Mr Rob Palmer

Site 52 Bove Town Glastonbury Somerset BA6 8JE

Application Number 2018/1952/LBC

Date Received 2nd August 2018

Applicant/ Ms Alison Keeling Organisation

Application Type Listed Building Consent

Proposal Erection of a new dwelling within the curtilage of No. 52 Bove Town on the site of previous consent 104639/016, alterations to existing parking arrangements of 52 No. Bove Town.

Ward Glastonbury St Edmunds

Parish Glastonbury Town Council

Referral to Ward Member/Chair and Vice Chair:

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

Site Description and Proposal

The application relates to 52 Bove Town, Glastonbury. The property is Grade II Listed Building which lies within the Glastonbury Conservation Area and an Area of High Archaeological Potential.

The application seeks Listed Building Consent for ‘Erection of a new dwelling within the curtilage of No. 52 Bove Town on the site of previous consent 104639/016, alterations to existing parking arrangements of 52 No. Bove Town.’

Summary of consultee comments, any objections or conflicts with the recommendation

Ward Member – no comments received

Glastonbury Town Council - recommend approval

Conservation Advisory Panel:

Planning Board Report 19th December 2018 Page 40

This involves setting back the listed wall to Woodlands, and as such is regrettable, but appears inevitable to provide additional car parking, but only if the remote new dwelling is otherwise acceptable. Conditions regarding the matching of materials and mortars to the existing wall should be included in any consent.

Other Representations: 2 neighbour objections have been received relating to: - Highways safety - Security

Relevant Planning History

2016/3107/LBC | Erection of a new dwelling within the curtilage of No. 52 Bove Town on the site of previous consent 104639/016, approved with conditions

February 2017 2015/2443/FUL Erection of a new dwelling within the curtilage of No. 52 Bove Town on the site of previous consent 104639/016, withdrawn

2015/2444/LBC Erection of a new dwelling within the curtilage of No. 52 Bove Town on the site of previous consent 104639/016, withdrawn

2015/1125/FUL Erection of a new dwelling within the curtilage of No. 52 Bove Town on the site of previous consent 104639/016, refused July 2015

2015/1126/LBC - Erection of a new dwelling within the curtilage of No. 52 Bove Town on the site of previous consent 104639/016, Listed Building Consent refused July 2015 for the following reason:

Planning Board Report 19th December 2018 Page 41

104639/011 - Erection of dwelling on site of previous consent 104639/005, 1999

104639/010 - Repairs and minor alterations to the existing outbuilding/cottage. Erection of one separate dwelling adjacent, and repair to east boundary wall, approved 1999

104639/006 and 007 - Listed Building Consent and Planning Permission for repair and alterations to the coach house to form self-contained annexe to 52 Bove Town, approved 1997

104639/004 and 005 - Renewal of Listed Building Consent 104639/003 and planning permission 104639/002, approved 1994

104639/002 and 003 Listed Building Consent and Planning Permission for alterations to existing cottage with extension to form one dwelling and adjustments to east boundary wall, approved 1989

104639/000 and 001 Erection of a new dwelling and formation of access, approved 1984

Policy Context

The statutory Development Plan for Mendip District comprises:

 Mendip District Local Plan Part I: Strategy and Policies (December 2014)  Somerset Waste Core Strategy Mendip District Local Plan Part 1 – the Local Plan Part 1 was formally adopted by the Council on 15 December 2014. The following policies of the Local Plan Part 1 are relevant to the determination of this application:

 Policy DP3 – Heritage Conservation

Other possible Relevant Considerations (without limitation):

 National Planning Policy Framework  National Planning Practice Guidance  Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning Notes issued by Historic England

Assessment of relevant issues

There is a duty under Section 16 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, when considering whether to grant listed building consent for any works, to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.’ It is also one of the core principles of the NPPF that heritage assets should be conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance. Chapter 16 of the National Planning Policy Framework at paragraph 190 sets out that the local planning authority should identify and assess the particular significance of any heritage asset. They should take this assessment

Planning Board Report 19th December 2018 Page 42 into account when considering the impact of a proposal on a heritage asset, to avoid or minimise conflict between the heritage asset’s conservation and any aspect of the proposal. Paragraphs 192-197 set out the framework for decision making relating to heritage assets and this assessment takes account of the relevant considerations in these paragraphs.

Significance of the Heritage Asset

Architectural interest – The asset is a good example of an early 19th century villa with an attractive garden frontage to the south. It has many surviving architectural features, boundary treatments and associated outbuildings which make a positive contribution to its significance.

Historic interest – The main building and its associated outbuildings are primary records of past living and working habits.

Archaeological interest – The site has some potential to yield archaeological evidence of value.

Artistic interest – The asset has a degree of artistic interest through its surviving historic fabric.

These values collectively make up the significance of the designated heritage asset (52 Bove Town)

Impact of the proposals

The acceptability of the proposed dwelling from a conservation perspective has been established through approved application 2016/3107/LBC. Therefore, the acceptability of the current application for listed building consent rests on the impact of the proposed works to the listed boundary wall.

The Council’s Conservation Officer has raised concerns that the part demolition and repositioning of the front and western boundary walls undermine their integrity and authenticity as surviving historic structures, and as such a degree of ‘less than substantial’ harm would be caused to the overall significance of the designated heritage asset (52 Bove Town).

The ‘Mendip Conservation Advisory Panel’ has also raised concern over the setting back of the listed boundary wall.

The concerns of local residents are noted, however, the issues raised are not material considerations for when assessing an application for listed building consent.

Planning Board Report 19th December 2018 Page 43

Having regard to the above therefore, the proposal will cause less than substantial harm to the significance of the designated heritage asset (52 Bove Town). In line with paragraph 196 of the NPPF it is necessary to weigh this against any public benefit. In this instance, as any public benefit associated with the construction of an additional dwelling cannot yet be realised (as the proposed dwelling does not have the benefit of having planning permission nor is it clear that such permission will be readily achievable), no public benefit can be identified. Therefore, having due regard to Section 16 of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Area) Act 1990 and DP3 (Heritage Conservation) of the Mendip District Local Plan 2006-2029 (Part 1 Strategies and Policies - adopted 15th December 2014 consent should be refused.

Recommendation REFUSE

Reason/s for Recommendation

1. The demolition and repositioning of the front boundary wall will cause less than substantial harm to the significance of the designated heritage asset (52 Bove Town) which would not be outweighed by any public benefit associated with the application. The proposals are therefore considered to be contrary to Policy DP3 (Heritage Conservation) of the Mendip District Local Plan 2006-2029 (Part 1 Strategies and Policies - adopted 15th December 2014.

Informatives

1. This decision relates to 0485.P.002_A, 03_A, 09_B, 10_D, 11_b, 12_D, 13_D and 015_B.

Planning Board Report 19th December 2018 Page 44

Agenda Item No. DM07

Case Officer Mr John Shaw

Site Church Cottage Church Walk Baltonsborough Glastonbury BA6 8RL

Application Number 2018/1902/HSE

Date Received 27th July 2018

Applicant/ Mrs Theresa & Frances Chong & Kenward Organisation

Application Type Householder Application

Proposal Addition of two-storey extension to rear and single storey extension to side in replacement of the existing single storey extension

Ward Butleigh And Baltonsborough

Parish Baltonsborough Parish Council

Referral to Ward Member:

This application is referred to Planning Board as there has been support from the Parish Council, contrary to the recommendation of the Planning team and the Ward Member/Vice Chairman of the Committee indicated the final decision should be made by Planning Board.

Description of Site, Proposal and Constraints:

This application seeks planning permission for with two and single storey side and rear extensions at Church Cottage, Church Walk, Baltonsborough. The dwelling is set to northern side of Church Walk where it meets Martin Street to east.

The building is believed to have originally been constructed in the mid 19th century with late 20th century additions, all of which can be still be easily read. The original cottage is constructed from local materials though the window frames are new additions with a mix of timber and UPVC in evidence. The proposals would see the demolition of the later single storey side and rear extension which are constructed of reconstiuted stone and white UPVC windows and doors. The materials to be used would match the existing materials of the original cottage.

The dwelling sits to the south west of the settlement within a collection of historic cottages in close proximity to the Grade I listed St Dunstan’s Church to the west. The site forms part of an area of High Archaelogical Potential. A newly erected dwelling sits directly opposite the application property but which makes clear reference to it and the other historic cottages in regards to its design. The application property benefits from a long rear garden, distinctly larger than other adjacent gardens. The eastern border of the garden is formed of a hedgerow that runs parallel with Martin Street.

During the course of the application, plans have been amended to reduce the height of the rear extension and obscured glazing added to the first floor rear facing window nearest the neighbouring boundary to the west.

Planning Board Report 19th December 2018 Page 45

Relevant History:

None

Summary of Ward Councillor comments, Town/Parish Council comments, representations and consultee comments:

Ward Member: Cllr Nigel Woollcombe-Adams – no comments received

Parish Council: Recommend Approval

Highways Development Officer: Standing Advice Applies

Conservation Officer: Objection The proposed extension would not be subservient and would compete with the modest character of the existing cottage. It would be a prominent feature from a number of vantage points along the street and would therefore draw focus away from the original cottage.

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

Local Representations: One objection was eceived on the following grounds:

- Overlooking - Overshadowing

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

Summary of all planning policies and legislation relevant to the proposal:

The Council’s Development Plan comprises:

- Mendip District Local Plan Part I: Strategy and Policies (December 2014) - Somerset Waste Core Strategy

The following policies of the Local Plan Part 1 are relevant to the determination of this application:

- CP1 – Mendip Spatial Strategy - DP1 – Local Identity and Distinctiveness - DP3 – Heritage Conservation - DP7 – Design and Amenity of New Development - DP9 – Transport Impact - DP10 – Parking Standards

Other possible Relevant Considerations (without limitation):

- National Planning Policy Framework - National Planning Practice Guidance - The Household Extension Design Guide

Planning Board Report 19th December 2018 Page 46

Assessment of relevant issues:

Design of the Development and Impact on the Street Scene and Surrounding Area:

Policy DP1 of the Mendip District Local Plan 2006-2029 states that all development proposals should contribute positively to the maintenance and enhancement of local identity and distinctiveness across the district. Policy DP7 states the Local Planning Authority will support high quality design which results in useable, durable, adaptable, sustainable and attractive places.

The property originally dates from the 19th century and is a non-designated heritage asset after being assessed by the Local Planning Authority’s Conservation Officer. The proposed demolition of part of the dwelling would result in the loss of the unsympathetic single storey rear and side extension that appear as an incongruous later addition due to the use of reconstituted stone which contrasts with the natural stone of the original cottage. However, the single storey rear and extension are not overly prominent within the wider area due to their small scale. In contrast, though the proposed extension would be set below the ridge of the original cottage to a small degree and would be constructed of matching materials, the extension would appear as a visually dominating addition within a relatively open and prominent location. When viewed from the north east, the extension would have the effect of relegating the original, historic cottage to the background with the small stepped down roof design of the proposed extension doing little to alleviate this impact. When viewed from the east, the extension would have a competitive relationship with the cottage due to its bulk and height. Occupying a corner plot at the eastern end of a collection of historic, natural stone dwellings which leads to the Grade I St Dunstan’s Church as one moves to the west, the introduction of a non-subservient addition would cause undue harm to the character of both the dwelling and the wider area. The rear of the property is widely visible along Martin Street, a key thoroughfare which intersects the village, due to the long rear garden and absence of substantial border treatment to the eastern side of the garden and therefore the proposed extension would have undue prominence within the wider area.

In light of the scale of the extension relative to what a small cottage, it cannot be considered that the extensions would be subservient to the existing dwelling. Considering the positive contribution the non-designated heritage asset makes to local distinctiveness due to its aesthetically pleasing appearance, the scale of development attached to it must appear distinctly subservient and respectful of the historic character of the building and in this instance it is assessed this has not been achieved.

By virtue of its scale, bulk and height, the proposed two and single storey side and rear extensions would result in an incongruous form of development that would not complement the scale, character and appearance of the existing dwelling, be appropriate to the local context and would therefore not be in accordance with Policy DP1 and Policy DP7 of the of the Mendip District Local Plan 2006-2029.

Impact on Heritage Assets:

The property originally dates from the 19th century and is a non-designated heritage asset. Policy DP3 of the Mendip District Local Plan 2006-2029 expresses the need to preserve and, where appropriate, enhance the significance and setting of the district’s Heritage Assets, whether statutorily or locally identified, especially those elements which contribute to the distinct identity of Mendip.

Planning Board Report 19th December 2018 Page 47 into account when considering the impact of a proposal on a heritage asset, to avoid or minimise conflict between the heritage asset’s conservation and any aspect of the proposal.

Paragraphs 193-197 sets out the framework for decision making in planning applications relating to heritage assets and this report takes account of the relevant considerations in the following paragraphs.

Impact on the non-designated heritage asset

The building is believed to have originally been constructed in the mid 19th century with late 20th century additions, all of which can be still be easily read. The existing cottage does have architectural and historic interest which would classify it as a non-designated heritage asset and is characterised by its modest and proportionate scale and use of local natural stone which matches nearby historic dwellings and boundary walls and which collectively form the approach to the Grade I St Dunstan’s Church to the east. The cottage sits at a prominent position within the historic core of Baltonsborough.

The reconstituted stone extensions to the side and rear of the property do detract from the appearance of the cottage and their removal would be a positive, however, they’re are subservient to the host building with regards to scale and have little wider visibility.

In contrast, the proposed extension would not be subservient and would compete with the modest character of the existing cottage. The rear extension would largely obscure the northern elevation, would be a highly visible feature from a number of vantage points along the street and with the bulk of the property and height of the proposed extension, focus would be drawn away from the original cottage having an detrimental impact on its architectural interest..

The overall effect of the proposal would have a detrimental impact on the architectural interest of the property and would cause 'less than substantial' harm to its significance as a non-designated heritage asset.

Conclusions

Paragraph 184 of the NPPF states that "heritage assets are an irreplaceable resource, and should be conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance, so that they can be enjoyed for their contribution to the quality of life of existing and future generations". It goes on to say in paragraph 197 that "the effect of an application on the significance of a non- designated heritage asset should be taken into account in determining the application. In weighing applications that directly or indirectly affect non-designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset."

The proposals would cause 'less than substantial' harm to a non-designated heritage asset which has an important degree of significance within the settlement of Baltonsborough due to its close relationship with the historic dwellings to the west which collectively contribute to the setting of the Grade I St Dunstan’s Church and its location at an open corner on a key highway within the village. Therefore, in accordance with paragraph 197 of the NPPF and Policy DP3 of the Mendip District Local Plan 2006-2029, the harm caused is a material consideration and it is judged that this harm would not be acceptable.

Impact on Residential Amenity:

DP7 of the Mendip District Local Plan seeks to ensure that developments would protect the amenity of users of neighbouring buildings and land uses and provide a satisfactory environment for current and future occupants.

Planning Board Report 19th December 2018 Page 48

The proposed development would not reduce the existing separation distance to any significant degree between the application dwelling and the nearest neighbouring properties, no. 8 The Cross and Glebe Cottage, Church Walk to the west. A separation distance of approximately 14m from the extension to the rear facing habitable windows of 8 The Cross is considered sufficient to ensure there would be no undue overshadowing impact on the neighbouring property. The extension would be built up to the rear boundary with no. 8, however this would be limited to only a small section of the boundary and would not have an undue overbearing impact on the rear of no. 8. The proposed two storey rear extension would have two rear facing windows at first floor level, however, the window closest to neighbouring properties would serve a bathroom and be obscured glazed while the other window, further to the east of the rear elevation would offer only an oblique angle and would offer less of an overlooking impact compared to what already exists from the already existing first floor to the western side elevation.

Therefore in regard to residential amenity the proposal is considered to comply with Policy DP7 of the Mendip District Local Plan 2006-2029.

Highways Impact:

DP9 of the Mendip District Local Plan emphasises the need for development proposals to accord with and promote highway safety. Policy DP10 states that proposals should demonstrate that appropriate parking needs are provided within any given setting that broadly accords with the Somerset Countrywide Parking Strategy.

The dwelling currently benefits from hardstanding adjacent to the eastern elevation of the property with vehicular access via Church Walk. The current parking arrangements would not be altered as part of the proposal. The proposal would see the addition of one bedroom but it is deemed that the existing parking provision would be acceptable for the extended dwelling. Therefore, it is regarded that parking provision at the site is sufficient for a dwelling and that the proposal would cause no undue harm to highway safety, would be in line with the Somerset County Council Highways Development Control Standing Advice (June 2017) and The Countywide Parking Strategy (2013) and accords with DP9 and DP10 of the Mendip District Local Plan.

Conclusion:

By virtue of the scale, bulk and height, the proposal would fail to contribute positively in maintaining or enhancing local identity. The proposal would also cause less than substantial harm to the significance of the non-designated heritage asset. The application is therefore considered to be contrary with Policies DP1, DP3 and DP7 of the Mendip District Local Plan of the Mendip District Local Plan 2006-2029 and Part 16 of the NPPF (2018).

Reason/s for Recommendation

1. The proposed development, due to the scale, bulk and height would appear as an incongruous and visually over dominant feature in relation to the host property, resulting in significant harm to local distinctiveness and less than substantial harm to the non-designated local heritage asset. This would be contrary to Policy DP1, Policy DP3 and Policy DP7 of the Mendip District Local Plan 2006-2029 and Part 16 of the NPPF (2018).

Informatives

Planning Board Report 19th December 2018 Page 49

was advised of this, however despite this, the applicant chose not to withdraw the application and having regard to the need to avoid unnecessary delay the Local Planning Authority moved forward and issued its decision.

2. This decision relates to drawings: 1105/040 REV C, 1105/SK01, 1105/003, 1105/030, 1105/031

Planning Board Report 19th December 2018 Page 50

Agenda Item No. DM08

Case Officer Mr John Shaw

Site The Old Foundry Dudwell Lane Chewton Mendip Wells BA3 4NE

Application Number 2018/1829/HSE

Date Received 20th July 2018

Applicant/ Mr & Mrs Clinton Organisation

Application Type Householder Application

Proposal Two and Single Storey Rear Extension with Balcony, External Staircase and Dormer Window

Ward Chewton Mendip And Ston Easton

Parish Chewton Mendip Parish Council

Referral to Ward Member:

This application is referred to the Ward Member as there has been support from the Parish Council, contrary to the recommendation of the Planning team.

Description of Site, Proposal and Constraints:

This application seeks planning permission for a two and single storey extension, with balcony, external staircase and dormer window at The Old Foundry, Dudwell Lane, Chewton Mendip. The dwelling is set to northern side of Dudwell Lane, a rural location outside of the development limits. Access is from the south west via the B3114.

The site forms part of a former iron works. The current dwelling was converted from a barn under planning permission 102293/002. Under this permission, permitted development rights were removed in regards to the extension to the building. On reviewing the application site history, it is noted that an existing two storey balcony (to be removed as part the current application) has been erected without planning permission; the height of part of the building has also been partially increased without planning permission. This is the subject of separate Enforcement action.

The dwelling benefits from a small rear curtilage area though extensive land beyond the submitted red line is within the ownership of the applicant. The dwelling is formed of natural stone walls, slate roof tiles and UPVC windows and doors; materials to be used for the extension would match existing with the addition of aluminium windows and single ply EPDM rubber to the proposed first floor flat roofed orangery and the use of metal and timber for the external staircase. The dwelling sits at the eastern edge of a collection of 4 dwellings which historically formed part of Cutlers Green Farm. To the north of the dwelling sits a lake beyond which are open agricultural fields.

Relevant History:

102293/002 - Conversion Of Barn To Dwelling (Permitted 20.06.1990)

102293/003 – Formation of Access Track (Permitted: 30.08.1991)

Planning Board Report 19th December 2018 Page 51

Summary of Ward Councillor comments, Town/Parish Council comments, representations and consultee comments:

Ward Member: No comments received

Parish Council: Recommend Approval

Highways Development Officer: Standing Advice Applies

Contamination Officer: No Objection. Informative recommended

No Local Representations received.

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

Summary of all planning policies and legislation relevant to the proposal:

The Council’s Development Plan comprises:

- Mendip District Local Plan Part I: Strategy and Policies (December 2014) - Somerset Waste Core Strategy

The following policies of the Local Plan Part 1 are relevant to the determination of this application:

- CP1 – Mendip Spatial Strategy - DP1 – Local Identity and Distinctiveness - DP4 – Mendip Landscapes - DP7 – Design and Amenity of New Development

Other possible Relevant Considerations (without limitation):

- National Planning Policy Framework - National Planning Practice Guidance - The Household Extension Design Guide - Historic England - Adapting Traditional Farm Buildings, September 2017

Assessment of relevant issues:

Design of the Development and Impact on the Street Scene and Surrounding Area:

Policy DP1 of the Mendip District Local Plan 2006-2029 states that all development proposals should contribute positively to the maintenance and enhancement of local identity and distinctiveness across the district. Policy DP4 states that proposal for development that would individually or cumulatively, significantly degrade the quality of the local landscape will not be supported. Policy DP7 states the Local Planning Authority will support high quality design which results in useable, durable, adaptable, sustainable and attractive places.

Guidance from Historic England (Adapting Traditional Farm Buildings, September 2017) states ‘Overtly domestic extensions…are alien in character and can rarely work successfully

Planning Board Report 19th December 2018 Page 52 within the context of historic farm buildings’ and ‘extensions…should be subordinate in scale and relate to the massing and character of the existing farmstead group’. A domestic extension is rarely supported as it is a principle that if a building is suitable in principle for conversion it presupposes that it will not need to be extended to function in its new use. The property originally dates from the end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th century. In regards to the rear where the proposal would be located, changes since its original conversion permitted under application 102293/002 have resulted in the reduction in the size of windows openings, the creation of an additional window openings and the insertion of two rooflights. In addition there has been an increase to the southern end of the converted barn in regards to height and the erection of a two storey balcony constructed of timber, steel and glass including a steel spiral staircase. These later alterations are subject to Enforcement action. Permitted development rights were removed under 102293/002 in order to protect the agricultural character of the converted barn. The two storey balcony has introduced a domestic element to an otherwise rural appearing building and moreover due to its height and location has a high degree of visibility in the open countryside to the north and west. The balcony is however a lightweight structure which still allows the natural stone rear elevation of the converted barn to be read. The proposed two and single storey rear extension with new balcony, external staircase and dormer window would in contrast introduce an incongruous, bulky domestic built form to the building and undermine the character of the converted barn and the rural character of the immediate area.

The proposed flat roofed dormer window and orangery with large roof lantern would not be sympathetic to the modest design details of the pitched roof converted barn. The dormer and orangery would disrupt the rhythm of the established roofline thereby creating a disordered and poorly designed rear elevation. With a depth at its fullest extent of approximately 8.4m, the extension would have a similar width to the existing barn; when viewed from the south east and north west it would fail to appear as a subservient extension that integrates effectively and would overwhelm the existing form. The height of the extension would be approximately 6.8m which would ensure that the visually harmful domestic extensions would also be visible from Dudwell Lane to the south. The external staircase would further obscure the rear of the building, add an additional domestic design element contrary to the rural location and would further draw focus away from the character of the original barn.

By virtue of its scale, bulk and height, the proposed two and single storey with dormer and external staircase would result in an incongruous form of development that would not complement the scale, character and appearance of the existing dwelling, be appropriate to the local context and would therefore not be in accordance with Policy DP1, Policy DP4 and Policy DP7 of the of the Mendip District Local Plan 2006-2029.

Impact on Residential Amenity:

The proposed development would not have an overbearing, overlooking or overshadowing impact on nearby residential properties due to a significant distance between them and the application dwelling.

Therefore in regard to residential amenity the proposal is considered to comply with Policy DP7 of the Mendip District Local Plan 2006-2029.

Conclusion:

By virtue of the scale, bulk and massing and overall poor design, the proposal would harm the character of the traditional barn conversion and fail to contribute positively in maintaining or enhancing local identity. The application is therefore considered to be contrary with

Planning Board Report 19th December 2018 Page 53

Policies DP1, DP4 and DP7 of the Mendip District Local Plan of the Mendip District Local Plan 2006-2029.

Recommendation REFUSE

Reason/s for Recommendation

1. The proposed development, due to the scale, bulk, massing and overall poor design would appear as an incongruous and visually over dominant feature thereby harming the character of the traditional barn conversion and failing to contribute positively in maintaining or enhancing local identity. This would be contrary to Policy DP1, Policy DP4 and Policy DP7 of the Mendip District Local Plan 2006-2029.

Informatives:

1. In determining this application the Local Planning Authority considers it has complied with the aims of paragraph 38 of the National Planning Policy Framework. The submitted application has been found to be unacceptable for the stated reasons. The applicant was advised of this, however despite this, the applicant chose not to withdraw the application and having regard to the need to avoid unnecessary delay the Local Planning Authority moved forward and issued its decision.

2. This decision relates to drawings S5817/001B, SP817/002A, S5817/100C, S5817/101B S5817/102 received by the Local Planning Authority.

Planning Board Report 19th December 2018 Page 54

Agenda Item No. DM09

Case Officer Mr John Shaw

Site 82 Stockhill Road Chilcompton Radstock BA3 4JH

Application Number 2018/2169/FUL

Date Received 31st August 2018

Applicant/ Mr & Mrs Dyer Organisation

Application Type Full Application

Proposal Erection of one bed detached dwelling with access off 'Greenways'

Ward Ashwick, Chilcompton And Stratton

Parish Chilcompton Parish Council

Referral to Ward Member/Chair and Vice Chair:

This application is referred to the Ward Member as there has been support from the Parish Council, contrary to the recommendation of the Planning team.

Description of Site, Proposal and Constraints:

This application relates to 82 Stockhill Road, Chilcompton for the erection of a new single storey dwelling which be sited in the existing rear garden and would replacing the existing single storey garage. The site is within the development limits as defined by the Mendip District Local Plan (MDLP).

Chilcompton is formed of two clusters of development, split into north and south. The dwelling forms part of the southern cluster and is set to western side of Stockhill Road along which a linear ribbon of development exists. The dwelling is a semi-detached property constructed in the first half of the 20th century. The proposed dwelling would be to the rear of no. 82 and would face onto Greenways which is characterised by bungalows, with a prepondence of the homes set to the western side of the highway behind broad grass verges and open fronted garden areas and where a high degree of uniformity is in evidence in regards to design, scale, use of materials and building line. The character of eastern side of Greenways where the dwelling would be situated is defined by the rear garden fences belonging to 78-90 Stockhill Road; to the bottom of these gardens are examples of, in the context of narrow plots, relatively large outbuildings including the garage of no.82 which would be replaced as part of this proposal and an annex building of no.84. The proposed dwelling would have the same footprint of the adjacent annex and would also replicate the design and use of materials.

Relevant History:

None relevant

Summary of Ward Councillor comments, Town/Parish Council comments, representations and consultee comments:

Planning Board Report 19th December 2018 Page 55

Ward Member: No comments received

Town/Parish Council: Recommend approval

Land Drainage: No Objection

Environmental Protection: No Objection

Highways Development Officer: Standing Advice Applies. Red lines provided conflict with Highway Road Record Plan.

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

Summary of all planning policies and legislation relevant to the proposal:

The Council’s Development Plan comprises:

- Mendip District Local Plan Part I: Strategy and Policies (December 2014) - Somerset Waste Core Strategy

The following policies of the Local Plan Part 1 are relevant to the determination of this application:

- CP1 – Mendip Spatial Strategy - CP2 – Supporting the Provision of New Housing - DP1 – Local Identity and Distinctiveness - DP7 – Design and Amenity of New Development - DP8 – Environmental Protection - DP9 – Transport of New Development - DP10 – Parking Standards - DP23 – Flood Risk

Other possible Relevant Considerations (without limitation):

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

Assessment of relevant issues:

Principle of the Use:

The principle of development inside development limits is considered acceptable, subject to the consideration of the design of the proposal, and its impact on the character and appearance of the area, neighbour amenity and highway safety.

Design of the Development and Impact on the Street Scene and Surrounding Area:

Policy DP1 of the Mendip District Local Plan 2006-2029 states that all development proposals should contribute positively to the maintenance and enhancement of local identity

Planning Board Report 19th December 2018 Page 56 and distinctiveness across the district. Policy DP7 states the Local Planning Authority will support high quality design which results in useable, durable, adaptable, sustainable and attractive places.

The proposed new dwelling would measure 7m in depth, 6m in depth and 4.2m to ridge height giving it an identical footprint to the annex of no. 84 and with which it would be built in line. There is a further large detached building to the rear of no. 86 and which is clearly visible within the wider Greenways streetscene. The erection of the dwelling would necessitate the demolition of the existing garage which serves the application dwelling; this garage presents a blank elevation 6m in width which abuts the rear boundary of no. 82 and runs parallel with Greenways. The proposed materials would also match the adjacent annex. In light of the above, the erection of the proposed new building which would be set back from the existing grass verge by approximately 2m cannot be considered to be out of character of the plot of no. 82 or with the wider area.

By virtue of its scale, design and appearance, the proposed extension would complement the scale, character and appearance of the existing dwelling, be appropriate to the local context and would therefore be in accordance with Policy DP1 and Policy DP7 of the of the Mendip District Local Plan 2006-2029.

Impact on Amenity:

The proposed dwelling would have a rear garden area of approximately 5.1m and would result in the reduction of the rear garden area of the application dwelling, no. 82 Stockhill Road, to 5m. The provision of a minimal rear garden space for both properties within what is a suburban, residential neighbourhood would represent a cramped form of development and it is considered that the lack of amenity space would be to the detriment of the future occupiers of both dwellings. Moreover, the provision of approximately just a 10m separation distance would lead to an undue overlooking impact to the rear of the new dwelling and its small insufficient rear garden due to the two storey height of no. 82 and the attached no. 80 Stockhill Road which would have habitable rooms directly facing the proposed development.

Therefore in regard to residential amenity the proposal is considered to be contrary to Policy DP7 of the Mendip District Local Plan 2006-2029.

Assessment of Highway Issues:

No objection was received from the Highways authority following consultation. The visibility splays for the proposed access would be adequate for a quiet residential, unclassified road. The submitted site plan states that there would be two spaces provided and the provision of two parking spaces for a small one bedroom bungalow is acceptable. Despite the demolition of the garage of no. 82, the application dwelling would retain four parking spaces to the front of the property which again would be acceptable.

The access to the new dwelling would, however, cross land which is currently outside of the ownership of the applicant and without the formation of the access then the proposal would fail on grounds of a lack of parking provision. During the course of the application, the applicant was asked for clear evidence that the works to the access could be achieved within

Planning Board Report 19th December 2018 Page 57 the standard 3 time-limit year period which would imposed under any permission, however, such evidence has yet to be forthcoming and therefore the Local Planning Authority cannot confidently determine if this access could ever be viably provided.

In light of the above it is considered that the proposal would not provide adequate parking provision for the new dwelling and therefore be contrary to the Somerset County Council Highways Development Control Standing Advice (June 2017), The Countywide Parking Strategy (2013) and DP9 and DP10 of the Mendip District Local Plan.

Drainage:

The proposed dwelling would not be in a Flood Zone while the overall plan area of the dwelling would occupy a footprint no larger than the existing garage which would be demolished as part of the proposal, therefore it is not considered that there would be an impact on the existing surface water runoff at the site. In light of this, it is deemed that the proposal would comply with Policy DP23 (Flood Risk) of the Mendip District Local Plan.

Other Considerations:

As part of the Design and Access Statement, reference is made to the permission 2013/1927 which granted permission to a single storey detached annexe to the rear of no. 84 Stockhill Road. Though it is acknowledged that the design of the proposed dwelling and the annexe would display a significant degree of visual similarity, it remains the case that this permission was for the erection of an annexe and not for a separate, independent dwelling and to this end was conditioned so as not to be “occupied at any time other than for purposes ancillary to the residential use of the dwelling known as 84 Stockhill Road, Chilcompton and shall not be occupied as a separate dwelling unit”. The reason this condition was added was because it was assessed that the building could not be independently occupied “without adverse impact on the amenities of existing or future residential occupiers”.

Refuse Collection:

Whilst a bin store has not been shown on the plans, it is considered that adequate space in the rear garden could be provided to store a bin.

Environmental Impact Assessment:

This development is not considered to require an Environmental Statement under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017.

Conclusion:

The proposed development is considered to be contrary with the policies of the Mendip District Local Plan Part I: Strategy and Policies (December 2014) due to the harm to residential amenity of both current and future occupiers and lack of a viable access and is therefore recommended for refusal.

Reason/s for Recommendation

1. The proposed development, due to its siting in close proximity to no. 82 and no. 84 Stockhill Road would suffer from an undue overlooking impact to the detriment of the amenity of future occupiers. The development is therefore contrary to Policy DP7 of the Mendip District Local Plan 2006 - 2029 (Part 1 Strategy and Policies)

2. The proposed dwelling would result in a lack of amenity space for both the proposed dwelling and no. 82 Stockhill Road thereby failing to provide a satisfactory living

Planning Board Report 19th December 2018 Page 58

environment for current and future occupiers of the dwellings and as such the development is contrary to Policy DP7, of the Mendip District Local Plan 2006 - 2029 (Part 1 Strategy and Policies).

3. The vehicular access to the site is not under ownership of the applicant and no evidence has been provided to indicate the works necessary to form the necessary vehicular access could be achieved. The parking arrangements are therefore considered to be insufficient for the proposed dwelling and so would be contrary to DP9 and DP10 of the Mendip District Local Plan.

List of Advices

2. This decision relates to drawings: 2018/DYER/01A, 2018/DYER02 and 2018/DYER/03,

Planning Board Report 19th December 2018 Page 59