COUNCIL

Minutes of the Planning Board held on Wednesday, 20 December 2017 in the Council Chamber, Mendip District Council, starting at 6.00 pm.

PRESENT: Councillor Nigel Hewitt-Cooper (Chairman) Councillor Nigel Woollcombe-Adams (Vice Chairman) Councillors Bryan Beha, John Brunsdon, Rachel Carter, Des Harris, Damon Hooton, Clive Mockford, Mike Pullin, Danny Unwin and Ros Wyke

Councillor Edward Drewe substituted for Councillor Dick Skidmore Councillor Tom Killen substituted for Councillor Nigel Taylor Councillor Alan Townsend substituted for Councillor Joanna Beale

OTHERS PRESENT: Councillors John Greenhalgh, Philip Ham,

OFFICERS PRESENT: Robert Brigden - Consultant Principal Planning Officer Martin Evans - Legal Adviser Dan Foster - Principal Planning Officer Carlton Langford - Planning Officer Ben Sugg - Committee Officer James U’Dell - Senior Planning Planner

Agenda Subject Actioned Item By Number

1 Chairman’s Announcements

The Chairman requested that mobile telephones be switched to silent. He also gave details of the evacuation procedure in the event of an emergency.

2 Apologies for Absence

Councillor Edward Drewe substituted for Councillor Dick Skidmore.

Councillor Tom Killen substituted for Councillor Nigel Taylor.

Councillor Alan Townsend substituted for Councillor Joanna Beale.

Mendip District Council 1 Planning Board Minutes

3 Declarations of Interest Claire Dicken Councillor Nigel Hewitt Cooper declared a personal but non prejudicial interest in DM07 because he was the adjacent neighbour.

Councillor Nigel Hewitt Cooper declared a personal but non prejudicial interest in DM08 because he knew the tenant of the site.

Councillor Edward Drewe declared a personal, prejudicial interest in DM04 because he was the agent for the application

Councillor John Brunsdon declared a personal but non prejudicial interest in DM10 because he was a trustee of the Beckery Island Regeneration Trust.

Councillor Steve Henderson declared a personal but non prejudicial interest in DM10 because he was a trustee of the Beckery Island Regeneration Trust.

Councillor Tom Killen declared a personal, prejudicial interest in DM11 because he was a Member of Ston Easton Parish Council

4 Public Participation

None

5 Previous Minutes Ben Sugg

The Minutes of the meeting on 8 November 2017 were agreed.

6 Resolution To Agree All Recommendations Made On Planning Applications Not Raised For Discussion

The following items were not raised and the decisions taken in accordance with the Officer Recommendation:

DM04 2017/2239/HSE Warley, Pitcot Lane, Stratton on the Carlton Fosse – approved with conditions as recommended. Langford

DM11 2017/2455/FUL Village Hall, Green Street, Ston Easton Lynsey - approved with conditions as recommended. Bradshaw

7 Planning Applications

DM01 2017/0022/FUL Land at 353491 146562 Hole Road, Dan Foster Wells

Mendip District Council 2 Planning Board Minutes

The Officer’s Report stated that this application sought planning permission for the erection of 203 residential dwellings and associated public open space, landscaping and infrastructure.

The site previously had benefited from outline planning permission for up to 160 dwellings and a seven form primary school as part of planning permission 2013/1033. The current application site excluded the land for a school, which was part of the earlier planning permission, but the applicant still intended to offer the same land to the County Council to deliver a site for a school via a S106 legal agreement.

The site was within the Settlement Limits for Wells.

The Parish Council recommended that the application be refused. Reasons for refusal included that the infrastructure would be inadequate to accommodate the significant increase in traffic, parking and narrowing of roads. Also, there was insufficient affordable housing.

Wells City Council recommended that the application be approved with conditions.

The Council had received 16 letters of objection to the application. Grounds for objection included that Mendip has a five-year supply of housing, the adverse impact on wildlife, increased traffic and loss of agricultural land.

The County Council as Highway Authority had considered the proposed arrangements and after full analysis was satisfied that the development (which comprised 43 additional dwellings from that which the Council granted outline planning permission for in 2014) would not be prejudicial to highway safety, nor that additional improvements such as a pedestrian crossing over the Road, would be necessary to make the development acceptable

The Officer’s Report concluded that the development of 203 dwellings (including 51 affordable housing units) would be acceptable in principle as the site was allocated in the Local Plan for about 200 houses, a site for a 7 class primary school and public open space.

It was therefore recommended that planning permission be granted subject to a Section 106 Legal Agreement to secure the transfer of the school site to the County Council, the provision and maintenance of Public Open Space (including the LAP and LEAP), affordable housing, highway works and a Travel Plan.

Mendip District Council 3 Planning Board Minutes

Mrs Nicola Amos was invited to speak in opposition to the application. She explained that she was the secretary of the Wookey Hole Residents Forum. Mrs Amos noted that residents had raised 5 main points of objection to the proposed development. She explained that expert advice given by County Council Highways had stated that the application’s allocated household parking provision was adequate, but only if the provided parking was not used by non- domestic vehicles. She asked the Board how this could realistically be policed and remarked that caravans and works vans would inevitably be parked in domestic parking spaces. Mrs Amos further noted that a 16 March 2017 comment from Highways stated that the application’s visitor parking provision did not accord with the parking strategy.

Mr Roger Hancock was invited to speak in opposition to the application. He noted that there were significant parking issues in Wookey Hole and asked that the Board obtain a current traffic survey and up to date Travel Plan prior to voting on this application. Mr Hancock explained that Wookey Hole Road was regularly used by village residents, drivers from Wells and tourists visiting the caves at Wookey Hole. He noted that the road had two particularly bad sections, one of which had forward visibility of only 20 yards and accidents and near misses were frequent. He further noted that the proposed development, along with a neighbouring development represented over 350 new homes, which could result in an estimated 600 additional vehicles using an already dangerous road. Mr Hancock noted that the application did not include any studies based on current traffic volumes and there were already severe problems at peak travel times on Wookey Hole Road.

Mr Gary Amos was invited to speak in opposition to the application. He noted that the Chair’s allowance of additional public speakers for this item was an example of democracy in action and remarked that he hoped the Board would take residents’ opinions into account. Mr Amos noted that the original planning application was for 160 dwellings and residents had offered no significant objections. He noted that the key issues with this application were highway safety, the impacts on health infrastructure and the uncertainties over education infrastructure provision. Mr Amos noted that the traffic survey included in the application had looked at junctions in Wells, rather than more remote junctions. He further noted that the parking provision in the application was inadequate and that Natural had been unable to properly take part in the consultation. Mr Amos expressed doubts over the rigour with which planners had considered the application.

Mendip District Council 4 Planning Board Minutes

Parish Councillor Jim Reeves was invited to speak. Cllr Reeves explained that he was Vice Chair of St Cuthbert Out Parish Council. He noted that this site had been considered several times, and the Parish Council was unhappy with the density of the proposed housing. He noted that the Travel Plan included in the application cited the Number 67 bus service as a mitigating factor for the increased road usage that would result from the development. Cllr Reeves noted however that this bus service had since been severely restricted. He added that additional car journeys would clog the local roads and increase parking pressure. He noted that, while Highways comments indicated that they were happy with the existing Travel Plan, the reduced bus service had not been taken into account. Cllr Reeves asked that a Section 106 Agreement be imposed in order to secure the Number 67 bus service, should the application be approved. He noted that the affordable housing requirement had been reduced to 25% due to the provision of a site for a primary school and asked that a Section 106 Agreement be imposed to guarantee the use of this land for a school in perpetuity or for another community asset should the school not be built. He added that a maintenance charge to fund the upkeep of communal areas should be levied against all dwellings on the development.

Mr David Russell was invited to speak in support of the application. He explained that the application proposed construction of 203 residential dwellings, including a range of private affordable dwellings. He explained that the mix and size of dwellings in the proposed development was in accordance with the Wells City Council Housing Strategy. Mr Russell added that technical reports including a Travel Plan, Flood Risk Assessment, Ecological Impact Assessment and Bat Assessment had been submitted. Addressing concerns raised by residents regarding increased traffic flows, Mr Russell explained that the Travel Plan submitted with the application showed that the local roads were suitable. He further explained that a phased approach had been agreed with Planning Officers to ensure that the affordable housing element would be delivered in a suitable manner. Mr Russell noted that a play area was included in the application which would be accessible to local residents, along with provision of a site for a primary school, £100 in travel vouchers and cycle stores for residents.

During the discussion that followed, Members noted the high level of public interest in this application. Members noted that the requirement for 200 dwellings in the Local Plan, but questioned whether the density in this application was excessive.

In response to questions from the Chair, the Principal Planner explained that the County Highway Authority had not objected to Mendip District Council 5 Planning Board Minutes

the scheme and had determined that it was in accordance with the adopted Countywide parking strategy. The conditions suggested to retain spaces for vehicle parking only were well established practice and were supported by enforcement powers. He further explained that any deviation from the County Highway Authority’s advice would require very clear reasoning. He added that the County Education Authority had stated that they were satisfied with the development subject to securing the land for a school on the same terms as previously agreed when the earlier outline permission was granted.

Members noted the Officers’ comments regarding the Travel Plan, but expressed concern that it did not accurately reflect the current situation in Wookey Hole. Members remarked that if the Travel Plan was based on the availability of a reliable bus route that was no longer in service, it should be revised. Members accepted that the application’s parking provision met the Highway Authority’s requirements, but noted that inadequate visitor parking would have a knock-on effect throughout the development. Some Members further remarked that while the application included an affordable housing element, it should be clear that it meets the needs of the District.

Members noted that the Local Plan allowed for 200 dwellings on this site, which was approved by a Planning Inspector through the Local Plan process. Members remarked that if the Number 67 bus service was no longer in operation, then the Travel Plan was in fact out of date and should not be considered.

In response to questions from Members, the Principal Planner explained that the Highway Authority’s comments on Page 10 of the Officer Report stated that the visitor parking provision for the site was adequate for 203 dwellings. Members noted that the proposed scheme included 25% affordable housing, whilst the Local Plan requirement for Wells was 40%. This level of provision had been accepted as part of the previous outline permission to ensure the viability of the scheme. . It was suggested by Members that, should the application be approved, the percentage of affordable housing for the additional 43 dwellings now proposed should be set at 40%.

Members acknowledged that development of this site had been approved in principle and remarked that there would be a benefit to the District from greater provision of smaller dwellings. Members noted that businesses within Mendip frequently struggled to find staff and welcomed provision of additional housing. Members further noted, however, that while a site for a school had been provided by the applicant, construction of the Mendip District Council 6 Planning Board Minutes

new primary school would not be funded by the developer. Members remarked that infrastructure was important and should be carefully considered along with the impact that edge-of-town developments could have on the countryside. To this end, some Members suggested that more trees be planted along the southern and eastern ends of the site so that it might better blend in with the landscape. Members further remarked that the traffic assessment provided as part of the application assumed that all traffic would travel into Wells and did not take into account potential residents that may commute to work in via Wookey Hole.

In response to questions from Members, the Principal Planner explained that the site had been allocated for about 200 houses in the Local Plan and that the County Highway Authority had approved the number of visitor parking spaces. He further explained that the Highway Authority’s comments in November 2017 had made it clear that they had no technical objection to the development and this superseded any earlier comments.

Some Members expressed concerns over the safety of children walking to school along Wookey Hole Road and remarked that provision of a footpath along the road would improve this already dangerous situation. Members further remarked that the proposed development would have an impact on St Cuthbert Out Parish and as such the concerns of the Parish Council should be considered in any Section 106 discussions. Members noted that the need for additional housing must be approached in a way that mitigates any impact on existing infrastructure, and supported the motion to defer the application until the Travel Plan could be updated.

Some Members remarked that in the event that the proposed school was not built, the site should be retained for another amenity purpose.

Members remarked that the lighting and footpath provision along this stretch of Wookey Hole Road was inadequate, but acknowledged the need for a primary school on this side of Wells. Members further remarked that a further housing development had been approved near Elm Close and that the infrastructure implications off this application should not be considered in isolation.

Members remarked that, along with the Travel Plan, the traffic impact on Wells and the wider locality should be carefully considered during the application’s deferral. Members further remarked that discussions should be held regarding the provision of adequate infrastructure and affordable housing, to

Mendip District Council 7 Planning Board Minutes

ensure that the development was delivered in a sustainable manner.

The Principal Planning Officer reminded Members that the applicant had a right of appeal for non-determination and Members should therefore be mindful that if the application was deferred the applicant might seek to appeal on this basis. Furthermore, the Officer advised Members that if they were minded to defer the application they should be clear about the specific matters they wished to addressed.

It was proposed by Councillor Tom Killen, seconded by Councillor Mike Pullin, that the application be deferred in order that the following matters be addressed:

 A review and update of the Travel Plan, with particular regard to the bus service serving the development.  Revisit the Transport Assessment, with particular regards to the implications of the development on traffic using Wookey Hole Road and highway safety in Wookey Hole village.  Review the connectivity of the site to the surrounding road and footpath network  The applicant should provide 40% affordable housing for the 43 dwellings proposed in addition to the 160 dwellings previously granted outline planning permission (and 25% affordable housing from the 160 dwellings).  Review the landscaping and long-term management of the site, with particular regard to the retained hedgerows.

The motion was carried unanimously.

RESOLVED

That that the application be deferred until the following points have been reviewed and resolved:

 A review and update of the Travel Plan, with particular regard to the bus service serving the development.  Revisit the Transport Assessment, with particular regards to the implications of the development on traffic using Wookey Hole Road and highway safety in Wookey Hole village.  Review the connectivity of the site to the surrounding road and footpath network.  The applicant should provide 40% affordable housing for the 43 dwellings proposed in addition to the 160 dwellings previously granted outline planning permission (and 25% affordable housing from the 160 dwellings)

Mendip District Council 8 Planning Board Minutes

 Review the landscaping and long-term management of the site, with particular regard to the retained hedgerows.

DM02 2017/2002/FUL Former Station, Oakfield Road, James Frome U’Dell

The Officer’s Report stated that this application sought planning permission for the erection of 6 new dwellings (4 x 3 bed and 2 x 2 bed) and associated parking.

Frome Town Council did not raise any objection to the application.

The Council had received 4 letters of objection to the application. Grounds for objection included traffic and highway concerns, loss of parking and that the height of the new buildings would appear built up and be out of keeping.

The Highways Authority did not raise any objection to the application.

The Officer’s Report concluded that there were no adverse impacts that would outweigh the benefits of granting planning permission for the development proposed. It was therefore recommended that the application be approved with conditions.

Tom Shepard was invited to speak in support of the application. Mr Shepard explained that he was speaking on behalf of the developer, Newland Homes. He explained that this site was brownfield land and a former car park that was now being disposed of by Avon & Somerset Constabulary. Mr Shepard noted that the site was currently used as construction site parking for the neighbouring development. He explained that the proposed development would consist of six dwellings and had been supported by consultees. Mr Shepard added that the dwellings had been designed to the highest standard and to a scale that reflected the surrounding properties. As such, the proposal provided an attractive arrangement that could complete the street scene. Finally, Mr Shepard noted that Newland Homes had worked with the adjacent school regarding traffic management.

Councillor Damon Hooton was invited to speak on behalf of the Ward Member, Councillor Helen Sprawson-White. He remarked that it was disappointing that this application had been presented piecemeal, thereby negating the social housing requirement. He noted that while the loss of ad-hoc parking for the nearby school was regrettable, it was difficult to find a valid reason to refuse the application. Cllr Hooton further remarked that the two rendered houses included in the development were out of character with Mendip District Council 9 Planning Board Minutes

the immediate area and stone fronting throughout would be more in keeping.

Members agreed with the Officer’s assessment set out in the committee report and the recommendation. Councillor Clive Mockford proposed that the application be approved in line with Officer recommendation and the motion was seconded by Councillor Rachel Carter.

The motion was carried with 12 votes for and one abstention.

RESOLVED

That the application be approved with conditions as recommended.

DM03 2017/0660/HSE Arch Cottage, John Beales Hill, Pilton, Lorna Shepton Mallet Elstob

The Officer’s Report stated that this application sought planning permission for the fixing of a black matt log burner flue to the outside wall.

The application site was within a Conservation Area.

Pilton Parish Council recommended that the application be approved.

The Council’s Conservation Officer reported that prominent flues across the front of traditional buildings would have a detrimental effect on Conservation Areas. In this instance the flue would be over 3m and would be quite dominant. Justification should therefore be provided for why the flue had to go in this position and why the flue could not be placed elsewhere. For this reason the Conservation Officer objected to the application.

The Case Officer’s Report recommended that planning permission be refused as the proposal would have a detrimental impact on the Conservation Area.

Councillor Nigel Hewitt-Cooper was invited to speak as the Ward Member. He noted that this application had been presented to the Board as the applicant was a relative of a Planning Officer. He explained that the application was for the installation of a simple black flue, of the smallest possible diameter. He remarked that any argument that suggested the proposed flue would be unsightly could be equally applied to telegraph poles and plastic guttering. He noted that the property was in a Conservation Area, but was not itself listed and there was no intrinsic harm in this application. Mendip District Council 10 Planning Board Minutes

Councillor Nigel Hewitt-Cooper proposed that the application be approved contrary to Officer recommendations because the flue would preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.. The motion was seconded by Councillor Mike Pullin and carried with 12 votes for and one against and 1 abstention.

RESOLVED

That the application be approved contrary to the Officer’s recommendation because the flue would preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. That delegated authority be given to the Officer to agree conditions in consultation with the Ward Member.

DM05 2017/1779/VRC Pitchperfect Campsite, Sleight Farm to Bath Carlton Road, Woolverton Langford

The Officer’s Report stated that this application related to land and buildings at Pitchperfect Campsite which was situated within the open countryside on the outskirts of Woolverton.

Planning Permission had been previously been granted (2012/1645/FUL) for change of use of land from agriculture to a mixed use of campsite and equestrian use from Maundy Thursday to 31 October in any one year and equestrian and agricultural use outside of those dates; comprising a camping site for up to 45 pitches (39 tents, 6 yurts/pods), keeping of horses and erection of reception/office building, and temporary stationing of four portable WC/showers portakabins, and siting of a caravan for use as seasonal warden's accommodation; formation of new vehicular access and access tracks and formation of passing bay on the highway.

The temporary structures on site were later replaced by a permanent timber building which included washing, shower and toilet facilities, shop/office/reception and seasonal warden’s accommodation under planning permission 2015/0237/FUL.

The above permissions were fully implemented and the applicant now sought permission to vary and remove several conditions to include that variation of Conditions 3 (dates of operation) and 7 (permitted use) and the removal of Conditions 6 (caravan on site), 8 (portakabins on site), 11 (use of ancillary building), 13 (yearly removal of caravan) and 14 (removal of portakabin) from application 2012/1645.

This was one of two applications submitted by the applicant to vary conditions on planning permissions at their camp site. See Mendip District Council 11 Planning Board Minutes

application DM06 2017/2277/VRC seeking to vary conditions on planning permission 2015/0237/FUL. The applications were considered separately.

Notwithstanding the proposal to vary or remove Conditions 3, 6, 7, 8, 11, 13 and 14, all 28 of the conditions attached to the original permission would need to be reassessed having regard for their relevance now that the permission had been implemented in full.

The key aspects of the change to the original permission were to extend the period of operation on site from Maundy Thursday to the 1 March and to allow camper vans on the site as the site was currently restricted to tents. Large motorhomes and towing caravans would still be restricted.

Lullington Parish Meeting recommended that the application be refused primarily because there was no justification for longer opening and concerns about increased traffic.

Tellisford Parish Meeting recommended that the application be refused because the site was not suitable for permanent residents.

The Council had received two letters of objection to the application. Grounds for objection included increased traffic, camper vans should not be allowed and because there was no justification for longer opening or to have warden’s accommodation on site.

The Officer’s Report concluded that the proposal for a campsite for tourism would support the rural economy and would result in economic benefits. The Officer’s Report also pointed out that, in reality, the applicant was seeking an extension to the camping season of between 3 to 6 weeks depending on when Maundy Thursday fell in the year. The report also set out that the existing condition did not prevent visitors arriving at the site in a large van provided they slept in a tent. The Officer recommended that the application for the variation and removal of conditions as proposed be granted.

Mr Gus Colquhoun was invited to speak in opposition to the application. He noted that the Officer Report stated the site was in use as a campsite year-round. However this was incorrect as the site was mixed camping and equestrian use for part of the year, and mixed equestrian and agricultural for the rest. He explained that this condition had been imposed because a permanent residence on the site had been deemed unsuitable at the time the original permission was granted. Mr Colquhoun remarked that the request for year-round occupation would Mendip District Council 12 Planning Board Minutes

undermine the original planning consent, adding that the harm caused would be obvious as a permanent dwelling in open countryside would be created. Mr Colquhoun noted that a similar application in had been refused at appeal by a Planning Inspector.

Parish Councillor Anthony Battersby was invited to speak. He noted that the initial proposal had stated that the applicants had no intention of admitting camper vans or caravans, and whilst the Highway Authority had not objected to this application, there had been accidents nearby. Cllr Battersby expressed concern that the presence of camper vans and larger vehicles on the local roads would exacerbate the risk of accidents. He further remarked that it was not possible to differentiate between camper vans and larger motor homes, as there was no recognised legal definition, and as such the proposed changes to planning conditions were unenforceable. Cllr Battersby commented that there was no pressing need to extend the scope of vehicles permitted to access the site as the business was already doing well, nor was there any pressing need to extend the operating dates of the business.

Mrs Emma Burton was invited to speak in support of the application. She noted that a number of the conditions placed on the original application had now been completed or superseded, and that the purpose of this new application was only to increase the site’s opening times by a few weeks in order to permit operation over the school holidays, and clarify a grey area regarding the types of vehicles that were permitted on site. She explained that there was still no intention to admit motor homes or caravans, only to swap a number of tent pitches for camper van pitches. Mrs Burton noted that while there had been accidents on the local roads, none had involved camp site guests in the five years that the business had been operating. She added that The County Highway Authority had raised no objections to the proposed change in conditions. Mrs Burton explained that under the current conditions, her family was permitted to live on site for eight months of the year, but had to move for the remaining four months. She added that her family had alternative accommodation when the original application was submitted, but this situation had now changed.

The Chair read a letter received from Councillor Linda Oliver, the Ward Member. Cllr Oliver objected to the application on the grounds that the proposal would cause harm to the character and appearance of the area that would not be outweighed by any perceived benefits.

Some Members remarked that this stretch of the A36 was very narrow and dangerous and increasing the number of drivers Mendip District Council 13 Planning Board Minutes

using the road who were unfamiliar with the area would only worsen these issues.

Some Members felt that the appeal refusal of a similar application in Stoke St Michael gave a good indication of how this application should be approached.

In response to questions from Members, the Planning Officer explained that it would be difficult to vary the condition to permit occupation of the site from the start of the school holiday, as the exact date varied throughout the country.

In response to further questions from Members, the Planning Officer explained that, at present, there was nothing to stop guests driving to the site in a long-wheelbase van, provided they did not sleep in it and pitched a tent instead.

Members suggested imposing a limit on the size of permitted camper vans as part of Condition 5 f and noted that Condition 8 would need to be carefully worded in order to prevent continued occupation of the site in the event that the campsite ceased operation.

Some Members remarked that this was a successful business that brought prosperity to the area and the existing conditions only served to restrict further development of the project. Members further remarked that this application should be considered on its own merits, and because the on-site accommodation had already been built, there was no practical difference between the eight months when the site was open, and the four months when it was closed.

The Principal Planner noted that it would be possible to impose a condition restricting the size of vehicles permitted to access the site.

A number of Members congratulated the applicants on the growth of their business and remarked that the benefit to the District of increased tourist accommodation would outweigh the visual impact of the business operating earlier in the year, while there were no leaves on the site’s trees. Some Members expressed concerns regarding the capacity of the local roads to accommodate larger camper vans and motor homes and reiterated their support for the suggested imposition of size restrictions.

In response to questions from Members, the Principal Planner explained that it would be possible to restrict the number of camper vans on site per night.

Mendip District Council 14 Planning Board Minutes

Councillor Nigel Woollcombe-Adams proposed that the application be approved, with Condition 3 as set out in the Officer’s recommendation to be amended to restrict the number of camper vans permitted on site to a maximum of five at any one time. The motion was seconded by Councillor Mike Pullin, and carried with nine votes for and three against.

RESOLVED

That the application be approved, with Condition 3 to be amended to restrict the number of camper vans permitted on site to a maximum of five at any one time.

DM06 2017/2277/VRC Pitchperfect Campsite, Sleight Farm to Bath Carlton Road, Woolverton Langford

The Officer’s Report stated this application related to land and buildings at Pitchperfect Campsite which was situated within the open countryside on the outskirts of Woolverton.

Planning permission had been granted under ref: 2015/0237/FUL for the erection of permanent washing, shower and toilets facilities building, shop/office/reception and seasonal warden’s accommodation.

The above permission had been fully implemented and the applicant now sought permission to vary and remove several conditions to include variation of Condition 3 (date of operation) and 5 (use of office accommodation) and to remove Condition 6 (removal of cabin and mobile home) from permission 2015/0237FUL. This was one of two applications submitted by the applicant to vary conditions on planning permissions at their camp site. See application DM05 2017/2276/VRC seeking to vary conditions on planning permission 2012/1645. The applications were considered separately.

Notwithstanding the proposal to vary or remove Conditions 3, 5 and 6, all eight of the conditions attached to the original permission will need to be reassessed having regard for their relevance now that the permission has been implemented in full.

Lullington Parish Meeting recommended that the application be refused primarily because there was no justification for longer opening or to have warden’s accommodation on site.

Tellisford Parish Meeting recommended that the application be refused because the site was not suitable for permanent residents.

Mendip District Council 15 Planning Board Minutes

The Council had received two letters of objection to the application. Grounds for objection included increased traffic, and because there was no justification for longer opening or to have warden’s accommodation on site.

The Officer’s Report concluded that the proposal was adequately justified and the proposed removal of the condition limiting occupancy of the staff accommodation was reasonable. Further, the proposal, by reason of its design, scale and layout would be in keeping with its surroundings and would safeguard the amenities of neighbouring residents and adjoining land users. It was therefore recommended that the application for variation and removal of conditions be approved.

Members remarked that if the extended dates for the operation of the camp site had been extended then the dates for the operation of the shop and facilities should follow. Councillor Ros Wyke proposed that variation of Condition 3 be approved, but variation of Condition 5 be refused as it was not necessary for staff to live on-site year round particularly when the campsite was not in operation.

A motion to approve variation of Condition 3 and refuse variation of Condition 5 was raised by Councillor Ros Wyke, seconded by Councillor Nigel Woollcombe-Adams and lost with four votes for and eight against.

Some Members considered that is was unreasonable to require the site operator to move out of the existing permanent dwelling so it was vacant during the winter months and that the operator would then need to travel to the site to carry out checks and maintenance. Some Members also considered that the wording of Condition 4 as recommended by the Officer should be made more robust.

It was proposed by Councillor Clive Mockford that the application be approved in line with the Officer recommendation, subject to Condition 4 as recommended by the Officer being revised to read.

‘The occupation of the dwelling shall be limited to a person (s) solely or mainly employed at the campsite or a widow or widower of such a person, and to any resident dependents.’

The motion was seconded by Councillor Mike Pullin and carried with nine votes for and three against.

RESOLVED

Mendip District Council 16 Planning Board Minutes

That the application be approved in line with the Officer recommendation, subject to the recommended Condition 4 being revised such as to read;

‘The occupation of the dwelling shall be limited to a person (s) solely or mainly employed at the campsite or a widow or widower of such a person, and to any resident dependents.’

Councillor Hooton left the meeting at 8:45

DM07 2017/1779/FUL Land at Manor Farm, Piltown, Robert Brigden The Officer’s Report stated that this application sought planning permission for the erection of a detached, single-storey, 3-bed dwelling, to be accompanied by a detached garage, parking and manoeuvring area, along with front and rear gardens. A new hedgerow would be planted along the western, and part of the northern, boundaries. A pole associated with an electricity line would be relocated.

The site was in open countryside.

West Pennard Parish Council recommended that the application be approved.

The Officer’s Report concluded the proposal was for the creation of new residential development outside Development Limits. The proposal would foster growth in the need to travel and did not meet any of the exceptional circumstances described in policy. Also, the proposal would be located beyond the village envelope of West Pennard and in close proximity to dwellings that had a traditional character. Given its siting, scale, and design, it was considered that the proposal would not be in keeping with the traditional character of other, existing dwellings in this part of West Pennard, and that it would have an urbanising and harmful effect on the open character of the countryside. It was therefore recommended that the application be refused.

Mr Sam Clough was invited to speak in support of the application. Mr Clough explained that this application had been recommended for refusal as the site lay outside of development limits. However, provision of this additional dwelling would help the Council to achieve its target for new homes. He noted that there were no fully wheelchair accessible properties in the village at the time the application was submitted. Mr Clough explained that the applicant had lived in the community for many years, and wished to stay in the village despite declining health. He remarked that the design was sympathetic to the local area, and would have no adverse impact upon its character.

Mendip District Council 17 Planning Board Minutes

Councillor John Greenhalgh was invited to speak as the Ward Member. He explained that the applicant had moved to West Pennard 30 years ago but now required wheelchair accessible accommodation due to ill health. Cllr Greenhalgh noted that the proposed site was on low-grade agricultural land, and contrary to the Officer report’s assertion that the development would be harmful to the open character of the countryside, the proposed dwelling would be built from reclaimed stone and situated between two existing buildings. Consequently, the proposal would cause no visual intrusion. The Councillor noted that there had been no objections from local residents, and the application was supported by both residents and the Parish Council.

The Chair remarked that it was unusual for a proposed development in West Pennard to have the full support of the local community. He noted that the village was in dire need of smaller houses suitable for families and older people who wished to remain in the village. Noting that the population was aging across the County the Chair remarked that this type of smaller unit allowed people to remain living within their communities while receiving the care that they needed. He further remarked that any harm caused by the proposed dwelling’s location outside of development limits would be offset by the benefits provided to the community.

Some Members remarked that the development was for a single dwelling and that multiple units of this type could potentially be built on this site.

Some Members noted that the Board had rejected similar applications for new-build dwellings outside of development limits in the past, and approving the scheme may set an undesirable precedent.

Some Members remarked that self-contained bungalows of this type should be built in clusters on sites like this. Members further noted that the road was very busy and there were no shops or amenities nearby.

Members remarked that these sorts of proposals should be allowed by changing policy rather than overturning Officer recommendations. While they recognised the need for this type of property and sympathised with the applicant, Members felt that it was difficult to support this application.

In response to questions from Members, the Principal Planner explained that the site was approximately 0.6 miles outside of the development limit.

Mendip District Council 18 Planning Board Minutes

It was proposed by Councillor Mike Pullin and seconded by Councillor Rachel Carter that the application be refused in line with Officer recommendation. The motion was carried with ten votes for and three against.

RESOLVED

That the application be refused as recommended.

DM08 2017/1998/FUL The Walled Garden, Little Pennard Lane, Robert Brigden

The Officer’s Report stated that this application sought planning permission for the erection of a detached, two-storey, 4-bed dwelling within the north-western part of the site and would include a curtilage area comprised of gardens and parking spaces. According to the submitted information, the proposed curtilage area would occupy the western half of the site area. The existing nursery activities would continue in the eastern half of the site. The proposed dwelling would be a flat-roofed structure with a modern design, clad in a mixture of timber, render and full-height glazing. The ground floor would have an extensive frontage, around 32m in width, with a smaller first-floor element located towards the eastern side of the proposal.

East Pennard Parish Council had no objections to the application.

The Council’s Conservation officer objected to the application because of the harm the proposal would cause to the character of the historic estate and the setting of the listed walled garden.

The Officer’s Report concluded that the case made in favour of a new and permanent rural worker's dwelling, to support a rural enterprise, was not sufficiently convincing in this case. It had not been demonstrated that the dwelling and its location were essential to support or sustain the functioning of an enterprise.

Further, the proposal would not preserve or enhance the setting of the East Pennard Conservation Area, the Grade II listed Pennard House, or the listed garden walls surrounding the site. It was considered that less than substantial harm would be caused to the significance of the setting of Pennard House and the Conservation Area and that substantial harm would be caused to the setting of the listed wall. There were no public benefits in this case to justify the identified harm.

Given the proposal's siting within the historic Walled Garden, its excessive scale, along with its modern, boxy form and appearance, it was considered that it would have an urbanising Mendip District Council 19 Planning Board Minutes

effect in the countryside and would be unacceptably harmful to the character of the area. It was therefore recommended that the application be refused.

Mr Harry Dearden was invited to speak in support of the application. He explained that there was an essential need for a dwelling to support the business at Pennard House. Mr Dearden explained that Pennard House had been in his family for generations and he had set up a wedding business in order to reinvest in the house, a business which now employed 15 people. Mr Dearden remarked that it was essential to have staff permanently for both health and safety and business operation reasons. He noted that the proposed dwelling was predominantly single storey and sat below the height of the listed wall and only a small part of the building would be visible from the road. Mr Dearden explained that the proposed dwelling would allow the estate to move forward in a modern way and without it the future of the estate would be in doubt.

Councillor John Greenhalgh was invited to speak as the Ward Member. He remarked that several issues raised in the Officer’s report were not relevant, notably existing planning permissions and the financial circumstances of the business. He further remarked that it was essential for the continued operation of the business that a member of staff be available on site at all times and planning should not present a barrier to the expansion or operation of business. Cllr Greenhalgh explained that the owners needed to move out of Pennard House to allow use of the house by guests and this expansion was necessary to conserve Pennard House and ensure continued use of the building. He added that the proposed design was both proportionate and sustainable and while it was outside of development limits it was situated within the curtilage of Pennard House. Cllr Greenhalgh further noted that the proposal would not result in significant harm to the neighbouring business, as it was currently reducing the size of its operation.

Members noted that there were in excess of 50 weddings booked at Pennard House in 2018. Members further remarked that customers of the wedding business expected exclusive use of the house and to stay on site and consequently it was essential to have staff available to look after them. Members added that other local businesses would benefit from the growth of the business and it was important to keep estates like Pennard House together.

Some Members noted the objections raised to the proposal by those consulted and remarked that the proposed dwelling had no architectural merit.

Mendip District Council 20 Planning Board Minutes

Some Members remarked that while it was important to support this local business, they did not support the design.

Some Members felt that the design of the house was a subjective issue and every other reason supported approval.

Some Members remarked that this application should be judged based on the suitability of its location and in this case there was a need for the proposed dwelling. Members noted that Pennard House was an important business within the District, and should be supported. Members further remarked that the application was in line with Local Plan policy DP13 and added that should the application be refused, it should be made clear to the applicants that the proposal was suitable in principle with the only issues being related to design.

Members expressed concerns about ignoring the conservation advice and policy in the NPPF, as the Officer Report suggested that the proposal would cause substantial harm to the listed wall.

The Principal Planner noted that the Board had a legal duty to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the listed building or its setting and this statutory duty had to be weighed up against the public benefits of approval.

Councillor Nigel Woollcombe-Adams proposed that the application be approved contrary to Officer recommendation on the grounds that the proposal met the requirements of Policy DP13, would preserve the settings of the East Pennard Conservation Area and the Grade II listed Pennard House and the listed garden walls surrounding the site would not be harmed, and the development would not have an urbanising effect or be unacceptably harmful to the area. The motion was seconded by Councillor Des Harris and lost with five votes for and six against.

It was proposed by Councillor Clive Mockford that the application be refused in line with Officer recommendations. The motion was seconded by Councillor Edward Drewe.

Councillor Mike Pullin proposed an amendment to this motion to refuse the application based only on the grounds of recommended refusal reasons two and three as set out in the Officer’s report. The motion was seconded by Councillor Ros Wyke and the amendment was carried with nine votes for and one against.

The substantive motion to refuse the application based only on reasons two and three as set out in the Officer’s report was carried with nine votes for and one against. Mendip District Council 21 Planning Board Minutes

RESOLVED

That the application be refused in accordance with recommended refusal reasons two and three as set out in the Officer’s report.

DM09 2017/2567/FUL The Cyder Barn, Woodlands Road to Dan Foster Stockbridge Lane, West Pennard

The Officer’s Report stated that this application sought planning permission for the siting of 3 mobile homes for staff use. The mobile homes would be sited on land to the north of the car- parking area serving the care home. The mobile homes would be located outside development limits.

West Pennard Parish Council had no objections to the application.

The Officer’s Report concluded that the applicant had failed to satisfactorily demonstrate that the three dwellings proposed were essential to support or sustain the functioning of an enterprise or that there was a need for permanent occupation which related to three full-time workers (or those primarily employed by the business). Furthermore, the applicant had failed to demonstrate that all alternative accommodation options had been explored and that no satisfactory alternative means of providing accommodation had been identified. The applicant had also failed to provide business accounts for the preceding 3 years, which indicate that at least one of those years had been profitable and that the enterprise was currently financially sound and had clear prospects of remaining so.

It was therefore recommended that the application be refused.

Mr John Wratton was invited to speak in support of the application. He explained that The Cyder Barn provided 40 beds, accommodating residents with a range of care needs. He noted that while the site was outside of development limits Local Plan Policy DP13 applied which permitted the provision of accommodation for rural workers. Mr Wratton explained that the local bus service did not operate seven days per week and the beginning and end of staff shifts did not coincide with the available bus services. He added that there was no suitable accommodation for staff within the village and consequently rooms were being used for staff that were needed for residents.

Councillor John Greenhalgh was invited to speak as the Ward Member. He explained that The Cyder Barn had been built up gradually over the last 25 years and was a high quality care Mendip District Council 22 Planning Board Minutes

provider. He added that its staff had a well-deserved reputation and it was exactly the type of business that the Council should be supporting. Cllr Greenhalgh explained that the business operated 24 hours per day, and staff travelled in to work from all over the District. As such, three rooms were currently used for staff accommodation on an ad-hoc basis and provision of three mobile homes would allow the business to operate at full capacity. The Councillor noted that the application satisfied Development Plan Policy DP13, would not affect its neighbours’ amenity and had received no objection from the Highways Authority. While the site was outside of development limits, it was well within the boundary of the care home and would not have an urbanising effect. Cllr Greenhalgh highlighted the strong local and Parish Council support for the application and the fact that the business employed 30 people.

During the discussion that followed, Members expressed their support for the Ward Member’s comments. Members remarked that the care industry in the County needed support and noted that this application would directly provide additional beds for residential care.

The Chair noted that the Cyder Barn was a thriving business that had been in operation since 1991 and the additional accommodation provided by this application was absolutely essential given the County’s aging population.

It was proposed by Councillor Ros Wyke that the application be approved contrary to Officer recommendations on the grounds that the application was in accordance with Development Policy DP13 and the application would have no harmful urbanising effect on the area. The motion was seconded by Councillor Mike Pullin and carried unanimously.

RESOLVED

That the application be approved contrary to Officer recommendation on the grounds that the application was in accordance with Development Policy DP13 and there was an essential need for the accommodation and the application would have no harmful urbanising effect on the area. That delegated authority be granted to Officers to agree conditions in consultation with the Ward Member.

DM10 2017/2220/FUL Northover Manor House, Beckery, Dan Foster

The Officer’s Report stated that this application sought planning permission for or a ‘Proposed new whole life dwelling incorporating full disabled access’. Mendip District Council 23 Planning Board Minutes

The was within an Area of High Archaeological Potential, Northover House to the north- west of the application site was Grade II Listed and No. 3 Northover which was to the north-east was also Grade II. The site was within the sewage treatment ‘buffer zone’ and was also shown as being within Flood Zone 3.

Glastonbury Town Council recommended that the application be approved as the proposed development was for a specific need. They understood the house would be built to Stage 3 disability specification. Any further development should be restricted and the orchard should be protected.

The Council’s Conservation Officer objected to the application because the proposal was cause "less than substantial harm" to the designated heritage asset of Northover Manor House caused by the effect on its setting by the new building in this location and of the proposed design.

The Officer’s Report concluded that 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 character here. Further, the proposed development by virtue of the proposed design of the dwelling, including the large expanse of roof, would be a prominent development that would not respond to any local vernacular and would be out-of-keeping with the area. As such the development would give rise to less than substantial harm to the setting of the Grade II Listed building (Northover Manor House) and the public benefits of the development would not outweigh the less than substantial harm identified to the heritage asset.

It was therefore recommended that the application be refused.

Mr Lee Wright was invited to speak in support of the application. He explained that the applicant’s son was registered disabled and the proposed dwelling would allow him independence while still receiving support and care from his family. Mr Wright explained that the proposal met the highest Building Regulation category for disabled access and that this access could be secured in perpetuity by condition. He noted that this type of dwelling was supported by planning policies and satisfied the test set out in the Local Plan as there was no similarly suitable accommodation in Glastonbury.

Councillor Steve Henderson was invited to speak as the Ward Member. He explained that the family home was a rambling property with many stairs, which posed a problem to the applicant’s son whose leg had been amputated due to diabetes. Cllr Henderson explained that the proposed development would Mendip District Council 24 Planning Board Minutes

allow the applicant’s son to live in an environment that met his needs. The Councillor added that the application was in line with planning policy and supported by the Town Council and the Local Plan, with no objections raised by Highways or the Environment Agency.

During the discussion that followed, Members remarked that personal circumstances of applicants should not be taken into account in almost all cases. However this application was an exception. Members noted that the design of the building was sympathetic to the area and old maps indicated substantial development along Street Road which demonstrated that there had been prior building in the locality.

Some Members supported the principle of the application, but objected to the design.

It was proposed by Councillor Clive Mockford that the application be refused based on reason two as set out in the Officer’s recommendations. The proposal was not seconded.

Members remarked that the proposed dwelling was purpose- designed for the specific needs of the applicant’s son and its design was a reflection of the required specification.

It was proposed Councillor Mike Pullin that the application be approved contrary to Officer recommendations on the grounds that the development would not have an unjustified urbanising effect on the character of the area and would not be out of keeping with the local design vernacular or cause harm to the setting of the adjacent Grade II listed buildings. Conditions would be determined in conjunction with the Ward Member. The motion was seconded by Councillor Danny Unwin and carried with nine votes for and two against.

RESOLVED

That the application be approved contrary to Officer recommendations on the grounds that the development would not have an unjustified urbanising effect on the character of the area, and would not be out of keeping with the local design vernacular or cause harm to the setting of the adjacent Grade II listed buildings. That delegated authority be granted to Officers to agree conditions in consultation with the Ward Member.

8 Urgent Business

None.

The meeting finished at approximately 11.15 pm. Mendip District Council 25 Planning Board Minutes