Planning Board

DATE: 19th October 2016 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 October 2016 Page 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Planning Board - 19th October 2016

Item Page Application Number Ward/Site Case Officer DM01 04 2016/1686/FUL Land Adjacent To , Old Gore House, Dan Foster Bristol Road, Emborough, Radstock, Somerset, BA3 4SL

Chewton Mendip And Ston Easton DM02 11 2016/1786/FUL Farleigh House And Castle Court , Carlton Church Farm Lane, Farleigh Langford Hungerford, BA2 7RW

Rode And Norton St Philip DM03 17 2016/1925/REM Land At Yew Cottage, Newtown Lane, Kelly Pritchard West Pennard, BA6 8NL

The Pennards And Ditcheat DM04 26 2016/1817/FUL Trees Farm, Rudge Lane, Standerwick, Carlton Frome, Somerset, BA11 2PT Langford

Beckington And Selwood DM05 33 2016/1820/LBC 3 Market Place, Wells, Somerset, BA5 Jayne Boldy 2RF

Wells Central DM06 37 2016/1901/FUL Drum House, Little Entry, Wells, Kelly Pritchard Somerset, BA5 2TP

Wells St Thomas DM07 43 2016/1349/OTS 6 Frome Road, Rode, Frome, Carlton Somerset, BA11 6PW Langford

Rode And Norton St Philip DM08 53 2016/1657/FUL The Stables, Crows Hill, Batcombe, James U’Dell Shepton Mallet, Somerset, BA4 6BN

Postlebury DM09 62 2016/1842/HSE 4 Broadhay, Westbury Sub Mendip, Stephanie Lamb BA5 1JF

Rodney Stoke And Westbury DM10 67 2016/1783/FUL Paywell Farm, Paywell Lane, Blagdon, Stephanie Lamb Bristol, BS40 7XL

Chewton Mendip And Ston Easton DM11 71 2016/2108/HSE Lower Farm House, Faulkland, Lorna Elstob Radstock, Somerset, BA3 5XD

Ammerdown DM12 75 2016/2109/LBC Lower Farm, Faulkland To Norton St Lorna Elstob Philip Road, Faulkland, Frome, Radstock, Somerset, BA3 5XD

Planning Board Report 19th October 2016 Page 2

Ammerdown DM13 79 2016/1659/LBC Lower Farm House, Faulkland To Howard Warren Norton St Philip Road, Faulkland, Frome, Radstock, Somerset, BA3 5XD Ammerdown

Planning Board Report 19th October 2016 Page 3

Agenda Item No. DM01

Case Officer Mr Daniel Foster

Site Land Adjacent To Old Gore House Bristol Road Emborough Radstock

Application Number 2016/1686/FUL

Date Received 24th June 2016

Applicant/ Mr And Mrs M Crockett Organisation

Application Type Full Application

Proposal Proposed new dwelling on site of former petrol filling station and car sales (resubmission)

Ward Chewton Mendip And Ston Easton

Parish Ston Easton Parish Council

The application is automatically referred to Planning Board for probity purposes as the planning agent is an elected Member (Cllr Drewe).

Description of Site, Proposal and Constraints

The application relates to land adjacent to Old Gore House, Bristol Road, Emborough.

The site lies within a Water Source Protection Zone.

The application seeks full planning permission for a proposed new dwelling on-site of former petrol filling station and car sales (re-submission).

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

Ston Easton Parish Council Considered the above application at a meeting on 8th September and unanimously recommended approval.

Highway Authority (Somerset County Council)

Standing advice applies

Environmental Health Officer (internal)

This proposed dwelling is located adjacent to the busy A37 therefore the effects of traffic noise upon the internal and external amenity of this property is going to be a major consideration. Without a noise assessment, which assess the impact of road traffic noise and which recommendations suitable noise control measures to ensure the property meet the requirements of BS82333 (Sound insulation and noise reduction for buildings - Code of practice), we cannot support this application as it stands.

Environment Agency

Planning Board Report 19th October 2016 Page 4

We would currently have to object to this application due to lack of information needed to assess the risk to controlled waters. The development is situated within a Source Protection Zone Two as defined in the Agency's Policy and Practice for the Protection of Groundwater, which will require protection.

The Envirosearch report submitted with this application shows the site is adjacent to a fuel station with historical tanks. Therefore, there is a risk that contamination from these tanks (leaks, spills) has migrated under the proposed site. Discharge of water to ground via soakaway and septic tank could potentially mobilise this contamination. The site lies within the source protection zone for a public water supply. Therefore, the contaminated water may make its way into the public water supply. The site will need to be investigated to determine the presence or absence of contamination.

Therefore, a scheme that includes the following components to deal with the risks associated with contamination of the site should each be submitted to the Local Planning Authority (LPA):

1) A preliminary risk assessment which has identified:  all previous uses,  potential contaminants associated with those uses,  a conceptual model of the site indicating sources, pathways and receptors,  potentially unacceptable risks arising from contamination at the site.

2) A site investigation scheme, based on (1) to provide information for a detailed assessment of the risk to all receptors that may be affected, including those off site.

3) The results of the site investigation and detailed risk assessment referred to in (2) and, based on these, an options appraisal and remediation strategy giving full details of the remediation measures required and how they are to be undertaken.

4) A verification plan providing details of the data that will be collected in order to demonstrate that the works set out in the remediation strategy in (3) are complete and identifying any requirements for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action.

In addition, if the applicant wishes to discharge treated sewage effluent into a surface water or to ground the applicant may require an Environmental Permit from us. In some cases they may be able to register an exemption.

Representations

None received

Relevant planning history

There is a very extensive planning history for the site of which the most relevant to the current proposal are the following:

039866/011 – Outline application for one dwelling, refused and appeal dismissed 1997

039866/012 – Erection of one dwelling, refused 2000

039866/013 – Erection of a dwelling, refused 2001

039866/014 – Erection of two dwellings, refused 2003

039866/015 – Erection of one dwelling, refused and appeal dismissed 2004

Planning Board Report 19th October 2016 Page 5

039866/021 – Outline application for the erection of a dwelling and garage, refused 2008

2014/0238/FUL – Erection of single dwelling on site of redundant garage forecourt together with double garage and home office, withdrawn, 2014

2014/1766/FUL – Demolition and removal of existing buildings on a redundant garage and the construction of a single dwelling with a separate double garage and home office annexe, withdrawn, 2014

2015/1447/FUL – Construction of a 2 bedroom 'eco' house on the site of a redundant garage forecourt together with a double garage and home office, refused 2015

Summary of all planning policies relevant to the proposal

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

Development Plan

Policies CP1 (Spatial Strategy), CP2 (Housing), CP4 (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), DP16 (Open Space and Green Infrastructure), DP19 (Development Contributions), of the Mendip District Local Plan Part 1 Strategy and Policies (adopted December 2014)

Policies WCS1 (waste prevention) and WCS2 (recycling and re-use) of the Somerset Waste Core Strategy (adopted February 2013)

Material Considerations

National Planning Policy Framework Planning Practice Guidance Somerset County Council Standing Advice (June 2015)

Assessment of relevant issues

Principle

This site has a long planning history with persistent applications made for a dwelling (or dwellings) which have been refused planning permission, including twice on appeal, as the site is in the open countryside well away from the developments limits of any of the District’s towns, or Primary and Secondary villages.

The application site lies entirely outside of the development limits where 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 communities.

Quite clearly this is an isolated new dwelling in the open countryside thus it would conflict with Policies CP1 and CP2 of the Council’s Local Plan (adopted 2014) whose strategy is to focus most new housing in larger, more sustainable settlements, both to protect the quality and character of the countryside and to limit development in locations which would encourage travel by private car.

Planning Board Report 19th October 2016 Page 6

This aim is consistent with the NPPF which is quite clear at paragraph 55 that new isolated houses in the countryside should be avoided unless there are special circumstances. None of the special circumstances given in the NPPF, which relate to the essential need for a rural worker to live at their place of work, or securing the future of heritage assets, or the re-use of redundant buildings or schemes of exceptional quality or innovation, would apply here.

The principle of a dwelling is this location is unacceptable as the development would be in direct conflict with the Development Plan, including Core Policies of the Mendip District Local Plan, and also the NPPF.

Transport sustainability

The scheme would foster the growth in the need to travel by private car, for example it is a distance of circa 1.4 miles (as the crow flies) to the centre of Chilcompton the nearest settlement that might provide some every-day services and facilities. However to gain access to Chilcompton would mean crossing and walking/cycling along the very busy A37 and B3139, the former of which has no pavements and the latter only limited amounts – an undesirable, and potentially dangerous, trip at almost all times.

By way of comparison in an appeal decision (appeal ref. 3150190) in September 2016 at The Court Hotel, Emborough, a site 650 metres west of the development limit of Chilcompton but also on the B3139, the Inspector concluded that it was not a suitable location for the proposed dwellings having regard to accessibility. Given the current application site at Old Gore House is considerably further from Chilcompton than the appeal site cited above it cannot reasonably be said that this is a suitable location for a dwelling either.

The application refers to the applicant mainly working from home; however that point is solely related to personal circumstances which are not a material planning consideration and it is equally likely that occupiers (including future occupiers) will need to travel for employment. In any event future occupier’s day-to-day needs would inevitably be made by trips in private vehicles, for shopping, leisure, health and education to name a few. This unjustified fostering in the growth in the need to travel is contrary to the objective of promoting sustainable development.

Character and appearance of the area

The application site lies parallel to the A37 and to the north of the staggered cross-roads at Old Down. Old Gore House is two storeys with a rendered exterior; the boundary with the A37 is formed by a long section of walling and fencing all of which is circa 2 m high. The application site lies immediately to the south of the existing dwelling and comprises what was once a garage though from the public realm little, if any, of this historic use is evident. The site now contains a series of timber stable type buildings and the remains of a more permanently constructed single storey building.

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. 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 7 of the NPPF emphasises the need to protect and enhance the natural and built environment. The core planning principles set out in Paragraph 17 include the need to take account of the different roles and character of different areas, recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and to conserve and enhance the natural environment.

Planning Board Report 19th October 2016 Page 7

The application proposals comprise the erection of a 3 bedroom dwelling with rooms in the roof served by dormer windows. The erection of a dwelling here would have a harmful urbanising affect on the character of the area by increasing the piecemeal, sporadic nature of housing in the locality. The proposed dwelling would be clearly visible from the public realm and this harm is unjustified.

This forms a reason for refusal.

Amenity

The only close neighbour to the site is Old Gore House however given the separation distances (circa 33 m to from the north elevation of the proposed dwelling to the boundary) involved and the layout of the two plots it is considered that they would be afforded a satisfactory living environment with regards to overlooking, overbearing and outlook.

The Council’s Environmental Health Officer is however concerned about the effects of traffic noise upon the internal and external amenity of the proposed dwelling which is sited close to, and parallel, to the busy A37. Without a suitable noise assessment to assess the impact of road traffic noise, and whether suitable mitigation could be achieved, the application is unacceptable.

Highways

Policy DP9 of the Local Plan states, amongst other things, that development proposal will be supported where they:

‘avoid direct access on to a National Primary or County Route where the proposals are outside designated Development Limits, unless access via a National primary or County Route location is essential for the type of development proposed and mitigation on and off site is fully undertaken as part of the development to the satisfaction of the Highway Authority.’

The pre-amble (para. 6.82) to the same policy says that;

‘The National Primary and County Routes in Mendip (as shown on the Somerset County Council’s Local Transport Plan and/or Network Management Plan) accord with the routes identified in the local Highway Authority’s (Somerset County Council) route hierarchy. Proposals that involve a new direct access onto these roads outside the designated settlements will not be permitted, in order to avoid any adverse implications for traffic flow and road safety. Exceptions will only be made where the type of development proposed is such that it requires a high order (of route hierarchy) route location, such as road side service stations or freight transfer facilities.’

The application site is outside of the designated development limits and the A37 forms part of this strategic highway network. The Somerset Local Transport Plan 2006-2011 describes the A37 as (para. 7.1.2 p. 209):

The A37 is a key route between Bristol and the south coast, including the port of Weymouth as well as serving as a primary access to Yeovil. A key issue to address is the consistency of standard on the route and related safety implications. The level of service provided on this route will need further evaluation in light of the Regional Freight Strategy.

DP9 requires an essential need to be shown insofar as why the type of development proposed requires a ‘high-order’ route location. Whilst the application site is served by an existing gate there is no reason why the requirements of DP9 should not apply in the present case where new development proposed. In this instance there is no evidence to show that

Planning Board Report 19th October 2016 Page 8 the existing gate is used at anything like the frequency that would be required by a new dwelling here.

The agent for application 2015/1447/FUL set out in the application submission that ‘most of the buildings are used to store farm machinery for paddock maintenance’ which is consistent with the appearance of the site and on that basis the historic use of the site as a garage has been superseded by a new use associated with agriculture.

Whilst the geometry and visibility from the site access could be designed to meet appropriate standards there is no justified need for housing development on this site. Nor are there other benefits which warrant an exception being made to the general opposition to new development taking direct access, outside settlement limits, from a route such as the A37. The development would increase the amount of movements of vehicles emerging to join traffic flows on a road which is as heavily trafficked as one might expect from its designation.

The development unacceptably affects the free and safe flow of traffic upon a busy and important route and is, therefore, in conflict with DP9.

Impact on controlled waters

The site lies within a water Source Protection Zone Two associated with a public water supply. As the Environment Agency set out in their response to the application the site was formerly a car garage with a petrol filling station. The discharge of water to ground via soakaway and septic tank (both of which are proposed here) could potentially mobilise any contamination into the ground water to the detriment of the environment and human health.

In-light of the Environment Agency’s objection this forms a further 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

The application is recommended for REFUSAL. The proposed dwelling is contrary to the strategy for the delivery of housing set out in the Development Plan, would have a harmful urbanising effect on the character of the area, would foster the growth in the need to travel and would derive access direct from the A37 without sufficient justification. Furthermore, the applicant has failed to demonstrate that future occupiers would not be unacceptably disturbed by noise from the road or that the development would not risk contamination of the ground water.

Reason/s for Recommendation

1. The development does not accord with the objectives of Policies CP1 and CP2 of the Mendip District Local Plan Part I with regards to strictly controlling development outside the Development Limits and the approach to the delivery of housing. The proposal would cause harm to the character and appearance of the countryside by virtue of having an unjustified urbanising effect on the countryside's intrinsic character here. As such, the development would be contrary to policies CP1, CP2, DP1 and DP4 of the adopted Mendip District Local Plan 2006 - 2029 and the National Planning Policy Framework, with particular regards to paragraph 55.

2. The development does not accord with the objectives of policies CP1 and CP2 of the Mendip District Local Plan Part I with regards to strictly controlling development

Planning Board Report 19th October 2016 Page 9

outside the Development Limits and the approach to the delivery of housing. The proposal would foster the growth in the need to travel given its location and accessibility to services and facilities, including the absence of street-lighting and footways on nearby roads, including the busy A37. The development fails to accord with the objectives of Policies CP1 and DP9 of the Mendip District Local Plan Part 1: Strategy and Policies 2006 - 2029 (adopted 15th December 2014) and the National Planning Policy Framework with particular regards to paragraphs 34 and 35.

3. The site lies outside of Development Limits and proposes to derive access directly from the A37. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that a high order (of route hierarchy) route location is essential to the type of development proposed and as such, the development would be contrary to Policy DP9 of the Mendip District Local Plan Part 1: Strategy and Policies 2006 - 2029 (adopted 15th December 2014) which seeks to avoid direct access onto these roads, unless essential, to prevent adverse implications for traffic flow and road safety.

4. The site lies immediately adjacent the busy A37 and the applicant has failed to demonstrate that future occupiers of the proposed dwelling would not be subject to unacceptable levels of traffic noise, both internal to the dwelling and externally within the garden, such as to provide a satisfactory environment for future occupants. As such, the development would be contrary to Policy DP7 and DP8 of the Mendip District Local Plan Part 1: Strategy and Policies 2006 - 2029 (adopted 15th December 2014) and the NPPF, with particular regards to paragraph 17 fourth bullet-point.

5. The site lies within a water Source Protection Zone Two for a public water supply. There is a risk of contamination from the historic use of the site, including as a petrol filling station, and the discharge of water to ground via soakaway and septic tank could potentially mobilise any contamination affecting the public water supply. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the development would not present an unacceptable risk to the environment and human health contrary to Policy DP8 of the Mendip District Local Plan Part 1: Strategy and Policies 2006 - 2029 (adopted 15th December 2014) and the NPPF.

List of Advices

1. This decision relates to drawings titled Block and Location Plan, Proposed elevations, Proposed ground floor plan and proposed first floor plan validated 25th August 2016.

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

Planning Board Report 19th October 2016 Page 10

Agenda Item No. DM02

Case Officer Mr Carlton Langford

Site Farleigh House And Castle Court Church Farm Lane Farleigh Hungerford BA2 7RW

Application Number 2016/1786/FUL

Date Received 13th July 2016

Applicant/ Farleigh Properties Ltd Organisation Farleigh Properties Ltd

Application Type Full Application

Proposal Application for the use of part of the ground and first floors of Farleigh House and the whole of Castle Court as a joint use as a corporate training facility (D1 Use Class), in addition to the current permitted sui-generis use as a training and administrative facility for Bath Rugby Club.

Ward Rode And Norton St Philip

Parish Norton St Philip Parish Council

This application has been brought before the Planning Board at the request of the Chair and Vice Chair of the Planning Board.

Description of Site, Proposal and Constraints

The application relates to Farleigh House and Castle Court Grade II Listed Buildings at Farleigh Hungerford. The premises are currently occupied by Bath Rugby as its headquarters and a training facility. The site is within the Parish of Norton St Philip and within the Bristol Bath Greenbelt.

The application seeks planning permission for the use of part of the ground and first floors of Farleigh House and the whole of Castle Court as a joint use as a corporate training facility (D1 Use Class), in addition to the current permitted sui-generis use as a training and administrative facility for Bath Rugby Club.

The proposal is for a change of use only with no alterations proposed for the buildings at this stage. The proposed scheme will utilise existing car parks and access arrangements.

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

Norton St Phillip Parish Council

Members debated the application and it was resolved to object to the application (proposed Cllr Abbott, seconded Cllr Walker) on the grounds of traffic generation, traffic volume and highway safety and the fact that the application currently lacks a demonstrably enforceable travel plan. The parish council recorded that it would be minded to reconsider this objection should there be some joint working to develop a detailed and appropriate travel plan.

County Highway Surveyor

No objections subject to the imposition of a condition requiring a Travel Plan –

Planning Board Report 19th October 2016 Page 11

Prior to the commencement of the development, a Travel Plan is to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such Travel Plan should include soft and hard measures to promote sustainable travel as well as targets and safeguards by which to measure the success of the plan. There should be a timetable for implementation of the measures and for the monitoring of travel habits. The development shall not be occupied unless the agreed measures are being implemented in accordance with the agreed timetable. The measures should continue to be implemented as long as any part of the development is occupied.

Conservation Officer

No objection

Environmental Protection

No objections subject to the imposition of the following advice note: The applicant is reminded that compliance with the conditions attached to this consent does not provide any guarantees that the requirements of either the Statutory Nuisance provisions of Part III of The Environmental Protection Act 1990 or the Licensing Act 2003 can be achieved and does not preclude the Council from taking action under those Acts.

Ward Cllr

Recommend the application go before the Planning Board for the following reasons –  There is clear evidence to suggest the anticipated increases in two-way traffic flows cannot be relied upon.  The current traffic flows are as a result of an infringement of current planning permission and should not be considered as the base for any future increase, or justification for supporting this application.  The support of this site by the local community is for use as a Rugby Club and Training facility not for corporate events that result in other issues that impact the amenity of local residents.  MDC are not able to provide any real solutions for planning infringements.  A Travel Plan is not enforceable and therefore unlikely to be successful.

Representations

The Council has received 11 letters of objection to the application objecting for the following reasons:  Traffic congestion  Increased traffic movements (up 90% since 2010)  Highway safety concerns on existing poor and narrow lanes.  Loss of residential amenity (through increased traffic)  No alternative routes of access have been explored.  Unsustainable location for proposed use.

Relevant planning history

There have been a number of planning applications and applications for listed building consent at these premises but for the purposes of this application the most relevant is that which has established the site’s current established use as a training and administration facility for Bath Rugby:

2010/1044 – Approval of planning permission for a mixed use as headquarters and training facility for Bath Rugby Club and engineering works to form pitch (sui generis use) allowed 2010.

Planning Board Report 19th October 2016 Page 12

The above permission is unrestricted and allows Bath Rugby to carry out any activity on the site provide it is associated with the Club. The use of the buildings are unrestricted with no hours of use restrictions having been imposed on the permission except for the use of the new playing pitch which is restricted to week days including Saturday morning only, the pitch cannot be used on Sundays or Bank/Public holidays.

This currently unrestricted use of the site is an important starting point in considering the proposed use which will allow a third party to operate on the site utilising part of Farleigh House and most of Castle Court as a corporate training facilities on those days when Bath Ruby are not utilising the accommodation for their own purposes.

As such, there is no change to the activities or uses which can or will operate from the premises and no net gain in use merely that a third party can operate a business from the premises other than just Bath Rugby which is the current situation. Therefore, there is no proposed increase of activity on site having regard for the 2010 planning permission already bestowed on the site.

Assessment of relevant issues

Principle

Local Plan Policy (CP3 and CP4) supports business development and growth and sustainable rural communities. The policy goes on to support schemes which enable the ‘diversification’ of a business in a manner and of a scale which is appropriate to the location and constraints upon it.

The proposed change of use will allow a third party to operate a separate D1 Use from Farleigh House and Castle Court as corporate training facilities on those days when Bath Rugby are not utilising the accommodation for their own purposes i.e. ‘diversification’. The applicant suggests that no more than 50 delegates will attend courses on any weekday and there will be no courses on weekends or bank and public holidays.

On the basis that there is no additional development and the third party will merely be utilising existing accommodation, the scale of the development is, as it currently is, appropriate to the location and the constraints upon it.

As such, the proposed change of use is acceptable in principle subject to the usual planning controls of design, amenity and highway safety and in this case the impact of the development on the heritage assets.

Design and appearance and impact on the heritage asset

The change of use does not require any changes to the existing buildings, parking area or access arrangements and therefore, the development will not harm the listed buildings or the general character or setting of the house within its rural setting.

Neighbouring amenity

With the proposed development not actually altering the uses on site, merely who can operate those uses, there are unlikely to be any additional amenity issues arising from the proposed development.

Whilst there have been objections to existing and proposed levels of traffic in and the area since Bath Rugby occupied, the premises, it is not considered that the proposal will generate significantly more traffic movements which would result in the development being a statutory nuisance for the residents of the village.

Planning Board Report 19th October 2016 Page 13

It is appreciated that the current traffic movements in the area are far in excess of what was envisaged when planning permission was granted in 2010. However, no traffic restrictions were ever imposed on the original development and therefore, it would now be wholly unreasonable for the Council to revisit this issue and now impose restrictions.

However, the applicant has suggested that the number of delegates relating to the proposed D1 Use be restricted 50 on any weekday and there will be no courses run on Weekend or Bank and Public Holidays. It has also been suggested that Bath Rugby and the Parish work together to achieve a workable Travel Plan in an attempt to reduce the travel impact of the site on the surrounding area. Both the restriction on use and the need for a travel plan could be secured by condition.

Highway safety

The applicant’s Transport Statement demonstrates that the proposal is unlikely to have a significant effect on traffic flows to the site and the County Highway Surveyor concludes –

“I see no real highway concern, their transport statement ( IMA transport Statement June 2016) seems to be robust in its methodology and with the site currently operating with no limit to delegates to corporate events the introduction of introducing a limit to 50 delegates will at least give a degree of control on this element . However, the impact on the highway network resulting from this application will not be severe therefore there are no highway objections to the proposal on highway grounds. I would however recommend that it may be prudent to condition a Travel Plan as I don’t believe they formally have one for the site.”

Whilst the Transport Statement might conclude that the proposal will have little highway impact, these conclusions are based on the need for restrictions on the number of delegates attending the functions/courses and a need for a travel plan. As such, it is considered that the acceptability of the scheme in terms of highway safety would be subject to the imposition of conditions which both restricted the number of delegates and the need for an agreed Travel Plan.

As there will be no real net gain in use of the accommodation over or above that which can already lawfully be achieved, the existing access points to the site and existing parking arrangements are considered acceptable.

Issues raised under representation not already addressed – All the issues raised under representation have been addressed above with the County Surveyor concluding there would be no highway safety issues associate with the development subject to the imposition of a condition to secure a Travel Plan. There will be no adverse amenity issues arising from the use directly on neighbouring residents and the proposal is unlikely to generate significant additional traffic movements which would adversely impact on local residents which would warrant the application’s refusal.

The Local Planning Authority appreciates that the site was not previously sustainable in transport terms in 2010 and remains as such and, it appreciated that the existing traffic movements are not now as originally predicted in 2010. However, an unfettered permission was granted at this site and as previously explained this application is merely for a variation of the existing permission to agree that a third party can operate the existing uses on the site and not just Bath Rugby and therefore no additional uses are essentially being applied for. A change to who operates the activities on site is unlikely to improve the suitability of the site but neither will it make it any worse.

Regarding alternative routes to the site, the proposal does not include any changes in accessing the site and the applicant does not have control or ownership over land necessary to propose such changes.

Planning Board Report 19th October 2016 Page 14

To the Council’s knowledge, there are currently no infringements or breaches of planning permissions at this site as suggested by the Ward Cllr. There have been a couple of noise complaints but one-off incidents that were not pursued by the Council.

Environmental Impact Assessment

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

Conclusion

It is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the imposition of the conditions listed below.

Reason/s for Recommendation

1. The proposal accords with the Council's settlement strategy for the location of new business development. The proposal, by reason of its design, scale and layout would be in keeping with its surroundings. The Listed Buildings would not be harmed.

The proposal, by reason of its design, scale and layout, would safeguard the amenities of neighbouring residents and adjoining land users. The means of access and parking arrangements meet the required safety standards and will ensure the free flow of traffic on the highway.

The proposal has been tested against the following Development Plan policies. In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, and subject to the conditions below, the proposal is acceptable:- CP3 (principle of development), DP1 (local identity), DP3 (heritage), DP7 (design and amenity), DP9 (transport), DP10 (parking) of the Mendip District Local Plan 2006- 2029 (Part 1 Strategies and Policies - adopted 15th December 2014) National Planning Policy Framework Planning Practice Guidance The Countywide Parking Strategy (2013)

Conditions

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

2. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with Planning Statement, Transport Statement by IMA Transport Planning June 2016 and Drawing Numbers 1865_89/01, 02 and 03. Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interest of proper planning.

3. Prior to the first use of the development hereby approved, a Travel Plan is to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such Travel Plan should include soft and hard measures to promote sustainable travel as well as targets and safeguards by which to measure the success of the plan. There should be a timetable for implementation of the measures and for the monitoring of travel habits. The development shall not be in use unless the agreed measures are being implemented in accordance with the agreed timetable. The measures should continue to be implemented as long as any part of the development is in use. Reason: To ensure that the development can operate within the highway network

Planning Board Report 19th October 2016 Page 15

and to promote sustainable modes of transport.

4. The number of delegates associated with the D1 Use hereby approved, shall be limited to 50 persons on any one weekday and the approved use shall not be carried out on weekends or Bank Holidays. Reason: in the interests of neighbouring amenity and highway safety.

5. No external plant or equipment audible at the nearest residential property shall be located, installed or mounted on the walls or roofs, or adjacent to any of the buildings, whether temporary or otherwise, unless detailed plans and a technical specification, including noise details, have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Once the details have been approved, the equipment shall be installed in accordance with the approved details and maintained in such a way as to ensure compliance with the submitted specification. Reason: To safeguard the living conditions for occupants of neighbouring properties.

List of Advices

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

2. The applicant is reminded that compliance with the conditions attached to this consent does not provide any guarantees that the requirements of either the Statutory Nuisance provisions of Part III of The Environmental Protection Act 1990 or the Licensing Act 2003 can be achieved and does not preclude the Council from taking action under those Acts.

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.

Planning Board Report 19th October 2016 Page 16

Agenda Item No. DM03

Case Officer Mrs Kelly Pritchard

Site Land At Yew Cottage Newtown Lane West Pennard BA6 8NL

Application Number 2016/1925/REM

Date Received 19th July 2016

Applicant/ Graham Building And Developments Limited Organisation Graham Building and Developments Limited

Application Type Reserved Matters Application

Proposal Reserved Matters (All Matters) for Residential Development for 6 Dwellings following Outline Approval Under 2013/2275/OTA

Ward The Pennards And Ditcheat

Parish West Pennard Parish Council

This application is being referred to the Chair and Vice Chair as the Ward Member has concerns about the development proposed.

Description of site, proposal and constraints:

The application relates to land at Yew Cottage, Newtown Lane, West Pennard.

Yew Cottage is a grade II listed building.

The application seeks approval of reserved matters application for the erection of six dwellings following outline approval where all matters were reserved.

Summary of any objections or conflict with the recommendation:

West Pennard Parish Council

The Parish Council Strongly Recommend Refusal for the following reasons: Serious Safety issues re Access onto an already congested Newtown Lane, compounded by an increase of proposed dwellings, narrowness of driveway and subsequent bottleneck, which is insubstantial for Emergency and Refuse and Delivery Vehicles, would also be extremely dangerous for pedestrians using it, is OUTSIDE the Development Area and EXCEEDS Mendip District Council's Policy No. DP14.

Highways

The application is a reserved matters application for a residential development for 6 dwellings in West Pennard. The principle of the application has already been approved and this is to look at the specific details of the application.

The average dwelling generates 6-8 vehicle movements per day. This means that the proposal will generate approximately 48 vehicle movements per day. The traffic generation would have been looked at the outline application where no objection was raised.

The proposed access has been designed onto Newtown Lane. Newtown Lane has a speed

Planning Board Report 19th October 2016 Page 17 limit of 30mph and can be considered as a lightly trafficked rural lane. This means that it is possible to use Manual for Streets (MfS) to establish the required visibility for the access. When consulting MfS, for 30mph the required visibility is 2.4x43 metres. When consulting Drawing Number 2015/GRAHAM/01/01 it shows that to the North the site can achieve visibility of 2.4x85 metres and to the South 2.4x60 metres. This is greater than the required level of visibility as set out in MfS and as such the Highway Authority does not raise any objection to this aspect of the proposal.

The road in its current form would have to remain private rather than being adopted by the Highway Authority.

West Pennard is located within Zone C of the Somerset Parking Strategy (SPS). This means that a 1 bedroomed dwelling would need to provide 2 parking spaces, a 2 bedroomed dwelling would need to provide 2.5 spaces, a 3 bedroomed dwelling would have to provide 3 spaces and a 4 bedroomed dwelling would need to provide 3.5 spaces. These are guidelines and it is considered that the parking provided is acceptable. The SPS also gives guidance on cycle parking. In order to encourage less use of private vehicles the applicant must provide bicycle storage for 1 bicycle per bedroom. This can be dealt with as a garden shed and would mean that access to the shed would have to be direct rather than walking a bicycle through the dwelling.

The applicant must ensure that the surface is fully consolidated, i.e no loose stone or gravel. This will help prevent any loose material being deposited onto the highway which could cause a potential highway safety concern.

The applicant must ensure that no water is discharged onto the highway under any circumstance.

The applicant will have to discuss with Somerset Waste Partnership (SWP) the arrangements for refuse collection. It is unlikely that refuse lorries would be able to access the site at the point where the road narrows. It is also unlikely that SWP refuse lorries will enter onto private land considering that the road in its current state is not up to an adoptable standard.

Taking the above into account the Highway Authority does not therefore raise any objection, however, in the event of permission being granted, I would recommend that the following conditions are imposed:-

1. Provision shall be made within the site for the disposal of surface water so as to prevent its discharge onto the highway, details of which shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such provision shall be installed before the site is first brought into use and thereafter maintained at all times.

2. At the proposed access there shall be no obstruction to visibility greater than 600 millimetres above adjoining road level within the visibility splays shown on the submitted plan 2015/GRAHAM/01/01. Such visibility splays shall be constructed prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted and shall thereafter be maintained at all times.

3. Prior to commencement of occupation of the development hereby permitted the proposed access over at least the first 6 metres of its length, as measured from the edge of the adjoining carriageway, shall be properly consolidated and surfaced (not loose stone or gravel) in accordance with details which shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Once constructed the access shall thereafter be maintained in that condition at all times.

4. The area allocated for parking and turning on the submitted plan, drawing number

Planning Board Report 19th October 2016 Page 18

2015/GRAHAM/01/01, shall be kept clear of obstruction and shall not be used other than for parking and turning of vehicles in connection with the development hereby permitted.

Conservation Officer

The application refers to the development of new properties within the former garden of Yew Cottage, a grade II listed building. The alterations should preserve the special architectural and historic interest of the building. The previous consultation response from conservation referred to the upgrade of the driveway to bonded gravel as this was highlighted within the original Heritage Statement, although this does not seem to have been taken into consideration. However, the larger concerns of conservation seem to have been resolved. While the upgraded driveway may well be a welcome addition, it does not warrant refusal. Therefore, I have no objections.

Representations

One letter of objection to the application and their comments are summarised below;

 The applicant has not demonstrated that they own all the land therefore the application is invalid.  The outline application proposed 5 dwellings, this reserved matters application proposed 6, which is a material increase and is not in keeping with the outline.  Where is a copy of the development site’s Asbestos Risk Assessment?  Why haven’t they appealed the previous refusal?

As part of the objection questions are asked about procedure and previous applications on this site that were resolved as part of the consideration of the previous applications where relevant.

We have received five letters of support, two from the same address, which supports the developer stating that their buildings are of a high standard. This is an appropriate mix of housing that will not place pressure on the infrastructure.

Relevant planning history:

2013/2275/OTA – Outline Approval all matters reserved – Residential development. 27.03.14

2015/1238/REM – Reserved matters application for the erection of 5 dwellings, refused 26.02.16 for the following reasons:

(1) It has not been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority that mix and type of units proposed reflects the identified local need within the sub-market housing area or the District as a whole. In this respect the development would be contrary to policy DP14 of the Mendip District Local Plan 2006 - 2029, Part 1: Strategy and Policies and advice contained within the National Planning Policy Framework 2012,and would not constitute sustainable development.

(2) The development by reason of Plot 1's siting, height and size would have a detrimental impact on the setting of the listed building, a designated heritage asset, known as Yew Cottage. In accordance with paragraph 134 of the National Planning Policy Framework having special regard to the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets, the development would not bring about the public benefits required to outweigh the harm caused to the heritage asset. As such the development fails to accord with the provisions of policy DP3 of the Mendip District Local Plan 2006 - 2029, Part

Planning Board Report 19th October 2016 Page 19

1:Strategy and Policies and advice contained within the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

Planning Policy context

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

Development Plan

Policies CP1 (Spatial Strategy), CP2 (Housing), CP4 (Sustaining Rural Communities), DP1 (Local Identity and Distinctiveness), DP3 (Heritage Conservation), 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), of the Mendip District Local Plan Part 1 Strategy and Policies (adopted December 2014)

Material Considerations

 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)  National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG)  Somerset County Council Standing Advice (June 2013)

Assessment of relevant issues

Principle of development

The site is located outside the settlement limits where development is strictly controlled and in accordance with policy the development proposed would be unjustified and unacceptable on sustainability grounds.

However, there is an extant outline planning permission for residential development on this site (granted when the Authority could not demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing land) which is an important material planning consideration. As such the principle of this development is considered acceptable.

It is considered important at the outset to make it clear that the Local Planning Authority does not involve itself with matters of land ownership. It is for the developer to satisfy themselves that they have control over the all the land necessary to carry out the development.

Housing Mix

Policy DP14 of Mendip District Local Plan requires that proposals for residential development should provide an appropriate mix of dwelling types and sizes, and that this mix should reflect the identified local need in Mendip.

The previous application proposed 0 (2 bed units), 2 (3 bed units), 2 (4 bed units) and 1 (5 bed unit). This current application proposes 2 (2 bed units), 2 (3 bed units) and 2 (4 bed units).

It is recognised that the supporting text to policy DP14 says that the intention is not to provide absolute targets, but the emphasis is on seeking the provision of smaller units – particularly two or three bedrooms – that can provide flexibility in accommodating single persons, couples or small families.

Planning Board Report 19th October 2016 Page 20

It is considered that the development proposed does provide a more appropriate housing mix than the last application and has therefore overcome the previous reason for refusal and complies with policy DP14.

Impact on the Listed Building (Yew Cottage)

The development which is proposed closest to the listed building is now proposed further away than the original scheme and has been reduced in height to provide two bungalows.

Hard and soft landscaping was a condition of the outline approval and as such will be dealt with via a separate discharge of condition application should the reserved matters application be approved. There is every prospect that a suitable landscape scheme can be achieved.

The development is not considered to harm the setting of the listed building.

Effect on the character of the area

The general design of the proposed dwellings and the use of natural materials is considered acceptable in this location.

It would be difficult to accommodate housing on this site in any other pattern without harm to either amenity or setting of the listed building. In light of the extant outline approval and given that the development is tucked behind existing housing, on balance the layout and design of the dwellings is not considered significantly harmful to the character of the area.

Impact to residential amenities

Although there are windows in the gable end of Yew Cottage which would face onto the access drive of the proposed development it is considered that the levels of passing traffic would not significantly adversely impact on the amenity of the occupiers of the cottage.

The size of the application site allows for the proposed development to be set away from the existing houses and for the proposed dwellings to be set apart from each other. The land within and surrounding the site is relatively level, without major changes in ground levels. It is considered that the distances between the proposed development and the neighbouring dwellings are sufficient to retain an adequate level of amenity for future occupants and nearby residents. However, it is important to consider boundary treatments to safeguard overlooking and loss of privacy, this is particularly important on the north western boundary of the site due to the close proximity of the properties on this boundary. The detailing of the boundary treatments will be dealt with via the discharge of condition application.

There is a balcony proposed on the north west of plot 5, which without an adequate screen, would result in overlooking to the neighbouring property (Turnstones). The screen details submitted indicate a 1.8m high solid timber screen on the side which faces Turnstones. This is considered adequate to overcome the overlooking issue.

The development is considered acceptable in amenity terms subject to adequate conditions safeguarding loss of privacy.

Highways Impact

The visibility details were approved and conditioned appropriately via the outline consent.

The visibility splays and parking provision proposed for the site is considered acceptable for this development although it is recognised that this will result in some existing on street

Planning Board Report 19th October 2016 Page 21 parking in Newtown Lane.

Since the outline consent and in light of some land ownership issues the access drive has been reduced in width from the original outline application at the point next to Yew Cottage. This reduction in width has not resulted in an objection from the Highway Authority, they merely comment that they would not be adopting the road as it would not be suitable estate road standard and this would mean that a mechanism would need to be in place to ensure that a management company looked after the future maintenance of the road.

This reduction in width would restrict access for larger vehicles including waste collection vehicles and emergency services vehicles. Building control has legislation to cover issues of distance from the highway for emergency vehicles. It is a matter for the developer to satisfy themselves, with the appropriate body such as Building Control, that the appropriate measures are taken.

Archaeology

The site is not within an area of archaeological value, however, at the time of the outline consent the County Archaeologist commented as follows:

The site lies adjacent to Yew Cottage; a Grade II listed building which has 15th century origins. The configuration of the surrounding field boundaries suggests that the proposed application area may lie within the grounds of a former medieval farmstead. There is therefore the potential for the presence of previously unrecorded, archaeological remains. 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 National Planning Policy Framework (Paragraph 141). This should be secured by the use of model condition 55 attached to any permission granted:

"No development hereby approved shall take place until the applicant, or their agents or successors in title, has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved by the local planning authority."

This condition was imposed as part of the outline consent and as such will form part of a later discharge of condition application.

Other issues

Clearance of asbestos is not a planning consideration and is covered under separate legislation.

Environmental Impact Assessment

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

Recommendation

Conditional approval is recommended.

Reason/s for Recommendation

1. The principle of this development has been established by an ouline approval on this site. The proposal, by reason of its design, scale and layout would be in keeping with its surroundings.

Planning Board Report 19th October 2016 Page 22

The proposal, by reason of its design, scale and layout, would safeguard the amenities of neighbouring residents and adjoining land users. The means of access and parking arrangements meet the required safety standards and will ensure the free flow of traffic on the highway.

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

CP1, CP2 and CP4 (principle of development), DP1 (local identity), DP3 (Heritage Conservation), DP4 (Mendip's Landscapes), DP5 (biodiversity), DP7 (design and amenity), DP8 (Environmental Protection), DP9 (transport), DP10 (parking) and DP14 (Housing Mix and Type), of the Mendip District Local Plan 2006-2029 (Part 1 Strategies and Policies - adopted 15th December 2014) National Planning Policy Framework Planning Practice Guidance The Countywide Parking Strategy (2013)

Conditions

1. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with drawing numbers 2015/GRAHAM/01/01 Rev F (notwithstanding the details shown in respect of landscaping which require subsequent approval under condition 9 of the outline consent 2013/2275/OTA), 2015/GRAHAM/01/02a Rev A, 2015/GRAHAM/01/02b Rev A, 2015/GRAHAM/01/03 Rev C, 2015/GRAHAM/01/04 Rev B, 2015/GRAHAM/01/05 Rev A, 2015/GRAHAM/01/06 Rev B received 19.07.16. Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interest of proper planning.

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

3. No external facing materials shall be constructed or installed in respect the development hereby approved until a sample panel of all external walling materials (except for the render) has been erected on site and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. It shall thereafter be kept on site for reference until the development is completed. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and shall not be occupied until the external facing materials have been installed in accordance with the approved sample panel. Reason: in the interests of the character and appearance of the area and the setting of the listed building.

4. No piece of external joinery shall be installed or undertaken unless full details of that piece have been first submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such details shall be at full or half scale and shall include cross-sections, profiles, reveal, surrounds, materials, finish and colour. The works shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To safeguard the character and appearance of the are and the setting of the listed building.

Planning Board Report 19th October 2016 Page 23

5. The dwelling shown as plot 5 on drawing number 2015/GRAHAM/01/01 Rev F shall not be occupied until the solid screen to the balcony has been provided in accordance with the details shown on drawings 2015/GRAHAM/01/01 Rev F and drawing number 2015/GRAHAM/01/05 Rev A. Once provided the screen shall remain in that form. Reason: In the interests of safeguarding neighbour amenity.

6. 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 fences, gates, walls or other means of enclosure shall be erected or placed within the curtilage of any dwelling house forward of any wall of that dwelling house which fronts onto the estate access road without the prior written permission of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity and character of the area.

7. The development hereby approved shall not be occupied unless the first floor windows in Plot 2 (north east elevation), Plot 3 (south west elevation), Plot 4 (north west elevation) and Plot 5 (south east elevation) windows have been glazed with obscure glass. The windows shall also be non opening unless the parts of the windows which can be opened are more than 1.7 metres above the floor of the room in which the window is installed. The windows shall thereafter be permanently retained in accordance with the requirements of this condition. Reason: To safeguard the amenities of adjoining occupiers from overlooking and loss of privacy.

List of Advices

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

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

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

Planning Board Report 19th October 2016 Page 24

within this time or should it refuse approval of the submitted details then the applicant is entitled to lodge an appeal to the Planning Inspectorate, Temple Quay House, 2 The Square, Temple Quay, Bristol BS1 6PN, tel. 0117 372 6372, www.planning- inspectorate.gov.uk

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

5. Where a Planning Permission, Listed Building Consent, Certificate of Lawful Development or Prior Approval has been issued, approval may also be required under the Building Regulation Legislation before any work is commenced, and throughout the building process. Mendip District Council's Building Control Department works in tandem with our Development Management team to offer a number of helpful and efficient services that can be accessed via our website http://www.mendip.gov.uk/buildingcontrol, by email at [email protected], or by telephoning 01749 341248 or 01749 341209. Our Building Control team includes chartered surveyors, fire and building engineers and support staff that are available for free pre-application discussions and/or site meetings, to plan and facilitate a streamlined pathway to the completion and final sign-off of all projects.

Planning Board Report 19th October 2016 Page 25

Agenda Item No. DM04

Case Officer Mr Carlton Langford

Site Trees Farm Rudge Lane Standerwick Frome Somerset

Application Number 2016/1817/FUL

Date Received 14th July 2016

Applicant/ Mr Mark Sutherland Organisation Dairy Home Team

Application Type Full Application

Proposal Change of use of agricultural land and buildings to storage and distribution of dairy and related food products including the stationing of Portakabin offices, toilets, cold rooms and storage containers at Trees Farm, Rudge Lane, Standerwick, Frome, Somerset.

Ward Beckington And Selwood

Parish Beckington Parish Council

This application has been brought before the Planning Board at the request of the Chair and Vice Chair of the Planning Board.

Description of Site, Proposal and Constraints

The application relates to Trees Farm a farm complex with Grade II Listed farmhouse situated on the outskirts of Standerwick. The site comprises the main farmhouse, some traditional farm buildings forming a traditional courtyard, 3 larger and more modern portal frame agricultural building towards the rear of the site and areas of hardstanding.

The application seeks planning permission for change of use of agricultural land and buildings to storage and distribution of dairy and related food products including the stationing of Portakabin offices, toilets, cold rooms and storage containers. The proposal will utilise the existing access.

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

Beckington Parish Council

Recommend refusal for the following reasons:

 Traffic issues with traffic passing through the hamlet of Rudge to reach client base in Trowbridge and Westbury.  The application is retrospective and is a business which has relocated from Trowbridge. The 38 staff are existing and likely to be from the Trowbridge area and as such, the development is unlikely to support ‘local job’ as per policy CP3 of the LP

County highway Surveyor

No objections subject to the imposition of conditions to ensure parking and turning on site is maintained and kept clear of obstruction and provision on site is made for the parking of 2 x motorcycles and bicycles.

Planning Board Report 19th October 2016 Page 26

Environmental Protection

No objections to the proposed use subject to the imposition of a condition in the interests of neighbouring amenity, to restrict the hours of use for deliveries and movements of HGV’s

Land Contamination

Due to the nature of the previous farming activities the applicant should keep a watching brief for potential hotspots of land contamination through the construction process.

Planning Enforcement

No comments

Conservation Officer

No objections

Ward Cllr

This application should be brought before the Planning Board for the following reason: Highway safety: conflict of vehicle use with pedestrian/cyclist/horse-rider use, and the absence of mitigation opportunities given the narrowness and twisting nature of Rudge Lane.

Representations

5 letters objecting to the development on the following grounds:

 Highway safety, increased road traffic on the surrounding narrow lanes especially between the A36 and Rudge.  Traffic noise from development on nearby residents.  There is no disabled access for workers i.e. toilets and office Portakabins.  Impact on local wildlife.  No plan to discard waste.  There is limited foul drainage for the staff.  Soakaways on site are not sufficient to cope with use proposed.  Potential damage to listed building.  Potential food hygiene issues with last use of site being a cattle farm (land contamination issues).

One other letter of representation was received from David Warburton MP in relation to this application, another on Rudge Lane (New Scotland – proposal for an equestrian stud) and a recent approval for a tourist scheme in nearby Wiltshire. No comments were made only that the LPA take into consideration the expected traffic generation from all developments in reaching a decision.

Relevant planning history

No relevant planning history.

Assessment of relevant issues

Principle

Core Policy 4 of the Local Plan support proposals for development of the rural economy where it enables the establishment (as proposed) of a business in a manner and of a scale which is appropriate to the location and constraints upon it, or involve the conversion of

Planning Board Report 19th October 2016 Page 27 existing buildings for an economic use as considered under Policy DP22 of the LP.

The proposed scheme utilises existing buildings by siting four stand alone units within the building to include dry storage, offices (2) and a cold storage unit. Outside the buildings within the existing courtyards, the proposal will include the siting of 3 additional temporary structures (containers) to provide further office accommodation, staff toilets and dry storage. The proposal also includes the parking of delivery vehicles and staff parking to the rear of the site on an existing hardstanding area. The character and layout of the existing complex will not change significantly from its current agricultural use and appearance.

The scale of the operation proposed is relatively small with 10 staff employed on site and 10 staff delivering the dairy products. It is expected that all staff are likely to drive to work but will be encouraged to use other forms of transport and car share.

All staff vehicle and delivery vehicles can be accommodated on site avoiding on street parking. HGV deliveries are expected to be minimal with only 1 delivery per day but there will be a slight increase in traffic movements to and from the site, although this is not considered to be significantly more than the existing agricultural use of the site might generate.

It is considered this minor increase in traffic is unlikely to have a significant or severe impact on highway safety and a reduction in the use of larger vehicles such as large agricultural vehicles and HGV’s is likely to offset any potential increase of traffic movements and also any nuisance associate with the additional traffic movements.

It is therefore considered, in principle, the applicant has successfully demonstrated that the proposed use in unlikely to be any more harmful that the existing agricultural use of the site and the proposed business operation will be of a scale which is appropriate to the location and the constraints upon it and will not have an adverse impact on the transport network. .

Design and appearance

There are no significant design issues associate with the proposed development and the temporary structures and parking areas will not have a harmful impact on the character or appearance of the area or setting of the main listed farmhouse on site.

Setting of a listed building

The Listed farmhouse will not be adversely affected by the proposed development in terms of setting or by the proposed use.

Neighbouring amenity

There will be no significant amenity issues associated with the proposed dairy distribution business over or above those operations associated with the existing use of the site as an unfettered agricultural holding.

In respect of traffic movements, late night deliveries by HGV vehicles would potentially cause harm to the amenities if nearby properties and it is recommended that the hours for movements by HGV’s be restricted at night (ie no HGV movements on site between 18:00 hours and 08:00 hours).

The majority of the other traffic (cars, vans etc) activity will be in the morning with 16 movements over a 3 hour period between 06:00 hr and 09:00 hr and in the afternoon with about 20 movements at peak time. There would be a few additional movements in the evening ending at 22:00 hours. It is considered that these movements are unlikely to raise any additional adverse amenity issues with immediate neighbours.

Planning Board Report 19th October 2016 Page 28

Highway Safety

The proposed development utilises the existing access and provides parking on-site parking for associated vehicles.

The County Council Highway Surveyor concludes that the submission included a transport statement written by IMA Transport Planning (July 2016), this also included a Measures only Travel Plan (MOTP). The submitted Transport Statement has been reviewed and appears to be a comprehensive document and it is felt that the methodology used to determine trip generation is deemed acceptable.

A speed survey was undertaken and the ATC (automatic traffic counter) location and its findings are also deemed to be acceptable. It is evident that the 85th percentile of vehicle speeds (35mph) is much lower than the roads maximum speed limit and this is probably due to both the roads horizontal alignment and its width which does fluctuate along its length as was noted on a visit to the site. As a consequence the visibility splays as shown on the submitted plan IMA-16-105 Dwg002 (90m in either direction) is acceptable.

The traffic generated by the proposal would appear to be minimal and predominately inter peak and therefore Highway Authority agree with the Transport Statement in that the development will not have a detrimental impact on the local highway network.

The proposal is to have 12no parking spaces for the vans and also 12no parking spaces for the staff. The location of these spaces and the associated turning areas as shown on submitted plan IMA-16-105 dwg No 003 Rev B is again acceptable.

The MOTP should be a separate document and be reviewed during the life of the development, all staff should be made aware of it and alternative modes of transport should be continually encouraged. There should be facilities for cycle parking.

Having regard for this response from SCC, it is considered that the proposed development raises no severe highway safety issues in terms of predicted traffic movements and access arrangements and there is sufficient off-street parking to serve the proposed use.

Land Contamination

Should permission be granted the applicant will be reminded of the previous agricultural use of the site and the potential for contaminated hotspots on the land.

Ecology

The development is restricted to the existing built environment and it is unlikely that the proposed use will have any more of an impact on local wildlife or wildlife habitats over or above the existing agricultural use.

Highway safety

Concerns have been raised in respect of highway safety, increased road traffic on the surrounding narrow lanes especially between the A36 and Rudge.

As previously discussed, the proposed development will not generate significantly more traffic movements than the existing use could and any increase will be offset by a reduction in the number of HGV type vehicles because of the change of use.

As requested by the MP David Warburton and the Local Ward Cllr, the cumulative impact of all development in the area has been taken into consideration in determining this application

Planning Board Report 19th October 2016 Page 29 and the Transport Statement clearly sets out the existing traffic volumes in the area along Rudge Lane and it is clear from this report that not only are these volumes relatively minor but there has only been 1 recorded traffic accident on this road in the last 5 years.

Each application is assessed on its own merits and in this case it is considered that the proposed development in terms of traffic generation will raise no significant or severe highway safety issues or amenity issues for existing residents over or above those which already exist under the current use of the site as an agricultural holding.

Impact on Ecology

There is no evidence to suggest the development would result in harm to protected wildlife or the loss of wildlife habitats.

Drainage

Concerns have been raised that there is limited foul drainage for the staff and Soakaways on site are not sufficient to cope with use proposed.

There is no evidence to suggest that the existing foul or surface water systems on site cannot manage the expected foul and surface water generated by the proposed development but should the existing systems need improving this could be achieved without the need for additional planning permission provided the new systems meets with the requirements of the Environment Agency and Building Control under separate legislation.

Impact on listed building

The listed building will be no more at risk from the proposed development than it currently is as an agricultural holding.

Other matters

Concerns have been raised in respect of potential food hygiene issues with last use of site being a cattle farm (land contamination issues). This is a matter under separate Environmental Health legislation and the activities associated with the business will have to comply with this legislation.

Concerns have also been raised that There is no disabled access for workers i.e. toilets and office Portakabins. No disabled facilities have been provided but there is no provision under the Town and Country Planning Act that the applicant provide such facilities. However, there is provision under separate legislation and if there was a need to provide such facilities this could be achieved on site without difficulty.

In relation to concerns that there is no plan to discard waste, there is ample space on site to provide a bin store area and there is ample on-site turning for waste collection lorries arrive and leave the site safely after collections.

Environmental Impact Assessment

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

Conclusion

It is recommended that planning permission be granted.

Planning Board Report 19th October 2016 Page 30

Reason/s for Recommendation

1. The proposal accords with the Council's settlement strategy for the location of new business development. The proposal, by reason of its design, scale and layout would be in keeping with its surroundings. The setting of adjoining Listed Building would not be harmed.

The proposal, by reason of its design, scale and layout, would safeguard the amenities of neighbouring residents and adjoining land users. The means of access and parking arrangements meet the required safety standards and will ensure the free flow of traffic on the highway.

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

The proposal has been tested against the following Development Plan policies. In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, and subject to the conditions below, the proposal is acceptable:- CP3 (principle of development), DP1 (local identity), DP3 (heritage), DP7 (design and amenity), DP9 (transport), DP10 (parking), DP22 (reuse of rural buildings) of the Mendip District Local Plan 2006-2029 (Part 1 Strategies and Policies - adopted 15th December 2014) National Planning Policy Framework Planning Practice Guidance The Countywide Parking Strategy (2013)

Conditions

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

2. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with The Transport Statement (By IMA Transport Planning July 2016), Location Plan and drawing numbers 1231/1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interest of proper planning.

3. There shall be no HGV (Heavy goods vehicle) movements on site between the hours of 18:00 and 08:00 on any day. Reason In the interests of protecting the amenity of nearby residents.

4. The area allocated for parking and turning on the submitted plan IMA-16-105 Dwg No 003 RevB shall be kept clear of obstruction at all times and shall not be used other than for parking and turning of vehicles in connection with the development hereby permitted. Reason: In the interests of maintaining sufficient off street parking and highway safety.

5. Prior to first use of the development hereby permitted, 2 number spaces for bicycles and parking for a motorcycle shall be provided on site and thereafter retained for parking for a motorcycle and 2 bicycles. Reason: In the interests of providing adequate parking facilities on site in accordance with the approved Travel Plan Statement.

6. The development hereby approved shall be operated in accordance with the Travel Plan Statement attached to the Transport Statement by IMA Transport Planning

Planning Board Report 19th October 2016 Page 31

Dated July 2016. Reason: in the interests of sustainable development.

7. 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 further plant or machinery shall be erected or installed for the approved development without the granting of express planning permission from the local planning authority. Reason: To safeguard the amenities of adjoining occupiers.

List of Advices

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

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

3. Due to the nature of farms it would be advised to keep a watching brief for potential hotspots of contamination and assess for visual/olfactory evidence of contamination during any groundworks. If any unforeseen contamination is found during excavations Environmental Health must be notified immediately. This may include obvious visual or olfactory residues, asbestos including asbestos containing materials such as roofing, buried drums, drains, interceptors, additional fuel storage tanks or any other unexpected hazards that may be discovered during site works. NPPF s.120: Where a site is affected by contamination or land stability issues, responsibility for securing a safe development rests with the developer and/or landowner.

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.

Planning Board Report 19th October 2016 Page 32

Agenda Item No. DM05

Case Officer Miss Jayne Boldy

Site 3 Market Place Wells Somerset BA5 2RF

Application Number 2016/1820/LBC

Date Received 8th July 2016

Applicant/ Mr And Mrs C J Leney Organisation

Application Type Listed Building Consent

Proposal Stripping out of former restaurant fittings to first floor. Erection of stud partitions and separating wall to form sitting room, 2 bedrooms, Bathroom and kitchen. Removal of Georgian wired glazed screening and door to top of existing staircase.

Ward Wells Central

Parish Wells City Council

The application is brought before Planning Board following consultation with the ward member, Chair and Vice Chair.

Description of Site, Proposal and Constraints

The application relates to 3 Market Place, Wells BA5 2RF

The property is a Grade II* listed building and lies within the Wells Conservation Area.

The application seeks listed building consent for the stripping out of former restaurant fittings to the first floor; the erection of stud partitions and separating wall to form sitting room, 2 bedrooms, bathroom and kitchen; and the removal of modern Georgian wired glazed screening and door to the top of the existing staircase.

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

Ward Member/ Councillor

Fully supports this application.

Wells City Council

Recommends approval

Historic England

This application should be determined in accordance with national and local policy guidance, and on the basis of your expert conservation advice.

Relevant planning history

103829/007 (Planning Permission) – Approved with conditions 22/5/90 Change of use of first floor offices to restaurant & internal alterations, as amended by drawings received 1st June 1990.

Planning Board Report 19th October 2016 Page 33

103829/008 (Listed Building Consent) - Approved with conditions 22/5/90 Change of use of first floor offices to restaurant & internal alterations, as amended by drawings received 1st June 1990.

2016/0658/FUL - Approved with conditions 17/5/16 Change of use of first floor restaurant to holiday accommodation. Erection of stud partitions and separating wall. Installation of kitchen and bathroom.

2016/0659/LBC – Withdrawn 23/5/16 Change of use of first floor restaurant to holiday accommodation. Erection of stud partitions and separating wall. Installation of kitchen and bathroom.

Summary of all planning policies relevant to the proposal

Local Plan

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

Material Considerations

National Planning Policy Framework Planning Practice Guidance

Assessment of relevant issues

Principle

The property was listed on 12/11/1953 at Grade II*. Dating from circa 1453, it was built as part of the "New Works" by Bishop Bekynton, and modified in the 19th and 20th centuries. The Grade II* designation denotes this heritage asset is a particularly important building of more than special interest. It is part of an outstanding late medieval planned urban group along with other buildings on Market Place.

The list description states (in part): “The staircase is enclosed by part-glazed C20 screens to the first floor, which has one large room with a 2-compartment ceiling with moulded beams.”

The proposal is for the stripping out of former restaurant fittings to the first floor; the erection of stud partitions and separating wall to form sitting room, 2 bedrooms, bathroom and kitchen; and the removal of modern Georgian wired glazed screening and door to the top of the existing staircase.

It should be noted that an early stair window from the west elevation has been omitted from both the existing and proposed floor plans. This has been pointed out to the agent who may provide corrected plans if required.

Effect on Listed Building

The subdivision of the front room at first floor would compromise this space, forming a room across the front whose size would be disproportionate to the large canted bay window to the front, and a smaller room to the rear with further partitioning to create a corridor to provide separate access to both rooms. This would cause harm to the proportions of this room, the planform of the first floor and therefore to the significance of this heritage asset.

Planning history shows that, in 1990, a partition existed which divided the front room into two spaces along the line of the central beam. Approval was granted to remove this partition

Planning Board Report 19th October 2016 Page 34 along with other works in association with the change of use of offices to restaurant under 103829/007 & 103829/008. No evidence is available to demonstrate when this partition was erected or what fabric it comprised; however, its removal under Listed Building Consent in 1990 did not raise any concerns which would be unlikely to have been the case should this partition have been of any historic significance.

It should also be noted that in several other listed buildings of the same planned group in Market Place which have been inspected the first floor front room presents as a single space with no subdivision.

The front room has clearly been compromised historically – likely to be part of the 20th century alterations noted in the list description carried out prior to listing – by the above (subsequently removed) partition and the insertion of a stair which rises from ground floor.

This scheme proposes that part of the current boxing-in to the stair (triangular bulkhead) would remain within the new front room while the remainder would become part of the landing/corridor area, albeit with the Georgian wired glass removed and replaced by plasterboard. The removal of the Georgian wired glass – a mid-20th-century-product – would be welcome, although the unfortunate boxing-in around the stair will remain.

Further towards the rear of the first floor a partition is proposed to create a separation between the proposed flat and the commercial kitchen which serves the café below, and form a second bedroom. The result being the short flight of stairs leading from the kitchen area would lead directly into this partition, and the adjacent understairs cupboard would be inaccessible. This would clearly be an awkward alteration to the plan-form of this area and is unresolved, causing some harm to the heritage asset.

The other proposed re-ordering to form a kitchen and bathroom, while causing some harm (as all alterations to listed buildings inevitably do), are acceptable.

The application contains a printout from the Howdens website showing the proposed internal doors to be used. Generally, “off-the-peg” door and other joinery are not appropriate for use in listed buildings. The “4 Panel Clear Pine Door” proposed is described as being “constructed using engineered pine stiles and rails” which would not be acceptable as solid timber with appropriate detailing would be expected.

Conclusion

The main issue to consider is whether the proposal would cause harm to the special interest of the listed building and, if harm would be caused, whether there are public benefits which would outweigh that harm.

As set out above, the special interest of the listed building would be adversely affected, causing harm to this designated heritage asset with no clear and convincing justification.

It was suggested at the time of the previously withdrawn (identical) proposal, and during this current application, that the front room should remain intact as a living/dining/kitchen, the proposed kitchen could become a larger bathroom, and the proposed bedroom 2 and small bathroom could be combined to form a larger bedroom. As a holiday let, the front room could provide further accommodation with the provision of a sofa-bed. This, or similar, may present an “optimal viable use” for this part of the heritage asset.

It is recommended that the application for Listed Building Consent be refused as the works would cause ‘less than substantial harm’ to the significance of the designated heritage asset.

‘Less than substantial harm’ is not the same as acceptable harm and in accordance with Para 134 of the NPPF, the level of harm to a heritage asset should be weighed against any

Planning Board Report 19th October 2016 Page 35 associated public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimal viable use.

While bringing the front part of the first floor of this listed building into use would be of benefit to the building, encouraging maintenance and its long-term future, the public benefit is limited to that of a general benefit to the public that heritage assets are brought into use and their future secured. The proposal does not demonstrate the “optimal viable use” for the property as required by paragraph 134 of the NPPF and this would not outweigh the harm caused.

Consequently, having special regard to the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and taking into account existing case law, the works applied for would not bring about the public benefits required to outweigh the harm caused to the heritage asset and therefore should be refused.

Reason/s for Recommendation

1. The works to erect partitions to subdivide the front room at first floor, and the partition to divide the proposed flat from the commercial kitchen to the rear, would have a detrimental impact on the character of the Grade II* listed building which would cause 'less than substantial' harm to the significance of this designated heritage asset. This would not be outweighed by any associated public benefit therefore the proposal fails to accord with the provisions of Policy DP3 of the Mendip District Local Plan 2006- 2029 (Part 1 Strategy and Policies) and the National Planning Policy Framework (2012).

List of Advices

1. This decision relates to Location Plan, Drawing nos 6057W-04 & 6057W-06, and print-out from Howdens website of "4 Panel Clear Pine Door", all received and validated on 8th July 2016.

2. The Planning Authority is required to erect a Site Notice on or near the site to advertise development proposals which are submitted. Please would you ensure that any remaining Notices in respect of this decision are immediately removed from the site and suitably disposed of? Your cooperation in this matter is appreciated.

3. In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework the Council has worked in a positive and proactive way with the Applicant and has looked for solutions to enable the granting of Listed Building Consent. However, the proposal remains contrary to the planning policies set out in the reasons for refusal and was not therefore considered to be sustainable development.

Planning Board Report 19th October 2016 Page 36

Agenda Item No. DM06

Case Officer Mrs Kelly Pritchard

Site Drum House Little Entry Wells Somerset BA5 2TP

Application Number 2016/1901/FUL

Date Received 26th July 2016

Applicant/ Mr & Mrs Anthony & Maggie Langdon Organisation

Application Type Full Application

Proposal Replacement House (with altered access)

Ward Wells St Thomas

Parish Wells City Council

This application is being referred to the Chair and Vice Chair of the Planning Board as we have received concerns from the ward councillors about the application.

Description of site, proposal and constraints:

The application relates to a residential plot to the south east of Little Entry, in Wells.

The site is within the settlement limits. It is not within a designated area but is just outside of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).

The application seeks planning permission for the erection of a replacement dwelling, including a new access onto Little Entry with the existing access being blocked up to create a new ‘pull in’/parking area.

This application follows an extant permission 2014/1357/FUL for a replacement dwelling and new access. However, this application proposes some amendments to the design of the proposed dwelling.

These amendments include removing the lower ground floor from the scheme and thus reducing the overall ridge height of the main curved roof and the south and west facing balconies have also been omitted. Also proposed are some minor fenestration details and the inclusion of a two storey extension which is round in shape to the north east elevation.

Summary of any objections or conflict with the recommendation:

Wells City Council

Approval

Highways

Standing Advice Applies.

Representations

Planning Board Report 19th October 2016 Page 37

4 letters of objection and their comments are summarised below;

 The round extension is higher than the original house which has now been demolished and will dominate the east elevation which is out of keeping with the area.  It seems like the height of the ground has been raised.  Although the plans show the height of the new building to be lower than parts of the original, the level from which it rises is higher than the ground level of the former bungalow.  We feel that our privacy in the garden will be compromised.  There is some inaccuracy in the statement that the new house is where the former one stood; this is only partly so, making quite a difference.  The greater height will be overbearing.  There are two upper floor windows which will overlook our courtyard garden to the rear (east side) of West View. The four south facing ground floor windows of West View will also be overlooked.  There is a covenant which restricts the height of dwellings on this plot.  The proposed access is restrictive and will result in congestion on Little Entry.

Relevant planning history:

114513/000 – Approval – Double garage and access. 2000 114513/001 – Approval – Erection of dwelling 2000 114513/002 – Approval – Conservatory. 2000 2014/1357/FUL – Approval – Replacement House (with altered access). 05.09.14

Summary of planning policies:

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

Development Plan

Policies CP1 (Spatial Strategy), CP2 (Housing), 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), of the Mendip District Local Plan Part 1 Strategy and Policies (adopted December 2014)

Material Considerations

National Planning Policy Framework, 2012 (NPPF) National Planning Practice Guidance, 2014 (NPPG) Somerset County Council Highways Development Control Standing Advice (June 2015)

Assessment of relevant issues:

Principle of development

The principle of a replacement dwelling here has already been established by a previous extant permission (2014/1357/FUL).

As the development is the same as the previous consent, the principle consideration is whether any of the proposed amendments listed above are harmful enough to warrant refusal of this application.

Planning Board Report 19th October 2016 Page 38

Effect on the character of the area

It is considered that the minor alterations to fenestration are inconsequential and do not significantly alter the design of the original proposal. Given the removal of the lower ground floor, the majority of the development will have a reduced impact due to the reduction of the overall ridge height of the main curved roof. However, the proposal now includes a new two storey ‘round’ extension on the north east elevation. It will be approximately 50cm higher than the ridge of the original dwelling which has now been demolished.

The approved dwelling is contemporary in design and it is considered that the introduction of the ‘round’ extension does not compromise the contemporary design nor does it render the dwelling harmful to the character of the area or the setting of the adjacent AONB.

Impact to residential amenities

The development, with its reduced height when compared to the application already approved, will not result in additional amenity issues. However it is recognised that the introduction of the two storey element will have an impact and needs to be considered in terms of its impact on amenity.

It is considered that the two storey extension will be far enough from the boundaries of the site so as not to be overbearing.

There are two first floor windows which will face towards the north-west, these windows will serve a bedroom/study and the stairs. The window which has the most potential to overlook the property known as ‘West View’ to the north east, will serve the stairs and will be obscure glazed and fixed shut.

The other window serving the bedroom/study will face more towards Little Entry. From this window, due to its position in the elevation, there will be oblique views of West View, but the viewable areas will be the front parking area of that property and some of the south west elevation. It is appreciated that there are some windows in this elevation but give the oblique view and the distance from the bedroom window to West View’s south west elevation which is approximately 13.5m, it is considered that the neighbour’s amenity will not be significantly harmed.

The development is considered acceptable in highway safety terms.

Highways Impact

The development of the new access was approved as part of the previous application where the access and parking arrangements were deemed acceptable. It would therefore be unreasonable to refuse the application for highway safety reasons.

Other issues

Covenants are a civil issue and not a material planning consideration.

Environmental Impact Assessment

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

Recommendation

Planning Board Report 19th October 2016 Page 39

The development is not significantly different to the extant permission already approved. The two storey addition is considered acceptable in design terms and its impact upon amenity. Therefore conditional approval is recommended.

Reason/s for Recommendation

1. The proposal accords with the Council's settlement strategy for the location of new development. The proposal, by reason of its design, scale and layout would be in keeping with its surroundings.

The proposal, by reason of its design, scale and layout, would safeguard the amenities of neighbouring residents and adjoining land users. The means of access and parking arrangements meet the required safety standards and will ensure the free flow of traffic on the highway.

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 and CP2 (principle of development), DP1 (local identity), DP4 (Mendip's Landscapes, DP5 (biodiversity), DP8 (Environmental Protection), DP7 (design and amenity), DP9 (transport), DP10 (parking), of the Mendip District Local Plan 2006- 2029 (Part 1 Strategies and Policies - adopted 15th December 2014) National Planning Policy Framework Planning Practice Guidance The Countywide Parking Strategy (2013)

Conditions

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

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in full accordance with drawing numbers: 2029S02 and 2029S01 valid 03.08.16 and 2029/P01 Rev A, and 2029/P04 Rev A received 14.09.16 and 2029/P02 Rev B and 2029/P03 Rev B received 22.09.16. Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interest of proper planning.

3. The development hereby approved shall be carried out using external facing materials as specified on the drawings hereby approved and as specified on the submitted planning application form. Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the area.

4. The area(s) allocated for parking on the approved plans shall be kept clear of obstruction at all times and shall not be used other than for the parking of vehicles in connection with the development hereby permitted. Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

5. Prior to the occupation of the dwelling hereby approved, the proposed new access over the first 5.0 metres of its length, as measured from the edge of the adjoining carriageway, shall be properly consolidated and surfaced in accordance with the details specified on the approved plans (tarmac). The works shall be permanently retained and maintained as such thereafter, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

Planning Board Report 19th October 2016 Page 40

6. There shall be no obstruction to visibility greater than 900 millimetres above adjoining road level within the visibility splays shown on drawing number 2029/P02 Rev B received 22.09.16. The access to the development hereby approved shall not be brought into use unless such visibility is available, and shall thereafter be permanently maintained. Reason: To ensure that adequate visibility is provided in the interests of highway safety.

7. 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 further windows shall be installed in the first floor element of the 'round' extension which is on the north east side of the dwelling and no extension or enlargement (including additions or alterations to the roof/s) of the dwelling hereby approved shall be carried out without the granting of express planning permission from the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the area and the living conditions of neighbouring properties.

8. The development hereby approved shall not be occupied unless the first floor north west window in the 'round' extension as detailed on drawing number 2029/P03 Rev B and 2029/P02 Rev B has been glazed with obscure glass. The window shall also be non opening unless the parts of the window which can be opened are more than 1.7 metres above the floor of the room in which the window is installed. The window shall thereafter be permanently retained in accordance with the requirements of this condition. Reason: To safeguard the amenities of adjoining occupiers from overlooking and loss of privacy.

9. The development hereby approved shall not be occupied unless the boundary treatments shown on the approved plans are provided on site and maintained in that form. Reason: To ensure the provision of an appropriate landscape setting to the development and in the interest of amenity.

List of Advices

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

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

3. Where a Planning Permission, Listed Building Consent, Certificate of Lawful Development or Prior Approval has been issued, approval may also be required under the Building Regulation Legislation before any work is commenced, and throughout the building process. Mendip District Council's Building Control Department works in tandem with our Development Management team to offer a number of helpful and efficient services that can be accessed via our website http://www.mendip.gov.uk/buildingcontrol, by email at [email protected], or by telephoning 01749 341248 or 01749 341209. Our Building Control team includes chartered surveyors, fire and building engineers and support staff that are available

Planning Board Report 19th October 2016 Page 41

for free pre-application discussions and/or site meetings, to plan and facilitate a streamlined pathway to the completion and final sign-off of all projects.

Planning Board Report 19th October 2016 Page 42

Agenda Item No. DM07

Case Officer Mr Carlton Langford

Site 6 Frome Road Rode Frome Somerset BA11 6PW

Application Number 2016/1349/OTS

Date Received 26th May 2016

Applicant/ Mr & Mrs E Boyce Organisation

Application Type Outline - Some Matters Reserved

Proposal Redevelopment to replace existing dwelling and garage with 3no. new detached dwellings and associated double garages. All matters reserved except access.

Ward Rode And Norton St Philip

Parish Rode Parish Council

This application has been brought before the Planning Board at the request of the Chairman of the Planning Board.

Description of Site, Proposal and Constraints

This outline application relates to 6 Frome Road, Rode and proposes the demolition of the existing dwelling and garage and replacement with 3 dwellings and garages and the creation of a new access.

The application is for outline permission with all matters reserved aside from access. The plans show the layout of the site and the appearance of the dwellings however these are indicative (not under consideration).

Matters of layout, appearance, scale and landscaping are reserved matters. These details will follow in a subsequent reserved matters application in the event that outline permission is granted.

Amended plans have been received during the application process which shows the levels of visibility at the access points, as requested by the County Highways Officer. The plans give an indication of how the site could be laid out, however layout is a reserved matter and not under consideration.

This application seeks to overcome a recent refusal for 5 new dwellings on the site which was refused for the following reason:-

The development proposed will create additional traffic on an already dangerous road and due to the inadequate level of visibility proposed will create adverse harm to highway safety contrary to the provisions of Policy DP9 of the Mendip District Local Plan, Part 1: Strategy and Policies (adopted December 2014).

Summary of parish comments, representations and consultee comments

Ward Member

Planning Board Report 19th October 2016 Page 43

In summary the Highways reasons for the Parish Council objection, supported by the Ward Member in respect of the site being an inappropriate location of the site due to its proximity to high volume, speeding traffic and lack of pedestrian safety.

Rode Parish Council

Rode Parish Council recommend REFUSAL of this application on highway safety grounds only.

Highways Officer (Somerset County Council)

The submitted drawing 13127.05-B now looks acceptable. It details an access where the visibility splays of 2.4m set back and 60m in either direction to the nearside edge are shown. The internal road has been designed so that all vehicles at the bell mouth will be positioned perpendicular to the road. The internal access width as shown is acceptable, but the turning head appears to be too small for the manoeuvring of a 11.4m refuse vehicle. These elements should therefore be reconsidered at the reserved matters stage. Parking for each dwelling should also be in accordance with Somerset County Councils parking strategy. As previously stated in my e-mail of the 29th July 2016 The applicant should also be made aware that the internal road layout 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). The internal road should therefore be built to an adoptable standard.

Therefore, in conclusion there is no highway objection to the proposed outline application subject to the following conditions being attached to any permissions granted:- The proposed condition are listed at the end of this report.

Contaminated Land Officer (MDC)

Due to the potential former quarry on site and subsequent infill it would be advised to keep a watching brief for potential hotspots of contamination and assess for visual/olfactory evidence of contamination during any groundworks.

If any unforeseen contamination is found during excavations Environmental Health must be notified immediately. This may include obvious visual or olfactory residues, asbestos including asbestos containing materials such as roofing, buried drums, drains, interceptors, additional fuel storage tanks or any other unexpected hazards that may be discovered during site works.

Applicants are advised to read the MDC guidance document 'Pre-Submission Guidance for Residential End-Use'.

NPPF s.120: Where a site is affected by contamination or land stability issues, responsibility for securing a safe development rests with the developer and/or landowner.

Public Rights of Way Officer (SCC)

I can confirm that there is a public right of way (PROW) recorded on the Definitive Map which crosses the area of the proposed development at the present time (footpath FR 13/18). I have attached a plan showing the footpaths for your information.

The current proposal will obstruct the footpath. The proposal either needs to be revised to prevent any obstruction or a diversion order applied for. The applicant must apply to the Local Planning Authority for a diversion order.

Planning Board Report 19th October 2016 Page 44

The County Council do not object to the proposal subject to the applicant being informed that the grant of planning permission does not entitle them to obstruct a public right of way.

Please include the following paragraph as an informative note on the permission, if granted.

Development, insofar as it affects a right of way should not be started, and the right of way should be kept open for public use until the necessary (diversion/stopping up) Order has come into effect. Failure to comply with this request may result in the developer being prosecuted if the path is built on or otherwise interfered with. In addition, if it is considered that the development would result in any of the outcomes listed below, then authorisation for these works must be sought from Somerset County Council Rights of Way Group:

 A PROW being made less convenient for continued public use.  New furniture being needed along a PROW.  Changes to the surface of a PROW being needed.  Changes to the existing drainage arrangements associated with the PROW.  If the work involved in carrying out this proposed development would make a PROW less convenient for continued public use (or) create a hazard to users of a PROW then a temporary closure order will be necessary and a suitable alternative route must be provided.

County Archaeologist (SCC)

No objections.

Ministry of Defence (MOD)

No Objections.

Representations

1 letter of representation received raising serious concerns over the access and increased traffic from the site.

Relevant planning history

2015/1431 – Outline planning application for 5 dwellings (2015) was recommended for approval by officers but refused at Planning Board on 20.01.2016 for the following reason:

The development proposed will create additional traffic on an already dangerous road and due to the inadequate level of visibility proposed will create adverse harm to highway safety contrary to the provisions of Policy DP9 of the Mendip District Local Plan, Part 1: Strategy and Policies (adopted December 2014).

This decision is currently at appeal with a decision awaited.

Summary of all planning policies relevant to the proposal

Development Plan

The following policies of the Mendip District Local Plan 2006-2029, Part 1: Strategy and Policies (adopted December 2014) are relevant:

CP1: Spatial Strategy CP2: Housing CP4: Sustaining Rural Communities DP1: Local Identity and Distinctiveness

Planning Board Report 19th October 2016 Page 45

DP3: Heritage Conservation DP7: Design and Amenity DP8: Environmental Protection DP9: Transport Impact of New Development DP10: Parking Standards DP18: Safeguarding Corridors for Sustainable Travel

Material Considerations

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

Planning assessment

In considering the previous application for 5 dwellings, Planning Board considered that the scheme was acceptable in all respects except access (see previous reason for refusal above).

This outline application for 3 dwellings raises no new issues (though these are considered again below for completeness), and the principle of developing the site for a residential development remains acceptable.

The main issue, therefore is on the question of access and whether Board’s previous reason for refusal has been overcome.

Access

This revised application has amended the alignment of the access and there are now only 3 dwellings proposed, opposed to 5 originally proposed. The combination of these changes means that there will be far fewer traffic movements to and from the site as previously proposed and the revised alignment means that vehicles leaving the site have unrestricted visibility up to 60m in both directions up and down the A361.

Having regard for these changes and that the County Highways Officer raises no objections to the proposal other than suggesting standard highway safety conditions, all of which can be achieved, it is considered that the applicant has successfully overcome the Council’s previous reason for refusal.

The LPA consider that the development will not prejudice highway or pedestrian safety, and that the previous reason for refusal has been overcome.

Principle

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.

The site is located within the Development Limits of Rode, which is identified as a Primary Village under Policy CP1 of the Mendip District Local Plan. Rode has a target housing requirement of 65 dwellings and this has been exceeded.

The housing numbers 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 5 year supply of housing within the District. The emphasis of Policy CP1 is to secure development within development limits and under part 3 states:

Planning Board Report 19th October 2016 Page 46

“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 within the development limits of the village and proposes a modest number of dwellings. The site is previously developed as it currently houses one a single dwelling.

The Parish Council have objected on the basis that there is a local need for smaller family sized units. However, a reserved matters application will address the layout and mix of the site and under Policy DP14 there is a requirement to provide a greater proportion of 2 and 3 bedroom units, which could be secured. As such the development has the potential to meet an identified local need in addition to adding to the growing requirements for housing supply.

Bearing in mind the steer of Policy CP1 and CP2 of the Local Plan, the principle of the development is considered to be acceptable and is therefore supported.

Scale

An indication of the scale of the dwellings is provided upon the indicative street-scene. The two-storey scale of the dwellings is considered to be acceptable as this reflects the dominant scale of dwellings found within this locality.

The existing dwelling is a single storey bungalow, however having two storey dwellings will provide a more efficient use of the site and respect the character of development found along Frome Road. As such the proposed scale is considered to be acceptable. The detailed appearance of the dwellings will be considered under a reserved matters application.

There are several listed buildings located on the opposite side of the road, including numbers 13 (Bell Inn), 17 and 19 Frome Road. The LPA is happy that a development could be satisfactorily designed to respect the setting of these listed buildings. The impact of the development to the setting of these listed buildings will be considered in full under the reserved matters application where layout, landscaping and appearance will be considered.

Appearance

The appearance of the dwellings is a reserved matter. The indicative street-scene drawing does however give an indication of the potential design of the dwellings, which picks up on the character of development found within this locality. The LPA are confident that a well designed development can be successfully designed and secured on site through the reserved matters application.

Landscaping

The matter of landscaping is reserved for future consideration under a reserved matters application.

The LPA is confident that a hard and soft landscaping scheme can be successfully designed and secured on site through the reserved matters application. The scheme would look to retain an important tree within the site, as indicated on the plans. However it is up to the developer to demonstrate, by way of an arboricultural impact assessment, that the retention of the tree can be secured and that the development will not put it under threat of removal or damage. The relevant arboricultural impact assessment will be secured under the reserved

Planning Board Report 19th October 2016 Page 47 matters application, where layout and landscaping will be considered.

Neighbour Amenity

Officers are satisfied 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 five dwellings without causing adverse harm to existing or future residential amenities.

Neighbours would have the opportunity to comment on the Reserved Matters application at the appropriate stage. It should be noted that no objections have been raised by local residents/ neighbours.

Access & Parking

Officers consider that the site can accommodate the required levels of parking provision to accord with the County Parking Strategy. The details of the layout of the site shown on the plans is indicative, however it gives a good idea of how the layout could come forward. The plans show that a 2 metre wide footpath could be provided.

Public Rights of Way

Objections have been raised that suggest a Public Right of Way (footpath) will be obstructed by the development. The Council’s geographical mapping system indicates that the position of the footpath is outside of the site, running adjacent to the southern boundary of the site. This position of the footpath has been confirmed by a site visit by the case officer where it is clear that the footpath does not run through the site. Regardless of this matter, the layout of the site is a Reserved Matter and is not under consideration here. However the LPA consider that the footpath will not be obstructed by the development.

Affordable Housing

The Parish Council have correctly pointed out that the development will not generate the requirement for providing affordable housing. This is because the proposal includes less than 7 dwellings and the site area is less than 0.25 hectares.

Archaeology

The Historic Environment Officer at Somerset County Council has raised no objections in regard to the impact of the development to archaeology.

Flooding

The site is not located within a flood zone and surface water run-off will be controlled through appropriate landscaping, which will be secured by the LPA under the Reserved Matters application.

Environmental Impact Assessment

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

Conclusion

On the basis of the above assessment it is considered that there are no adverse impacts that would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of granting outline planning

Planning Board Report 19th October 2016 Page 48 permission and this amended scheme successfully overcomes the Council’s previous reason for refusal. As such it is recommended that outline planning permission be approved with associated conditions.

Reason/s for Recommendation

1. The proposal accords with the Council's settlement strategy for the location of new development. The proposal, by reason of its design, scale and layout would be in keeping with its surroundings. The character and appearance of the Conservation Area would be preserved and the setting of adjoining Listed Buildings would not be harmed.

The proposal, by reason of its design, scale and layout, would safeguard the amenities of neighbouring residents and adjoining land users. The means of access and parking arrangements meet the required safety standards and will ensure the free flow of traffic on the highway. All practical measures for the conservation of energy have been included in the design, layout and siting of the proposal. The proposal makes satisfactory arrangements for the protection of biodiversity. 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 and CP2 (principle of development), DP1 (local identity), DP3 (heritage), DP7 (design and amenity), DP9 (transport), DP10 (parking) of the Mendip District Local Plan 2006-2029 (Part 1 Strategies and Policies - adopted 15th December 2014) National Planning Policy Framework Planning Practice Guidance The Countywide Parking Strategy (2013)

Conditions

1. The development hereby approved shall be begun either before the expiration of five 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: As required by Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning permissions.

2. 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 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning permissions.

3. Approval of the details of the a) Layout; b) Appearance and c) Landscaping and (d) Scale of the site (hereinafter called 'the reserved matters') shall be obtained from the Local Planning Authority in writing before any development is commenced. 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).

4. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in full accordance with drawing numbers: 13127.02-B, 13127.04, and 13127.05-B. Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interest of proper planning.

5. Plans and particulars of the reserved matters referred to in condition 3 above shall include details of: (a) the provision to be made for the garaging and parking of vehicles within the site.

Planning Board Report 19th October 2016 Page 49

(b) the space to be provided for the loading, unloading and turning of vehicles within the site. (c) arboricultural impact assessment and tree protection plan to accord with BS:5837- 2012 (d) surface water drainage strategy (e) parking strategy and management arrangements for any unallocated parking spaces (f) ecological mitigation and/or enhancement measures (g) refuse and recycling details (h) hard and soft landscaping details including an implementation and management strategy (i) any information relevant to the adopted validation requirements for such an application Reason: This is outline permission and these matters require detailed consideration by the Local Planning Authority.

6. The proposed access shall be constructed in accordance with details shown on the submitted plan, drawing number 13127.05-B, and shall be available for use before the occupation of the dwellings hereby approved. Once constructed the access shall be maintained thereafter in that condition at all times. Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

7. There shall be no obstruction to visibility greater than 600millimetres above adjoining road level in advance of lines drawn 2.4 metres back from the carriageway edge on the centre line of the access and extending to points on the nearside carriageway edge 60m either side of the access. Such visibility shall be fully provided before the development hereby permitted is occupied into use and shall thereafter be maintained at all times. Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

8. The gradient of the proposed access shall not be steeper than 1 in 10. Once constructed the access shall thereafter be maintained in that condition at all times. Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

9. Any entrance gates erected shall be hung to open inwards, shall be set back a minimum distance of 5 metres from the carriageway edge and shall thereafter be maintained in that condition at all times. Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

10. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be occupied or brought into use until a 1.8m pedestrian footway along the entire frontage has been constructed in accordance with a design and specification to be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and to be fully implemented in accordance with the approved details, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. The provision of these works will require a legal agreement and contact should be made with the Highway Authority well in advance of commencing the works so that the agreement is complete prior to starting the highway works. Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

11. The Development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until parking spaces for each of the dwellings in accordance with SCC Parking Strategy together with properly consolidated and surfaced turning space for all vehicles have been provided and constructed within the site in accordance with details which shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such parking and turning spaces shall be kept clear of obstruction at all times and shall not be used other than for the parking and turning of vehicles in connection with the development hereby approved.

Planning Board Report 19th October 2016 Page 50

Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

12. No site works or clearance shall be undertaken on site until protective fences which conform with British Standard 5837:2012 have been erected around any existing trees and other existing or proposed landscape areas in positions to be indicated on plans to be first submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Until the development has been completed these fences shall not be removed and the protected areas are to be kept clear of any building, plant, material, debris and trenching, with the existing ground levels maintained, and there shall be no entry to those areas except for approved arboricultural or landscape works. Reason: To safeguard the areas to be landscaped and the existing trees and planting to be retained within the site.

List of Advices

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

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

3. 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 Highway Act 1980, will be subject to the Advance Payment 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.

4. The applicant is advised of the need to consult the highways office, WS Atkins SW, East Area Highways Management, Wells Road, Glastonbury, Somerset BA6 9AS, (TEL:- 01458 837100) prior to commencing works adjacent to the public highway.

5. Under Section 163 of the Highways Act 1980 it is illegal to discharge water onto the highway. You should, therefore, intercept such water and convey it to the sewer.

6. With regard to the removal of any tree/shrub/hedgerow, to comply with the law your attention is drawn to the provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, for protecting wild birds, their young, nests and eggs. In particular, you are reminded that it is an offence under the Act to take, damage or destroy the nest of any wild bird while the nest is in use, or being built, or to take or destroy an egg of any wild bird even where it is done pursuant to lawful authority or requirement, if any of the activities could reasonably have been avoided in carrying out the prescribed or authorised work on the tree/shrub/hedgerow.

7. The applicant is advised that consent does not permit the Public Right of Way on/adjacent to the site to be blocked, obstructed or diverted. If there are any queries in respect of public rights of way, please contact Somerset County Council (tel: 0845 3459155 or email@ [email protected]).

Planning Board Report 19th October 2016 Page 51

8. 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 October 2016 Page 52

Agenda Item No. DM08

Case Officer Mr James U'Dell

Site The Stables Crows Hill Batcombe Shepton Mallet Somerset

Application Number 2016/1657/FUL

Date Received 30th June 2016

Applicant/ Mr David Willis Organisation

Application Type Full Application

Proposal Convert and extend stable building for use as holiday accommodation.

Ward Postlebury

Parish Batcombe Parish Council

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

Description of Site, Proposal and Constraints

The application relates to stables and land within the open countryside within the Parish of Batcombe, located off Crows Hill. The stables have been redundant since May 2014 and there is a long planning history relating to their proposed re-use, mostly for residential purposes.

The application seeks planning permission for the conversion and extension of the stables to holiday accommodation (holiday let). Access to the site will be via the existing access.

A previous application (2014/1193/FUL) for the conversion and extension of the stables to a dwelling (and other works, including extensive landscaping and solar array) was refused on the 16th September 2014, for the following two reasons:

1. The proposed development by reasons of the domestication of the site, the siting of the solar array and the introduction of landscaping incongruous with the landscape character of the area, fails to enhance the immediate setting and will seriously harm both the landscape character and the visual amenity of the area contrary to Policies S1, Q1 and E8 of the Mendip District Local Plan 2002, Policy DP22 of the Emerging Mendip District Local Plan 2006-2029 and Policies within the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) including paragraph 55.

2. The proposed development by reason of its rural location, outside the development limits of any settlement, isolated from services and facilities and wholly reliant on the use of the private car without a special circumstances to justify the site's release for residential development in a rural area, is unsustainable development contrary to Policy S1 of the Mendip District Local Plan 2002, Core Policy 1 and Policy DP22 of the Emerging Mendip District Local Plan 2006-2029 and Policies within the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) including paragraphs 14 and 55.

A relevant appeal (reference APP/Q3305/A/14/2227885) was dismissed on the 23rd April 2015. This appeal decision is explored in more detail within the assessment of issues

Planning Board Report 19th October 2016 Page 53 section of this report.

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

Batcombe Parish Council

The Parish Council decided to recommend Refusal of Permission on the grounds that the design of the building and associated development would harm the wider landscape character of the area (Mendip District Local Plan Policy DP22 1. b).

The Parish Council notes that the plans for the conversion and extension of the stable building to holiday accommodation are identical to those for the application for the conversion and extension of the stable building to a residential dwelling in 2014 (Ref: 2014/1193/FUL) which was refused permission and the subsequent appeal (Ref: APP/Q3305/A/14/2227885) dismissed.

In his appeal decision, the planning inspector concluded "that the appeal proposal would unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the countryside" (para 15). The Parish Council feels that the application for holiday accommodation would do similar harm to the character and appearance of the countryside given the identical nature of the dwellings in the two applications. Any difference between the applications for a residential dwelling and holiday accommodation is further minimised by the applicant's request that there be no restriction on the length of "holidays" to be allowed in the accommodation (Planning Statement 6.2).

In addition, the Parish Council notes that the conversion involves a substantial extension, which the planning inspector did not deem to be an enhancement to the building's character or appearance (para 10 of the appeal decision).

The Parish Council would also question whether the stables should be considered to be redundant. The Council believes that there is a significant demand for stables and land for horses in the parish given the number of people who own and ride horses and feels that the fact that the applicant chooses not to keep horses himself does not make the building redundant for that purpose.

In the light of previous applications for a residential dwelling on this site and the request for no limit on the length of holidays, the Parish Council considers it likely that the granting of this application would result in the residential use of this dwelling and create a precedent for the circumvention of the national planning policy against the creation of new isolated homes in the open countryside.

Highways Officer (SCC)

Recommend Standing Advice is applied.

Planning Enforcement (MDC)

No comments.

Representations

1 letter of objection has been received, which raises the following issues (summarised):

. This land is agricultural land; . The 'redundant' building referred to in the covering letter was erected by the landowner a short while ago and has never been used as stabling and was therefore 'redundant' from the day it was completed;

Planning Board Report 19th October 2016 Page 54

. This application is clearly a backdoor route to building habitable accommodation; . Granting this application would create a precedent for wholesale development which would severely damage the environmental quality of the area; . The owner has left the gate to the property open so that the Planning Notice is scarcely visible.

Planning History

116017/004 – Erection of dwelling refused August 2005 (dismissed at appeal).

116017/005 – Erection of dwelling refused Jan 2007 (dismissed at appeal).

116017/007 – Erection of stables refused Nov 2006 (allowed at appeal).

116017/008 – Erection of stables approved June 2007.

116017/009 – Creation of pond approved Nov 2007.

116017/011 – Erection of stables (revised scheme to 116017/008) refused April 2009 (allowed at appeal).

2011/0039 – Approval of details reserved by condition on application 116017/011 – June 2011.

2013/1131 - Conversion and extension of existing stables to residential dwelling house refused July 2013 and dismissed at appeal.

2014/0208 - Conversion of stables to work/live unit – Application withdrawn.

2014/1193/FUL – Conversion of stables to dwelling – Refused Sept 2014 (appeal dismissed April 2015).

Summary of all planning policies relevant to the proposal

Policies CP1, 3 and 4 and DP1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 22 and 23 of the Mendip District Local Plan 2006-2029, Part 1: Strategy and Policies, adopted December 2014

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), 2012 National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPG), 2012 Somerset County Council Parking Strategy, 2013 Somerset County Council Standing Advice, 2015

Assessment of relevant issues

Principle

The applicant has brought forward a proposal to convert and extend the stables to a holiday let as opposed to an unfettered dwelling. Whilst the planning history to this site reflects the aspirations of the applicant for providing a dwellinghouse, the LPA has to assess this application on its own individual merits and on the basis of the holiday use proposed.

Policy CP1 of the Mendip District Local Plan states that development in the open countryside is strictly controlled but may exceptionally be permitted in line with the provisions set out in Policy CP4 (Sustaining Rural Communities). Policy CP4 supports proposals for development of the rural economy, such as a holiday lets, in accordance with Policy CP3 which supports business growth and development. The conversion and re-use of existing buildings is considered under policy DP22.

Planning Board Report 19th October 2016 Page 55

The re-use and conversion of rural buildings in the countryside to a non-residential use is supported by policy DP22 providing it does not prejudice adjacent land uses, the design of the building respects its surroundings and does not harm the wider landscape character, and does not have adverse impacts on the transport network. The existing building should be of permanent and substantially sound construction, alterations should be sensitive to the fabric and character of the original building, and it should incorporate replacement bat roosts where a need has been identified, as per the provisions of Part 1 a) – e) of Policy DP22.

The proposal for the change of use, conversion and extension of the stables to a holiday let is acceptable in principle, by policies CP3 and CP4, because it would contribute to the rural economy and support business growth and development. The building is already a permanent structure. Further, policy DP22 supports the reuse of rural buildings for a variety of uses, including dwellinghouses and non-residential uses and does not rule out limited extensions, provided that the remaining requirements of Policy DP22 are complied with and where they have wider economic benefits. The building is considered to be suitable for conversion and extension without major or complete re-construction. Given that the development proposes a holiday let rather than an unfettered dwelling, the principle of a limited extension to the building is considered to be acceptable.

It should be noted that the ‘test of enhancement’ referred to within Policy DP22 relates to a ‘residential use only’ (part 2 of Policy DP22) and not a non-residential use (part 1 of the policy), which would apply to holiday occupation (commercial use). As such there is no requirement for the development to lead to an enhancement to the immediate setting.

The site is situated well outside the settlement limits remote from essential services and facilities and wholly reliant on the use of the private car. However the benefits for the economic re-use of the building are considered to outweigh this issue and the number of trips generated is also considered to be comparable to a lawful use for equestrian purposes.

The Parish Council has raised issues regarding the relevant time limits proposed for the occupation of the building for use as holiday accommodation. The LPA would apply a standard condition, which would only permit occupation for up to 1 year. As such the building cannot form a sole residence for permanent occupation. The agent has agreed to the attachment of this condition, if permission is granted.

Bearing in mind the above assessment the LPA supports the principle of the development proposed and it is considered that the previous reason for refusal has been overcome (ie: reason 2 of 2014/1193/FUL).

Design and Appearance

The site forms part of a large agricultural field which is largely bound by hedgerow. The character of the site is relatively open grassland screened only by hedgerow along the road boundary and the stables are sited along the road boundary to the east of the site. There are interrupted views of the building within the open landscape from the surrounding area and having regard for the current equestrian use of the site, which is generally accepted in rural locations, the building does not have a harmful impact on the landscape.

The proposed conversion works retain the rural character of the stables and the extension proposed is modest and incorporates matching materials. The external alterations to the building are therefore considered to be acceptable and reasonably necessary for the building to be converted into a holiday let.

The change of use from equestrian stables to holiday occupation will inevitably domesticate the building and site. However the proposed extension and parking area are screened well from view by the building and existing vegetation screening and will not be read within the

Planning Board Report 19th October 2016 Page 56 wider landscape. Relevant conditions will be attached, in the event that the application is approved, for the removal of permitted development rights, in addition to other relevant conditions to ensure that the rural character of the building and the site are retained.

The scheme includes a limited area of domestic curtilage, greatly reduced from the previous refusal, which is now drawn tightly around the building and access track. In addition, the landscaping works and solar array referred to under refusal reason 1 of application 2014/1193/FUL have been removed from the scheme. As such the visual impact of the development to the landscape as a consequence of the degree of domestification of the site has now been reduced to an acceptable level.

Bearing in mind the above assessment, the LPA considers that the visual impact of the development is now acceptable as it has addressed the previous reason for refusal.

Neighbouring amenity

The works will not create adverse harm to the residential amenities of the locality given the separation distance between the building to be converted and extended and the nearest neighbours. The stables are already a permanent structure and the extension will not appear significantly overbearing. There are no windows proposed that will create the potential for harmful overlooking of private amenities. The amenities of the future occupiers will also be preserved as there is sufficient amenity space.

On the basis of the above assessment it is considered that the proposal will preserve the residential amenities of the locality and future occupiers of the dwelling.

Highway safety and parking

The Local Highway Authority (Somerset County Council) has recommended ‘Standing Advice’ is applied and therefore it is down to the Local Planning Authority to assess the highway safety impact of the development proposed.

It is considered that the existing access to the site is sufficient to serve the proposed accommodation and there would be sufficient off-street parking provision and turning and access space proposed within the site to enable vehicles to enter and leave in a forward gear. The two parking spaces proposed are screened by the building and an existing vegetation screen found along the eastern boundary.

Bearing in mind the above assessment, it is considered that the development will not prejudice highway safety.

Flooding and Drainage

The site is not located within a high risk flood zone and drainage within the site will not be adversely affected.

Trees

There are no trees of importance that will be directed affected by the development. No trees are proposed for removal. The existing trees and vegetation within the site will act as natural screening to help reduce the built impact of the development, which will not be viewed prominently from the public realm and the wider landscape.

Other Issues

The means of disposal for foul sewage, to be directed to a sceptic tank, is considered to be acceptable, given the limited options identified within the applicant’s non-mains drainage

Planning Board Report 19th October 2016 Page 57 assessment. Details of the location of the sceptic tank will be requested via a planning condition, in the event that the application is approved.

Environmental Impact Assessment

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

Conclusion

Bearing in mind the above assessment, it is considered that the proposal is acceptable and is recommended for APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS as it now proposes an economic re- use of the building and has removed the contentious landscaping works that were part of the previously refused scheme. As such the current scheme has addressed the previous reasons for refusal.

Reason/s for Recommendation

1. Although the site is located outside the development limits where development is strictly controlled, the development proposes an economic re-use of a redundant building, which is a material consideration that weighs in favour of the grant of planning permission.

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

The means of access and parking arrangements meet the required safety standards and will ensure the free flow of traffic on the highway. All practical measures for the conservation of energy have been included in the design, layout and siting of the proposal. The proposal makes satisfactory arrangements for the protection of trees. The proposal will not increase flood risk.

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:- Policies CP1, 3 and 4 and DP1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 22 and 23 of the Mendip District Local Plan 2006-2029, Part 1: Strategy and Policies, adopted December 2014 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), 2012 National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPG), 2012 Somerset County Council Parking Strategy, 2013 Somerset County Council Standing Advice, 2015

Conditions

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

2. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with drawing numbers: 16109-01 and 16109-02 validated on the 12th July 2016 only. Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interest of proper planning.

3. The holiday accommodation hereby approved shall be occupied for holiday purposes only and not as a sole or main place of residence. An up-to-date register of all

Planning Board Report 19th October 2016 Page 58

occupiers on the site (including their main home address), shall be maintained and this information shall be made available at all reasonable times to the Local Planning Authority. Reason: Permission has only been granted in a location where isolated new dwellings would not otherwise normally be permitted because the development would result in economic benefits from the provision of holiday accommodation.

4. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no development falling within Parts 1 and 2 of that Order shall be carried out without the permission of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To safeguard the character of the building and the wider landscape as such works require further consideration by the Local Planning Authority.

5. The development hereby approved shall be carried out using external facing materials that match those used on the existing development. Reason: in the interests of the character and appearance of the area.

6. No piece of external joinery shall be installed or undertaken unless full details of that piece have been first submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such details shall be at full or half scale and shall include cross-sections, profiles, reveal, surrounds, materials, finish and colour. The works shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To safeguard the character and appearance of the building.

7. No ducts, pipes, rainwater goods, vents or other external attachments shall be fitted or installed unless in accordance with details that have been first submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All such attachments shall thereafter be retained in that form. Reason: In the interests of the appearance of the development and the surrounding area.

8. No external lighting shall be installed in connection with the development hereby approved unless in accordance with details that shall have first been submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. Such details shall include the location, number, luminance, angle of illumination and type of each luminaire or light source and a lux diagram showing the light spill from the scheme. The external lighting shall be installed, operated and maintained operated in accordance with the details thereby approved. Reason: In the interests of the character of the area; the amenities of neighbours; and to safeguard bats from disturbance from light pollution.

9. The development hereby approved shall not be occupied until a hard and soft landscape scheme has first been implemented in accordance with details that have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall include a schedule for implementation and details of the boundary treatments, surfacing materials (including access track, access and parking areas, patios/ terraces etc) and any retained planting. Any trees or plants indicated on the approved scheme which, within a period of five years from the date of planting, die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced during the next planting season either with the same tree/plant, or with other trees or plants of a species and size that have first been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To secure improvements to the landscape setting to the development.

10. No part of the development hereby approved shall be brought into use or occupied unless it is served with the associated 2 parking spaces identified on drawing number

Planning Board Report 19th October 2016 Page 59

16109-02, validated on 12th July 2016, which shall be marked out within the site in the positions shown. The parking spaces shall be kept clear of obstruction and be retained thereafter for the parking of motor vehicles to serve the development. Reason: To ensure that sufficient parking is provided to serve the approved development in the interests of highway safety and in the interests of the visual impact of the development.

11. The development hereby approved shall not be occupied until details showing the location and specification of the proposed sceptic tank (non-mains drainage scheme) have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and be retained and maintained as such thereafter. Reason: In the interests of the visual character of the locality and the impact to the natural environment.

List of Advices

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

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

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

4. Where a Planning Permission, Listed Building Consent, Certificate of Lawful Development or Prior Approval has been issued, approval may also be required under the Building Regulation Legislation before any work is commenced, and throughout the building process. Mendip District Council's Building Control Department works in tandem with our Development Management team to offer a number of helpful and efficient services that can be accessed via our website http://www.mendip.gov.uk/buildingcontrol, by email at [email protected], or by telephoning 01749 341248 or 01749 341209. Our Building Control team includes chartered surveyors, fire and building engineers and support staff that are available for free pre-application discussions and/or site meetings, to plan and facilitate a streamlined pathway to the completion and final sign-off of all projects.

5. Your attention is drawn to the condition/s in the above permission, some of which require(s) the submission and approval of certain information PRIOR to the commencement of certain activities (e.g. development, use or occupation). Failure to comply with these conditions may render the development unauthorised and liable to enforcement action. Please note that there is a fee for the council's consideration of details submitted pursuant to a condition on a planning permission. The fee is £97 per request (or £28 where it relates to a householder application) and made payable to Mendip District Council. The request must be made in writing or using the Standard Application form (available on the council's website www.mendip.gov.uk). For clarification, the fee relates to each request for the discharge of condition/s and not to each condition itself. There is a no fee for the discharge of conditions on a Listed Building Consent, Conservation Area Consent or Advertisement Consent

Planning Board Report 19th October 2016 Page 60

although if the request concerns condition/s relating to both a planning permission and Listed Building Consent then a fee will be required. You should allow up to eight weeks for these condition/s to be discharged, following the submission of details to the Local Planning Authority. If the Local Planning Authority fails to give a decision within this time or should it refuse approval of the submitted details then the applicant is entitled to lodge an appeal to the Planning Inspectorate, Temple Quay House, 2 The Square, Temple Quay, Bristol BS1 6PN, tel. 0117 372 6372, www.planning- inspectorate.gov.uk

Planning Board Report 19th October 2016 Page 61

Agenda Item No. DM09

Case Officer Miss Stephanie Lamb

Site 4 Broadhay Westbury Sub Mendip Wells BA5 1JF

Application Number 2016/1842/HSE

Date Received 18th July 2016

Applicant/ Mr & Mrs Whitley Organisation

Application Type Householder Application

Proposal Proposed single storey rear extension, replacement balcony/terrace and installation of 'Sunpipes' to roof.

Ward Rodney Stoke And Westbury

Parish Westbury Sub Mendip Parish Council

This application has been referred to the Planning Board following consultation with the Ward Member, Chair and Vice Chair.

Description of Site, Proposal and Constraints

The application relates to 4 Broadhay, Westbury Sub Mendip, which is situated within a Conservation Area and adjacent to an Area of Natural Beauty.

The application seeks householder planning permission for single storey rear extensions (with storage underneath) and replacement balcony/terrace which will be sited further to the rear than the existing. Sunpipes are also proposed to the existing roof.

Summary of Parish Comments, any Objections or Conflict with the Recommendation

Westbury Sub Mendip Parish Council

The Parish Council objects to this application on two grounds. If these two concerns can be addressed satisfactorily then the Parish Council would encourage modified plans to be submitted for reappraisal.

Balcony

The balcony proposed in the application will overlook the neighbouring property (5 Broadhay), with sightlines into all the neighbour's back garden and conservatory, resulting in a loss of privacy and amenity to the neighbour. The Parish Council suggests that the proposed balcony could be lowered to ground level and be constructed as a patio area which would be less intrusive and overbearing for the neighbouring property.

The 4 Broadhay site is on a hill spur ridge high point and is very visible from the surrounding area. It is uphill from the neighbour, which will accentuate the height of the proposed balcony, and increase the overlooking of the neighbouring ground.

Windows and skylights

One important aspect of Westbury sub Mendip's local character has long been recognised

Planning Board Report 19th October 2016 Page 62 and supported as a 'Dark Skies' village. Broadhay is encircled on all four sides by the Mendip Hills AONB, which promotes Dark Skies. The 2005 Parish Plan established that the majority in the village supported the curtailment of outside lighting, and the emerging Neighbourhood Plan is seeking to strengthen this characteristic of the village. The residents of Broadhay agreed to the permanent turning off of the two streetlights in Broadhay over ten years ago, and last year Somerset County Council agreed to remove the streetlights altogether, along with two streetlights in Back Lane. This means that there are now no street lights at all in Westbury sub Mendip north of the A371, i.e. in the majority of the village Conservation Area. Broadhay is within this Conservation Area.

As well as being an environmental asset to the village, the Dark Skies tradition has a historical basis in that the nineteenth century astronomer John Pond lived in Denver House approximately 100 yards from Broadhay, and it was his astronomical observations from Westbury sub Mendip that led to corrections to the instruments at the Royal Observatory Greenwich, and to John Pond's appointment as astronomer Royal. His reputation is preserved in nearby house names such as 'Pond's Barn'.

Given the importance of Dark Skies in Westbury, and supported by Mendip District Council's Local Plan Part 1 DP8 'Environmental Protection' Item 3 which highlights the importance of minimising noise and light pollution in rural settings and the AONB, the Parish council requests the removal of the roof-lights and skylights from the proposed development extension and main building. The Parish Council also requests the removal of the triangular transom from above the south facing dining room extension, because this will be impossible to curtain or screen.

The position of 4 Broadhay on a ridge overlooking surrounding ground makes these features particularly undesirable in a Dark Skies area. Light from roof-lights and windows contributes to light pollution in the night sky, and is reflected back to ground from cloud cover.

These recommendations are consistent with the Parish Council's response to other planning application consultations within the village in the past year.

In summary, if the balcony and skylights/windows of the proposed development can be appropriately removed, then the Parish Council will review its assessment.

Highways

No observations

Conservation Officer

The property lies within the Westbury sub Mendip Conservation Area and the rear can be seen in long views from Drapel Lane; however, the extension is modest and in a style which is not out of context.

The alterations will preserve character and appearance of the conservation area and, as such, will cause no harm to this heritage asset.

No objections.

Other Representations

2 letters of objection have been received (summarised):

 Overlooking from balcony into rear of property (5 Broadhay)  Obscured glass window on side elevation would take away privacy and change the appearance of this side elevation wall.

Planning Board Report 19th October 2016 Page 63

 Windows facing east are particularly intrusive as they will overlook the neighbouring property and garden and also, as the house is up on a ridge, look down into our garden (Stream Farm), which is further down the valley side.  Dark Skies - concern that the large windowed area, combined with the skylights, will cause an increased level of light pollution. Particularly as the house is situated on a ridge.

Relevant Planning History

None relevant

Summary of all planning policies relevant to the proposal

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

Development Plan

Policies DP1 (Local Identity and Distinctiveness), DP3 (Heritage and Conservation) and DP7 (Design and Amenity) of the Mendip District Local Plan Part 1 Strategy and Policies (adopted December 2014)

Material Considerations

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPG) MDC Householder Extension Guide 1993

Assessment of Relevant Issues

Principle

There is no objection in principle to the extension of this dwellinghouse subject to usual planning controls of design, amenity and highway and parking safety.

Character & Appearance

The proposal intends to extend the rear dining rooms width and length incorporating storage below ground level, whilst replacing the existing balcony with a slightly smaller, re-sited balcony. The proposal also includes rooflights to the extension and sunpipes to the existing roof.

Whilst the objections in relation to the ‘Dark Skies’ initiative are noted, it is essential to recognise that the proposed sunpipes could be installed under permitted development rights. Furthermore, the transom window could be inserted into the existing house under permitted development rights.

The extension and balcony would be to the rear of the property and although the site is elevated, the size and design is considered appropriate and would not cause harm to the character and appearance. As such, the proposal accords with DP7 of the Mendip District Local Plan Part 1, the MDC Householder Extension Guide and the NPPF.

Impact to Residential Amenities

It is acknowledged that re-siting the balcony by 2 metres backwards will increase the risk of

Planning Board Report 19th October 2016 Page 64 overlooking into the adjacent neighbours’ garden, given that 4 Broadhay is elevated in comparison to properties to its east. However, judgement should be based upon whether the proposal is significantly more harmful than the balcony already in existence.

It is considered that due to the balcony being situated approximately 11 metres from the eastern boundary, and the south eastern corner of the dwelling at 4 Broadhay restricting the view from the balcony into 5, that the impact will not be substantial and therefore accords with policy DP7 of the Mendip District Local Plan Part 1, the MDC Householder Extension Guide and the NPPF.

The proposed side facing openings are also considered acceptable.

Highways/Access

With a decrease in the number of bedrooms, there will be no impact upon highway safety or access.

Environmental Impact Assessment

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

Conclusion

It is recommended that planning permission be granted.

Reason/s for Recommendation

1. The proposal, by reason of its design, scale and layout would be in keeping with its surroundings. The character and appearance of the Conservation Area would be preserved. The proposal, by reason of its design, scale and layout, would safeguard the amenities of neighbouring residents and adjoining land users.

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:- DP1 (Local Identity), DP3 (Heritage Conservation) and DP7 (Design and Amenity) of the Mendip District Local Plan 2006-2029 (Part 1 Strategies and Policies - adopted 15th December 2014) National Planning Policy Framework Planning Practice Guidance The Household Extension Design Guide

Conditions

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

2. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with drawings Location Plan, 'Existing' Site Plan. 'Proposed' Site Plan, 01, 02, 03, 05 Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interest of proper planning.

3. The development hereby approved shall be carried out using external facing materials that match those used on the existing development.

Planning Board Report 19th October 2016 Page 65

Reason: in the interests of the character and appearance of the area.

List of Advices

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

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

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

4. Where a Planning Permission, Listed Building Consent, Certificate of Lawful Development or Prior Approval has been issued, approval may also be required under the Building Regulation Legislation before any work is commenced, and throughout the building process. Mendip District Council's Building Control Department works in tandem with our Development Management team to offer a number of helpful and efficient services that can be accessed via our website http://www.mendip.gov.uk/buildingcontrol, by email at [email protected], or by telephoning 01749 341248 or 01749 341209. Our Building Control team includes chartered surveyors, fire and building engineers and support staff that are available for free pre-application discussions and/or site meetings, to plan and facilitate a streamlined pathway to the completion and final sign-off of all projects.

Planning Board Report 19th October 2016 Page 66

Agenda Item No. DM10

Case Officer Miss Stephanie Lamb

Site Paywell Farm Paywell Lane Blagdon Bristol BS40 7XL

Application Number 2016/1783/FUL

Date Received 6th July 2016

Applicant/ Mr A White Organisation

Application Type Full Application

Proposal Erection of general purpose agricutural building.

Ward Chewton Mendip And Ston Easton

Parish Priddy Parish Council

This application is referred to Planning Board for probity reasons because the agent is the associated Ward Member.

Description of Site, Proposal and Constraints

The application relates to Paywell Farm, Blagdon which is situated within the Mendip Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and consists of grade 4 agricultural land.

The application seeks planning permission for the erection of a general use agricultural building in the field opposite the main farmyard. The building would be accessed via an existing access.

Summary of Parish Comments, any Objections or Conflict with the Recommendation

Priddy Parish Council

Priddy Parish Council noted that the application related to open green space on the opposite side of the lane to the existing farm yard, which was stated as being unable to accommodate the new building. It was thought that the option of converting the existing buildings ought to be considered.

At a vote (none in favour, four against and two abstaining) it was resolved not to support the application as it was on green space on the opposite side of the road from the existing farm buildings.

Highways

No observations

Environmental Protection

Environmental Protection has no objections to this development.

Other Representations

No other representations have been received.

Planning Board Report 19th October 2016 Page 67

Relevant Planning History

None relevant

Summary of all planning policies relevant to the proposal

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

Development Plan

Policies CP4 (Rural Business Development), DP1 (Local Identity and Distinctiveness), DP4 (Landscapes), DP7 (Design and Amenity), DP8 (Environmental Protection), DP9 (Access) of the Mendip District Local Plan Part 1 Strategy and Policies (adopted December 2014)

Material Considerations

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPG) The Countywide Parking Strategy (2013) Agricultural Building Design Guidelines for the Mendip Hills AONB SPG Priddy Parish Plan

Assessment of Relevant Issues

Principle

The site lies in open countryside where local and national planning policies require strict control over new development, in the interests of the countryside’s character and appearance and ensuring a sustainable pattern of development.

Policy CP4 supports development of the rural economy where sufficient validation for the proposal is provided. The site is close in proximity to the main farmyard and it is considered that justification has been demonstrated for the proposed agricultural building. The principle is therefore accepted.

Impact on the AONB

The site is adjacent to and associated with the small scale Paywell Farm, who intend to expand their business into a beef enterprise. A residential property known as ‘The Bungalow’ sits next to Paywell Farm, nearest to the main B3134 road. The road that runs between the site and Paywell Farm slopes upwards in both directions away from the site, providing elevated views onto the site, although hedgerows align the fields’ boundaries.

Policy DP4 emphasises the importance of landscape impact in the AONB. It requires (amongst other things) that ‘the site concerned, having regard to alternative options, offers the most appropriate means to limit or mitigate against any negative visual impact on the immediate locality and longer distance panoramic views.’

The design of the barn is dark green in colour, thus blending into its surroundings and will be of a suitable size for agricultural use. It is considered that the building would not have an unacceptable impact on the AONB’s landscape.

Justification has been provided by the applicant as to why the building cannot be sited within

Planning Board Report 19th October 2016 Page 68 the main farm yard and why existing buildings could not be converted instead. The LPA particularly questioned why the area to the south west corner of the farm could not be utilised. Several reasons have been provided in the ‘Alternative Site Assessment’, including that the layout and condition of the yard and the surface would create significant impracticalities for the modern tractor and trailer, essentially reducing the practicality and use of the building. All existing buildings within the farm have been stated by the applicant as already being in constant use.

On balance it is accepted that this provides sufficient justification in respect of the landscape impact. It is therefore considered that the proposal accords with policy DP4.

Impact on neighbour’s living conditions

Policy DP7 says that proposals should protect the amenity of neighbouring buildings and land uses. Meanwhile policy DP8 requires that proposals must not give rise to unacceptable impacts in respect of noise or residential amenity.

The proposed building would be used for general agricultural uses i.e. hay and equipment storage and is adjacent to the existing farm. There is 1 residential property immediately nearby the proposed building, however the proposal is not significant and will not result in a significant increase in farming activity that could compromise the neighbours’ amenity. The Councils Environmental Protection team have no objections to this development

As such, it is considered that that the proposal accords with policies DP7 and DP8.

Environmental Impact Assessment

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

Conclusion

It is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to conditions.

Reason/s for Recommendation

1. The proposal accords with the Council's settlement strategy for the location of new development. The proposal, by reason of its design, scale and layout would be in keeping with its surroundings. The proposal, by reason of its design, scale and layout, would safeguard the amenities of neighbouring residents and adjoining land users. The means of access and parking arrangements meet the required safety standards and will ensure the free flow of traffic on the highway.

The proposal has been tested against the following Development Plan policies. In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, and subject to the conditions below, the proposal is acceptable:- CP4 (principle of development), DP1 (local identity), DP4 (landscapes), DP7 (design and amenity), DP8 (environmental protection), DP9 (transport) of the Mendip District Local Plan 2006-2029 (Part 1 Strategies and Policies - adopted 15th December 2014) National Planning Policy Framework Planning Practice Guidance

Conditions

Planning Board Report 19th October 2016 Page 69

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

2. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with drawings Location Plan, 1794/01, 1794/02, email dated 15th August 2016, 'Planning Statement' and 'Alternative Site Assessment' Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interest of proper planning.

List of Advices

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

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

3. In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework the Council has worked in a positive and pro-active way and has granted planning permission.

4. Where a Planning Permission, Listed Building Consent, Certificate of Lawful Development or Prior Approval has been issued, approval may also be required under the Building Regulation Legislation before any work is commenced, and throughout the building process. Mendip District Council's Building Control Department works in tandem with our Development Management team to offer a number of helpful and efficient services that can be accessed via our website http://www.mendip.gov.uk/buildingcontrol, by email at [email protected], or by telephoning 01749 341248 or 01749 341209. Our Building Control team includes chartered surveyors, fire and building engineers and support staff that are available for free pre-application discussions and/or site meetings, to plan and facilitate a streamlined pathway to the completion and final sign-off of all projects.

Planning Board Report 19th October 2016 Page 70

Agenda Item No. DM11

Case Officer Mrs Lorna Elstob

Site Lower Farm House Faulkland Radstock Somerset BA3 5XD

Application Number 2016/2108/HSE

Date Received 12th August 2016

Applicant/ Mrs Naomi Drewe Organisation

Application Type Householder Application

Proposal Erection of garden room

Ward Ammerdown

Parish Hemington Parish Council

This application is referred to the Planning Board as the applicant is the wife of a Member and the agent is a Member (same person)

Description of Site, Proposal and Constraints

The application relates to Lower Farm House, Faulkland.

The application is for the erection of a garden room.

Comments, consultation responses and representations

Parish Council

The Parish Council recommended approval on both the Householder and Listed Building Applications.

Highways

Standing Advice applies.

Heritage and Conservation

The building was subject to a single storey extension in 2007 and some of the proposed garden room will cover this extension rather than the original building. The extension has been designed to appear subservient to the original building and should not detract from the character.

The only concern I have is that the extension should not cover any of the window surrounds either side of the proposed extension. As long as there is a very small gap between the surrounds and the new extension this should not appear awkward.

The development should be subject to conditions. I would recommend joinery details (for the glazed panels, door and rooflights) and a sample panel to ensure it matches the original building.

Planning Board Report 19th October 2016 Page 71

Other representations

None

Relevant planning history

2013/1011 - Enclosure of existing porch – approved with conditions.

Summary of all planning policies relevant to the proposal

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

Development Plan –

Policies DP1 (Local Identity and Distinctiveness), DP3 Heritage and Conservation, DP7 (Design and Amenity), DP8 (Environmental Protection) DP10 (Parking Standards), of the Mendip District Local Plan Part 1 Strategy and Policies (adopted December 2014)

Material Considerations

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPG) Somerset County Council Standing Advice (June 2013)

Assessment of relevant issues

Principle of development

There are no in principle objections to the erection of a further extension to this property. The property was previously extended in 2007 and this extension will cover this rather than the original building.

Effect on the character of the area

The property is located on the edge of the village of Faulkland. The property in itself is a grade 2 listed building but is not located in a Conservation Area. There are other listed buildings nearby.

The impact of the garden room would be minimal on the surrounding area.

Impact to residential amenities

The proposed garden room is single storey and therefore the impact on the neighbouring properties would be minimal.

Highways Impact

Highways Standing Advice applies – there are no Highways issues with this application.

Environmental Impact Assessment

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

Planning Board Report 19th October 2016 Page 72

Conclusion

It is recommended that planning permission be approved.

Reason/s for Recommendation

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

The setting of adjoining Listed Building/s would not be harmed.

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

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

The proposal has been tested against the following Development Plan policies. In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, and subject to the conditions below, the proposal is acceptable:- DP1 (Local Identity), DP3 (Heritage Conservation), DP7 (Design and Amenity) and DP10 (parking) of the Mendip District Local Plan 2006-2029 (Part 1 Strategies and Policies - adopted 15th December 2014) National Planning Policy Framework Planning Practice Guidance The Countywide Parking Strategy (2013) The Household Extension Design Guide

Conditions

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

2. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with drawing "Elevations as existing - East Elevation", "Elevations - Garden Room", "Existing Level - Garden Room", "Existing Floor Plan", "Floor Plan - Garden Room", "Location and Block Plans" all validated on 22nd August 2016. Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interest of proper planning.

3. The development hereby approved shall be carried out using external facing materials as specified on the application form received on 12th August 2016. Reason: in the interests of the character and appearance of the area.

List of Advices

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

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

Planning Board Report 19th October 2016 Page 73

imposed planning conditions to enable the grant of planning permission.

3. Where a Planning Permission, Listed Building Consent, Certificate of Lawful Development or Prior Approval has been issued, approval may also be required under the Building Regulation Legislation before any work is commenced, and throughout the building process. Mendip District Council's Building Control Department works in tandem with our Development Management team to offer a number of helpful and efficient services that can be accessed via our website http://www.mendip.gov.uk/buildingcontrol, by email at [email protected], or by telephoning 01749 341248 or 01749 341209. Our Building Control team includes chartered surveyors, fire and building engineers and support staff that are available for free pre-application discussions and/or site meetings, to plan and facilitate a streamlined pathway to the completion and final sign-off of all projects.

Planning Board Report 19th October 2016 Page 74

Agenda Item No. DM12

Case Officer Mrs Lorna Elstob

Site Lower Farm Faulkland To Norton St Philip Road Faulkland Frome Radstock

Application Number 2016/2109/LBC

Date Received 12th August 2016

Applicant/ Mrs Naomi Drewe Organisation

Application Type Listed Building Consent

Proposal Erection of garden room

Ward Ammerdown

Parish Hemington Parish Council

This application is referred to the Planning Board as the applicant is the wife of a Member and the agent is a Member (same person); Cllr Drewe.

Description of Site, Proposal and Constraints

The application relates to Lower Farm House, Faulkland.

The application is for the erection of a garden room.

Comments, consultation responses and representations

Parish Council

The Parish Council recommended approval on both the Householder and Listed Building Applications.

Highways

Standing Advice applies.

Heritage and Conservation

Conservation submitted the following comments:

The building was subject to a single storey extension in 2007 and some of the proposed garden room will cover this extension rather than the original building. The extension has been designed to appear subservient to the original building and should not detract from the character.

The only concern I have is that the extension should not cover any of the window surrounds either side of the proposed extension. As long as there is a very small gap between the surrounds and the new extension this should not appear awkward.

The development should be subject to conditions. I would recommend joinery details (for the glazed panels, door and rooflights) and a sample panel to ensure it matches the original

Planning Board Report 19th October 2016 Page 75 building.

Representations

None

Relevant planning history

2013/1011 - Enclosure of existing porch – approved with conditions.

Summary of all planning policies relevant to the proposal

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

Development Plan –

Policies DP1 (Local Identity and Distinctiveness), DP3 Heritage and Conservation, DP7 (Design and Amenity), DP8 (Environmental Protection) DP10 (Parking Standards), of the Mendip District Local Plan Part 1 Strategy and Policies (adopted December 2014)

Material Considerations

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPG) Somerset County Council Standing Advice (June 2013)

Assessment of relevant issues

Principle of development

There are no in principle objections to the erection of a further extension to this property. The property was previously extended in 2007 and this extension will cover this rather than the original building.

Effect on the character of the area

The property is located on the edge of the village of Faulkland. The property in itself is a grade 2 listed building but is not located in a Conservation Area. There are other listed buildings nearby. The impact of the garden room would be minimal on the surrounding area.

Impact to residential amenities

The proposed garden room is single storey and therefore the impact on the neighbouring properties would be minimal.

Highways Impact

Highways Standing Advice applies – there are no Highways issues with this application.

Environmental Impact Assessment

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

Planning Board Report 19th October 2016 Page 76

Conclusion

It is recommended that planning permission be approved.

Reason/s for Recommendation

1. The proposals would preserve the significance of the designated heritage asset. 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:- DP3 (Heritage Conservation) of the Mendip District Local Plan 2006-2029 (Part 1 Strategies and Policies - adopted 15th December 2014) National Planning Policy Framework Planning Practice Guidance

Conditions

1. The works hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this consent. Reason: As required by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with drawing "Elevations as existing - East Elevation", "Elevations - Garden Room", "Existing Level - Garden Room", "Existing Floor Plan", "Floor Plan - Garden Room", "Location and Block Plans" all validated on 22nd August 2016. Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interest of proper planning.

3. The development hereby approved shall be carried out using external facing materials as specified on the application form received on 12th August 2016. Reason: in the interests of the character and appearance of the area.

4. No piece of external joinery shall be installed or undertaken unless full details of that piece have been first submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such details shall be at full or half scale and shall include cross-sections, profiles, reveal, surrounds, materials, finish and colour. The works shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To safeguard the character and appearance of the building.

5. No external facing materials shall be constructed or installed in respect the development hereby approved until a sample panel of all external walling materials has been erected on site and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. It shall thereafter be kept on site for reference until the development is completed. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and shall not be occupied until the external facing materials have been installed in accordance with the approved sample panel. Reason: in the interests of the character and appearance of the area.

List of Advices

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

Planning Board Report 19th October 2016 Page 77

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

Planning Board Report 19th October 2016 Page 78

Agenda Item No. DM13

Case Officer Mr Howard Warren

Site Lower Farm House Faulkland To Norton St Philip Road Faulkland Frome Radstock

Application Number 2016/1659/LBC

Date Received 24th June 2016

Applicant/ Mr Edward Drewe Organisation

Application Type Listed Building Consent

Proposal Removal of redundant door and replaced by stonework on elevation facing road

Ward Ammerdown

Parish Hemington Parish Council

The application is referred to Planning Board because the applicant is a Member

Description of Site, Proposal and Constraints

The application relates to Lower Farm House, a grade II listed building in Faulkland. The door to the main entrance is on the side of the building. The door that is visible on the street belonged to a butcher’s shop and is not the original. It instead dates from the 1950s and was blocked from the inside within an application from 1990. The proposal is to remove this door and infill with stonework matching the existing stonework. To highlight the former door the stonework will be recessed by approximately 40mm. The applicant is an elected member and therefore for probity purposes this application needs to be decided by planning board.

Summary of consultee comments and representations

Parish Council

Recommend Approval

Relevant Planning History

109032/000 – 1990 – Insertion of one dormer window, extension and alteration of roof to form carport, internal alteration to form bathroom, shower-room and general renovation as amended by letter dated 4/9/1990 an as further amended by dwg no.50/90/2

Summary of all planning policies relevant to the proposal

Mendip District Council Local Plan Development Policy 3 The National Planning Policy Framework Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990

Assessment of Relevant Issues

Legislation dictates that the significance of the building is retained and this means that any features of special architectural or historic interest should be retained. However, the door

Planning Board Report 19th October 2016 Page 79 proposed to be replaced is not historic fabric and by recessing the stonework the previous presence of the door is highlighted. This ensures the building will still be readable. If a future owner wants to add a door that would more closely match the original butcher’s door this is possible so the change is also, to an extent, reversible.

Character and Appearance and Impact on the Listed Building

It is not believed that the door currently in situ contributes towards the significance of the building and therefore the impact on its character will be negligible. The door is not currently used and is already invisible from the inside. However, to ensure the character of the building, as well as its architectural integrity, remains unharmed it will be necessary to ensure the stonework matches the rest of the building and this should be ensured by condition.

Conclusion

The character of the building will be preserved by the proposed alteration and the special architectural and historic interest of the building will be retained. The proposal is therefore not contrary to the NPPF or the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. The door, which is not historic, is not currently contributing to the character of the building and therefore there is no reason not to approve the application.

Reason/s for Recommendation

1. The proposals would preserve the significance of the designated heritage asset. 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:- DP3 (Heritage Conservation) of the Mendip District Local Plan 2006-2029 (Part 1 Strategies and Policies - adopted 15th December 2014) National Planning Policy Framework Planning Practice Guidance

Conditions

1. The works hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this consent. Reason: As required by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2. The works hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with drawings Block Plan, Site Location Plan, Proposed Elevations and Existing Elevations; Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interest of proper planning.

3. The works hereby approved shall be carried out using external facing materials and coursing method that match those used on the existing development. Reason: in the interests of the character and appearance of the area.

4. No external facing materials shall be used or installed until samples of the materials have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The works hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: to preserve the special architectural and historic interest of the heritage asset.

List of Advices

1. The responsibility for ensuring compliance with the terms of this approval rests with the person(s) responsible for carrying out the works. The Local Planning Authority

Planning Board Report 19th October 2016 Page 80

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 works unauthorised and vulnerable to enforcement action.

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

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

Planning Board Report 19th October 2016 Page 81