Planning Board

DATE: 19th September 2018 NOTES:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Planning Board Report 19th September 2018 Page 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Planning Board - 19th September 2018

Item Page Application Ward/Site Case Officer Number DM01 4 2017/3154/FUL Goods Yard, The Mr Carlton Langford Retreat, Frome, Somerset

Frome Keyford DM02 21 2015/1948/FUL The Academy, 7 Market Mrs Kelly Pritchard Place, Shepton Mallet, Somerset, BA4 5AZ

Shepton East DM03 25 2017/3272/VRC 44 Allyn Saxon Drive, Mr James U'Dell Shepton Mallet, BA4 5QH

Shepton East DM04 34 2017/2275/FUL Land At Broom Close Mrs Kelly Pritchard Corner, Roemead Road, Binegar, BA3 4UL,

St Cuthbert Out North DM05 39 2018/1260/FUL Foxridge, Launcherley Mrs Kelly Pritchard Lane, North Wootton, Shepton Mallet, Somerset, BA4 4AB

Croscombe And Pilton DM06 45 2018/0163/VRC Little Rye Orchard, Mr Charlie Bladon Cotty Lane, Henton, Wells, Somerset, BA5 1PD

Wookey And St Cuthbert Out West DM07 48 2018/1005/HSE Old Manor House , Ham Mr Rob Palmer Lane, Shepton Mallet, BA4 5JR

Shepton West DM08 56 2018/1006/LBC Old Manor House , Ham Mr Rob Palmer Lane, Shepton Mallet, BA4 5JR

Shepton West

Planning Board Report 19th September 2018 Page 2

DM09 61 2018/1577/RE4 Ringolds Way Play Miss Lynsey Bradshaw Area, Ringolds Way, Street, Somerset, BA16 0RF

Street West

Planning Board Report 19th September 2018 Page 3

Agenda Item No. DM01

Case Officer Mr Carlton Langford

Site Goods Yard The Retreat Frome Somerset

Application Number 2017/3154/FUL

Date Received 29th November 2017

Applicant/ Mr & Mrs G Moore Organisation Application Type Full Application

Proposal Demolition of existing workshop and other redundant buildings and structures on site; and erection of 3 No. live/work units (plots 1-3) and 1 No. dwellings (plot 4)and associated highway and landscaping works (Re-submission of 2017/2621/FUL)

Ward Frome Keyford

Parish Frome Town Council

Planning Board 19th Sept 2018

This application is being brought back to the Planning Board following a decision by the Board on the 20th June 2018 to defer the application for the following reason –

That the application be deferred in order for there to be further consideration by the Fire Safety Officer about whether there would be adequate access to the site by emergency services. The application should return to the Planning Board no later than September 2018.

The applicant in response to this decision submitted additional drawings by way of a Transport Tracking Note and revisions to the proposed Crescent House and their reason are explained below –

• Transport Technical Note: the note, which has been prepared by our Transport sub-consultant, demonstrates that the existing access is suitable to accommodate a Fire Tender. The appendices includes: (i) a track plot that confirms that the revised layout will facilitate on site turning, which is not currently possible, as well as providing clearer vehicular access to The Mill (a further betterment); (ii) evidence of a fire tender attending a fire at The Mill in the 1990s – NB. there has been material change the geometry of the site access since this time; and (iii) a sequence of current photographs with check measurements, which along with the track plot, conclusively demonstrates that application benefits from Fire Tender access.

Planning Board Report 19th September 2018 Page 4

• Revision to the proposed Crescent House (Plot 4): noting the comments raised by one of the Planning Board members in respect of the potential for light spill towards the river corridor from the Crescent House, the application drawings have been revised to accommodate integrated louvres that will provide shading and will also restrict light emissions from internal lighting.

Having regard for this additional information and the instructions of the Planning Board further consultations were carried out with Somerset County Council Highways, Building Control and The Devon and Somerset Fire Rescue Service.

Somerset County Council response –

No objections, the scheme is not dissimilar to that previously consulted on, the scheme raises no highway safety concerns, and conditions as previously suggested should as before be imposed in the interests of highway safety.

The Devon and Somerset Fire Rescue Service response -

The full response received by the Fire Officer can be found on the Council’s website www.mendip.gov.uk . In summary their response is merely a list of relevant legislation which needs to be taken into consideration and does not relate specifically to the site in question and this is primarily because they usually respond to an application for Building Regulations rather than Planning Permission where there are drawings which relate specifically to fire mitigation measures and which are not requires for validation purposes on an application for planning permission.

The Officer does however provide some information relating to Access and fire vehicles in their service –

Please note that Table 20 of Approved Document B provides guidance on “Typical fire and rescue service vehicles” and indicates that the minimum carrying capacity for carriageways should be either 12.5 tonnes or 17 tonnes depending on the type of access (pump or high reach) required. Note 1 in Table 20 identifies that not all fire appliances are standardised. For your information, Devon & Somerset Fire & Rescue Service has within its fleet fire appliances (pumps) with a weight of 15 tonnes and aerial (high reach) appliances with a weight of 26 tonnes. In addition our largest appliance has dimensions of 10.0m (l), 2.5m (w), 3.6m (h) and a turning circle (wall to wall) of 14.2m. Smaller pumping appliances are less long and heavy but have a wider turning circle at 21.9m. Having regard for this information in comparison with that submitted with the application (Transport Technical Note), it is clear that ‘The Retreat’ is an access road sufficiently wide enough to accommodate a standard fire appliance.

Building Control response -

Building control were asked to review the application in relation to fire safety and access to the site by fire vehicles and they have responded as follows –

I have looked at the details you forwarded for the above subject from a Building Control Point of view. The full plans application to Building Control will be checked

Planning Board Report 19th September 2018 Page 5 and any matters arising will be forwarded to the Agent/owner in the form of a points letter, should there be issues with say; means of escape, access for the Fire Service; alternative measures/design can be introduced to overcome these points.

In conclusion, the applicant has provided additional information which clearly demonstrates that at the very best, depending on the type of fire appliance attends a fire at the site, a fire appliance could attend an emergency at the proposed development site without restriction and at the very worst could get within 45m of the proposed development site which is also acceptable under legislation (Manual For Streets and Building Regulations).

The responses from both the Fire Officer and Building Control would suggest that with regard to fire safety at the proposed development, there is always a technical solution to achieving this and whilst it is disappointing that the Fire Office was not able to provide more of a definitive response for the Planning Board, it is understandable that at the Planning Application stage of the procurement of a development there is not the necessary information available to them or Building Control within the application to provide a conclusive response.

Having regard for the lack of any negative responses from County Highways, The Fire Officer and Building Control and that the applicant has provided the necessary information to conclusively demonstrates that vehicles are in a position to attend emergencies at the proposed development site, it is recommended that this application be approved in accordance with the case officer’s recommendation.

Having regard for the changes proposed to the Crescent House by installing integrated louvres that will provide shading and will also restrict light emissions from internal lighting. Whilst not a reason for the application being deferred by the Board, the changes are welcomed and do not adversely affect the original scheme in terms of its design or amenity.

Original Case Officer’s report as presented to the Planning board on the 20th June 2018.

Description of Site, Proposal and Constraints:

This application relates to land and buildings at the retreat, within the development limits of Frome. The site is adjacent to the river Frome within 18m river buffer and within flood zone 2/3. A small part of the site is also within the Frome Conservation Area (Access).

The applicant seeks planning permission for the part demolition of some of the buildings on site and for the erection of 3 new dwellings and the conversion and extension/alteration of the remaining building to a single dwellinghouse. The scheme will bring forward 3 number live/work dwellings and a single dwellinghouse and provide off-street parking and landscaping.

Relevant History:

048552/A – Planning permissions for B1 Light Industrial use 1972 048552/001 – Planning permission for an extension to B8 Gas Depot 1981.

Planning Board Report 19th September 2018 Page 6

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

Ward Member: Objects to the scheme for the followimng reasons – 1. Loss of 2 workshop spaces. 2. Loss of River Amenity. 3. Highway safety - poor access tp the site due the the narrow nature of The Retreat. 4. Flooding. The proposed crescent shaped building according to plan is 1.5m above the level of the river which has flooded 3 or 4 times in the last 3 years.

Town Council: Object for the following reasons – • Highway safety concerns having regard for the narrow width of the access road (The Retreat) and at the junction where the Retreat meets Wallbridge Road. • The scheme provides no access to the river or improvew the river corridor environment. • No marketing has been carried out to secure the continued use of the current buildingings. • The proposed live/work units are unlikely to provide the type of employment accommodation the town requires (larger units) • The work units will be wholly relient on the occupiers of the dwellings wanting to operate a business from their premises and not necessarally creating equivilant employment as required by policy DP20 of the Local Plan.

Highways Development Officer: No objections subject to the imposition of standard highway safety condition that the scheme be built in accordance with the approved plans and parking as proposed made available prior to occupation and thereafter maintained.

Land Contamination: No objections subject to the imposition of standard conditions to protect the end users of the accommodation from potential land contamination, together with those to control waters, property and ecology systems and to ensure the development can be carried out safety without unacceptable risk to workers, neighbours ans other offsite receptors.

Lead Local Flood Authority – No objections subject to he imposition of a standard land drainage condition.

Environment Agency: No objections provided the scheme is built out in accordance with the approved flood risk assessment and all mitigation measures implemented. Also suggest the imposition of standard conditions to protect the watrer environment from pollution.

Land Drainage Engineer: No objections, using the squential appraoch all the proposed buildings will be in flood zone 1 where vulnerable uses are acceptble. Suggest the imposition of a land drainage condition to prevent increased risk of flooding to the development, to improve and protect water quality and to improve habitat and amenity.

Frome Civic Society: Object- replacement work units are not of a type or size required in Frome.

Planning Board Report 19th September 2018 Page 7

Conservation Officer: No objections.

County Ecologist: No objections subject to the imposition of standard ecology conditions.

South West Heritage Trust: No archeological objections.

Local Representations: 24 letters of objection have been received raising the following concerns/issues – • Highway safety - The Retreat is a narrow lane - The junction between The Retreat and Wallbridge Road is poor - There are always cars parked on The Retreat further restricting the width of the road especially for larger vehicles such as emergency vehicles. - There is no pedesrian footpath proposed - There is no turning for larger vehicles at the site. - The Retreat cannot sustain the nature and number of vehicles required to develop the site. • Loss of employment land • No marketing exercise carried out to secure the future use of the employment land nad buildings. • Loss of important studio accommodation • The proposed workshops are not large enough and significantly smaller than the units which will be lost. • Access to the river bank will be lost. • The development does not take into consideration access to the river corridor. • Development of a greenfield site (Cresent House) • Noise from the development site on neighbouring amenity. • Development within a flood zone. • Loss of a wildlife habitat.

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

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

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

The Council’s Development Plan comprises:

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

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

• CP1, CP2 and CP6 – Core principles

Planning Board Report 19th September 2018 Page 8

• DP1, DP3, DP4, DP5, DP7, DP8, DP9, DP10, DP20 and DP23 – Development management policy

The following policies of the Frome Neighbourhood Plan are relevant to the determination of this application:

• H2, BE1, POS1

Other possible Relevant Considerations (without limitation):

• National Planning Policy Framework • National Planning Practice Guidance • The Countywide Parking Strategy (2013) • Frome Design Statement

Assessment of relevant issues

Principle of the Development:

The application site is situated within the development limits of Frome where there is a presumption in favour of development. The site is partially a brownfield site currently supporting employment uses comprising 144sqm of floor space within 2 units and it is believed 2 persons work from the premises. Some of the land to the south of the site is partly greenfield land (not previously developed).

Whilst the applicant considers the existing uses on site to be B2 General Industrial, Council records indicate that the last lawful use was a depot for the storage and distribution of gas bottles and since permission was allowed for this B8 use in 1981 there have been no other lawful uses recorded at the site.

Policies CP1 and CP2 of the LP seek to deliver sustainable development within the District’s larger settlements such as Frome, and whilst the application site might not be an allocated housing site within the Local Plan, it is nevertheless a windfall site within the development limits of Frome and therefore a sustainable location for further residential development. Policy DP20 of the Local Plan (Reuse of employment sites) seeks to protect employment land from non-B Class uses such as residential development. However, the scheme brings forward a mixed–use development providing 3no live/work units retaining an employment use on the site. The 3no live/work units have the potential of providing additional employment on the site, an increase from the 2 persons currently employed on site to 3 persons. As such, the scheme will deliver more than comparable employment generation (based on the number of jobs created) in accordance with Policy DP20 of the LP.

Policy CP6 of the Local Plan and Policy POS1 of the Frome Neighbourhood Plan both seek to improve access, recreation, education and wildlife opportunities along the length of the River Frome and part of the application site will be within this area. These improvements will largely come from development contributions from major development within Frome and not from windfall sites and therefore it is not expected that the applicant would need to contribute in this instance.

However, any development along the banks of the River Frome should still take into consideration potential improvement to the River Frome Corridor. Policy CP6 is

Planning Board Report 19th September 2018 Page 9 aiming to keep the options open, so that a future scheme could be worked up to provide continuous access to the river from monies raised through off-site contributions from major developments. It’s not suggesting that developers alongside the river should provide a path as a condition of any development, unless there are other factors at work that make that an option i.e. the major development being developed includes river bank land. It’s more about making sure that a path could be created as part of any future scheme i.e. the river bank is not physically built on.

The plans indicate that the buildings are well set back from the river bank, leaving room for a possible path should a scheme in the future be brought forward for improvement to this part of the river bank. If the development were to be acceptable, it would be necessary to ensure no further development such as outbuilding be erected between the dwellinghouse and the river which can be secured through condition.

Having regard for the above policies, the proposed development is acceptable in principle subject to the usual planning controls of design, amenity, highway safety and other matters such as flooding, ecology, land contamination and protecting the water environment.

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

The scheme is essentially 3 separate developments, the conversion and extension of an existing workshop building creating a single live/work unit, the erection of a pair of semi-detached live/work units and the erection of a detached dwelling by the river.

The proposed conversion and new semi-detached units all take their design principles from the site’s industrial heritage bringing forward very simple buildings constructed from a mix of external materials such as local natural stone, render and timber with slate roofs. Their general design and appearance will make a positive contribution to maintaining local identity and will preserve the character of the adjacent conservation area. Whilst the semi-detached units have more modern rear extensions with flat roofs, these again are considered to be in keeping with the character of the area and will not harm the character of the Conservation Area.

The single dwelling to the rear of the site is for a contemporary single storey design with a flat roof but again using local materials including natural stone and timber cladding. The general design and appearance of the scheme within the context and setting of the River Frome is considered acceptable and, sited to the rear of the site away from the Conservation Area, will not harm the character or setting of the heritage asset.

There is also a proposal for a small studio building within the grounds of the single dwellinghouse and for the erection of a carport structure to serve the developments. Both buildings are acceptable in terms of their design and appearance preserving and maintaining local identity and the character of the adjacent Conservation Area.

Planning Board Report 19th September 2018 Page 10

Impact on Residential Amenity:

The siting and orientation of the developments raise no adverse amenity issues of overlooking or overshadowing which would warrant the application’s refusal. Each of the units would be afforded a pleasant living environment with each unit having a garden. There are no neighbouring land uses which would impact on the amenity of the end users of the accommodation or vice versa.

Whilst it is appreciated that construction works will bring about a degree of noise and disturbance for neighbouring residents, this is not itself a reason for refusal. It would be expected that the developer would adopt best practices where the amenity of neighbouring residents would be taken into consideration i.e. limiting working hours etc.

Assessment of Highway Issues:

The access to the site is the junction between ‘The Retreat’ and Wallbridge Road as ‘The Retreat’ is a private road where the Highway Authority has no control. In assessing the scheme in terms of highway safety it is the access onto Wallbridge road which is being considered and not ‘The Retreat’ itself which is essentially a driveway.

The application was accompanied by a Transport Statement which concluded that whilst the proposed development will result in a slight increase in the number of trip movements over the existing as a sole employment site, this increase will have a negligible impact upon traffic flow along the Wallbridge Road. The Somerset Highway surveyor concurred with the findings within the Transport Statement and raised no highway safety objections to the scheme.

The scheme brings forward 16 off-street parking spaces (4 spaces per unit) which meets with parking standards within The Countywide Parking Strategy (2013). It is recommended that the proposed parking is provided prior to occupation and thereafter maintained.

Having regard for the above, the proposed scheme satisfies policies DP9 and DP10 of the Local Plan in that there are no highway safety concerns which would warrant the application’s refusal and sufficient off-street parking has been provided.

Whilst concerns have been raised about the narrow nature of ‘The Retreat’ restricting access to emergency vehicles, this is an existing situation on private land and the redevelopment of the site will not in terms of its layout exacerbate the situation. Furthermore, the County Highway Authority have concluded that the width of ‘The Retreat’ is currently in excess of the 2.75m required by the Manual for Streets for manoeuvrability by larger vehicles such as emergency vehicles.

Contaminated Land:

The application included a Phase 1 Assessment of Land Quality, the conclusions of which were that the potential risk from ground contamination could be significant and should be addressed by an appropriately designed intrusive ground investigation. This does not preclude the development of the site merely that all necessary investigation work needs to be carried out and where necessary appropriate

Planning Board Report 19th September 2018 Page 11 mitigation measures put in place to ensure the end users of the accommodation are protected from pollution, all of which can be managed through condition.

The proposed scheme will minimise pollution on the site and ensure the end users of the accommodation a pleasant living environment in accordance with Policy DP8 of the LP.

Flooding and the protection of the water environment:

The application is accompanied by a Flood Risk Assessment. The site is partially within Flood Zone 3, however the applicant has sited the development using the sequential approach meaning that no buildings are within this zone. Therefore, the development can be viewed as being within Flood Zone 1 where more vulnerable development such as dwellings are acceptable.

The site is a brownfield site, but the development is likely to increase overall runoff. The proposals, as set out in the flood risk assessment, for drainage are acceptable and provide sufficient storage to enable some betterment to the existing runoff. Further details will need to be provided for approval prior to construction which can be sought through condition (site specific details).

The Environment Agency has also commented on the application and whilst raising no objections, have suggested the imposition of conditions to ensure that the mitigation measures as set out within the Flood Risk Assessment are implemented in the interest of protecting the water environment.

Having regard for the above the scheme satisfies Policies DP8 and D23 of the Local Plan ensuring the end users of the development are safeguarded from flooding and the scheme will minimise the pollution of the water environment.

Sustainability and Renewable Energy:

The scheme is sustainable in its location within Frome and has adopted design principle which contribute towards energy efficiency.

Ecology:

A Phase 1 Ecology Survey was carried out on the land and whilst this report has revealed that the site is rich with ecology there are no specific reasons as to why the development cannot proceed subject to the development being carried out in strict accordance with the recommendations set out within the Ecology survey and in accordance with the conditions suggested by the County Council Ecologist.

The proposed development satisfies the requirements of policies DP5 and DP6 of the Local Plan.

Trees:

A total of 9 individual trees and 3 small groups of trees will require removal in order to implement the development. None of the trees to be removed are of a high or moderate quality and their loss will not have a significant impact on the character of the area including the adjacent Conservation Area. It is proposed that new trees will

Planning Board Report 19th September 2018 Page 12 be planted to integrate and complement the proposed development and improve ecology on the site, the details of which can be secured through condition.

The scheme satisfies policies DP1, DP7 and DP4 of the Local Plan.

Refuse Collection:

Each of the units has an area allocated for refuse collection as indicated on plan.

Environmental Impact Assessment

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

Conclusion:

For the reasons that, the proposal accords with the Council's settlement strategy for the location of new development with the proposed live/work units providing comparable employment generation, the design, scale and layout would be in keeping with its surroundings, the character and appearance of the Conservation Area would be preserved and will safeguard the amenities of neighbouring residents and adjoining land users, the means of access and parking arrangements meet the required safety standards ensuring 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 and that the proposal makes adequate arrangements for the protection of biodiversity, flooding and will ensure the end users are safeguarded from land contamination, it is recommended that conditional planning permission be allowed.

Recommendation Approve.

Reason/s for Recommendation

1. The proposal accords with the Council's settlement strategy for the location of new development with the proposed live/work units providing comparable employment generation. 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 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 adequate 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, CP2 and CP3 (principle of development), DP1 (local identity), DP3 (heritage), DP5 (biodiversity), DP6 (bats), DP7 (design and amenity), DP9

Planning Board Report 19th September 2018 Page 13

(transport), DP10 (parking) and DP20 (reuse of employment sites) 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) Frome Neighbourhood Plan

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 AL(1)01 revJ, AL(1)03 revB, AL(1)04 revC, AL(1)05 revD, AL(1)06 revE, AL(1)07 revB. Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interest of proper planning.

3. The approved dwellings (plots 1-3) shall not be occupied until both the 'live' and 'work' elements have been completed in accordance with the approved drawings. The 'work' element shall thereafter be retained for the employment purposes and shall be used for no other purpose. The work unit and Living Areas shall not be occupied independently from each other. Reason: To provide employment provision within the site and to avoid the introduction of separate uses on the site.

4. The use of the Work units shall only be for the purposes of an office and/or workshop within the Use Class B1 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987, as amended, (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification). Reason: In the interests of the amenity of nearby dwellings.

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.

6. Notwithstanding the details submitted and having regard for the Arboricultural Impact Assessment, the development hereby approved shall not be occupied until a hard and soft landscape scheme has been implemented in accordance with details that have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall include details of the size, species and positions for new trees and plants, boundary treatments, surfacing materials (including roadways, drives, patios and paths) 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

Planning Board Report 19th September 2018 Page 14 next planting season either with the same tree/plant as has previously been approved, 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 ensure the provision of an appropriate landscape setting to the development.

7. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in full accordance with the recommendations of the approved Arboricultural Impact Assessment and Tree Protection Plan dated 13 Oct 2017. Reason: To safeguard the trees on and around the site that make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area.

8. The area allocated for parking on the submitted plan, Existing /Proposed Site Plan Dwg No : AL (1) 01 rev J , shall be provided prior to the first occupation of the development hereby approved and 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: To ensure that sufficient parking is provided to serve the approved development in the interests of highway safety.

9. Unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority, development other than that required to be carried out as part of an approved scheme of remediation must not commence until conditions 10 to 13 below have been complied with. If unexpected contamination is found after development has begun, development must be halted on that part of the site affected by the unexpected contamination to the extent specified by the Local Planning Authority in writing until condition 13 has been complied with in relation to that contamination. Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors.

10. An investigation and risk assessment, in addition to any assessment provided with the planning application, must be completed in accordance with a scheme to assess the nature and extent of any contamination on the site, whether or not it originates on the site. The contents of the scheme are subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. The investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken by competent persons and a written report of the findings must be produced. The written report is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. The report of the findings must include:  a survey of the extent, scale and nature of contamination;  an assessment of the potential risks to:  Human health,  Property (existing or proposed) including buildings, crops, livestock, pets, woodland and service lines and pipes, adjoining land, groundwater's and surface waters, ecological systems, archaeological sites and ancient monuments;  an appraisal of remedial options, and proposal of the preferred option(s). This must be conducted in accordance with DEFRA and the Environment Agency's 'Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, CLR 11'.

Planning Board Report 19th September 2018 Page 15

Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors.

11. A detailed remediation scheme to bring the site to a condition suitable for the intended use by removing unacceptable risks to human health, buildings and other property and the natural and historical environment must be prepared, and is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. The scheme must include all works to be undertaken, proposed remediation objectives and remediation criteria, timetable of works and site management procedures. The scheme must ensure that the site will not qualify as contaminated land under Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in relation to the intended use of the land after remediation (NPPF s.121). Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors.

12. The approved remediation scheme must be carried out in accordance with its terms prior to the commencement of development other than that required to carry out remediation, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Local Planning Authority must be given two weeks written notification of commencement of the remediation scheme works.

Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme and prior to occupation, a verification report (or validation report) that demonstrates the effectiveness of the remediation carried out must be produced, and is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors.

13. In the event that contamination is found at any time when carrying out the approved development that was not previously identified it must be reported in writing immediately to the Local Planning Authority. An investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken in accordance with the requirements of condition 10, and where remediation is necessary a remediation scheme must be prepared in accordance with the requirements of condition 11, which is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors.

14. The development permitted by this planning permission shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) FINAL by AW

Planning Board Report 19th September 2018 Page 16

Water Engineering dated 24-11-2017 and the mitigation measures detailed within the FRA, Finished Floor Levels must be no lower than 69.55metres Above Ordnance Datum and the mitigation measures shall be fully implemented prior to occupation as may subsequently be agreed, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To prevent pollution of the water environment.

15. No infiltration of surface water drainage into the ground is permitted other than in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority The details should demonstrate that there is no resultant unacceptable risk to controlled waters. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: Groundwater is likely to be at shallow depth and in continuity with the River Frome. The site may not be suitable for SUDS.

16. No development shall commence until a surface water drainage strategy, based on sustainable drainage principles, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This shall include a maintenance and management plan. The scheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure that an appropriate method of surface water drainage is installed and in the interests of flood risk management, improve and protect water quality and to improve habitat and amenity in accordance with Policies DP7, DP8 and DP23 of the Mendip District Council Local Plan (2006-2029). This is a condition precedent because it is necessary to understand whether the proposed drainage scheme is appropriate prior to any initial construction works which may prejudice the surface water drainage strategy.

17. No development shall commence on site, including demolition or other site clearance works, until a Construction Ecological Management Plan to be first submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, The development shall thereafter be carried out in strict accordance with the approved Plan and in accordance with the discussions and conclusions set out within the Extended Phase 1 Ecological Survey (Sept 2017). Reason: To prevent ecological harm during the construction phase of the development. This is a pre-commencement condition to ensure that ecological harm is not caused by initial works commencing on site including demolition and/or site clearance works.

18. 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 extension or enlargement (including additions or alterations to the roofs) of the dwellings 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 and to ensure Frome River corridor is safeguarded from further development which might restrict or impede access opportunity and improvements along the length of the River Frome having regard for policies CP6, DP1 and DP7 of the Mendip District Local Plan (Dec 2014) and Policy POS1 of the Frome Neighbourhood Plan (2016).

Planning Board Report 19th September 2018 Page 17

19. 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 buildings shall be erected within the curtilage of the dwellings hereby approved, other than those expressly authorised by this permission, 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 to ensure Frome River corridor is safeguarded from further development which might restrict or impede access opportunity and improvements along the length of the River Frome having regard for policies CP6 and DP7 of the Mendip District Local Plan (Dec 2014) and Policy POS1 of the Frome Neighbourhood Plan (2016).

List of Advices

1. In accordance with paragraph 38 of the National Planning Policy Framework the Council has worked in a positive, creative 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. 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 #116 per request (or #34 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 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 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

Planning Board Report 19th September 2018 Page 18

materials, you must state precisely where on site any samples have been made available for viewing.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. The applicant is made aware that a modification application 860 has been received by Somerset County Council Rights of Way and the claimed route runs close to part of the planning application area. The application is to add a footpath to the Definitive Map. Whilst the applicant's planning proposals do not obstruct the claimed route, they should be aware that the modification application has yet to be determined. Public rights may exist, and if confirmed, will need to be made available and free of obstruction. Should public rights be found to exist, they may be different to that which have been applied for and could be on a different alignment. This will only be known once the application has been investigated. Failure to comply with such a request may result in the landowner being prosecuted if the potential path is built on or otherwise interfered with.

9. 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 September 2018 Page 19

Agenda Item No. DM02

Case Officer Mrs Kelly Pritchard

Site The Academy 7 Market Place Shepton Mallet Somerset BA4 5AZ

Application Number 2015/1948/FUL

Date Received 13th August 2015

Applicant/ The Shepton Brewing Company Organisation Application Type Full Application

Proposal Installation of brewery tank over main entrance.

Ward Shepton East

Parish Shepton Mallet Town Council

UPDATING TEXT

This planning application was considered at the Planning Board on the 17.02.16, with an officer recommendation of refusal. For completeness the content of the original officer report is repeated below. This updating text is shown in bold.

The Local Planning Authority’s current position in respect of this application is set out in the Planning Board’s resolution of February 2016, which read;

That the application be approved contrary to the officer’s recommendation on the grounds that the development would help to secure a tenant for the building, preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and would not be out-of-keeping. Delegated authority was given to the officer in consultation with the Ward Member to agree conditions including conditions to ensure that the structure would only be erected when the micro-brewery commenced operation and be removed should the company fail to occupy the site or go out of business in the future. The permission was also granted subject to the completion of a S106 Agreement to ensure that the extant permission for the glass frontage would not be implemented further.

Planning permission was granted in January 2007 for use as a Performing Arts Academy with 11 units of accommodation, new entrance feature, alterations to external appearance and ancillary accommodation (067900/023). This permission has been partially implemented and is therefore extant.

At the February 2016 planning board resolved to approve the installation of a brewery tank over the main entrance subject to conditions which included the revocation of glass frontage element of the extant permission. The officer who dealt with this application has left the authority but it is my interpretation that the glass

Planning Board Report 19th September 2018 Page 20 frontage was meant to be the new entrance feature described in application 067900/023.

The legal agreement was drafted to ensure this but the applicant was unable or unwilling to enter into the agreement for financial reasons. The applicant’s agent has confirmed that whilst the applicant does not intend to implement both the consent for the glass frontage and the new brew tank simultaneously, the option to implement either is required. On reflection of the submitted plans, in my opinion, whilst technically they could implement both structures they would be very close to each other and it is therefore unlikely that both would be erected.

In summary, the planning officer recommended that the installation of brewery tank over main entrance be refused. Members overturned the recommendation with a resolution to approve with conditions and subject to a Section 106 Agreement to ensure that the extant permission for the glass frontage of the previous extant permission would not be implemented. As officers have no delegated authority to vary the resolution, the application is being referred back to the Board to decide whether they uphold the agreed resolution or modify it.

ORIGINAL REPORT SENT TO PLANNING BOARD 17.02.16 WITH UPDATED POLICIES ADDED

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

Description of Site, Proposal and Constraints

The proposal relates to The Academy site within the Market Place, Shepton Mallet. The site is within the Conservation Area and overlooks the Market Cross a Scheduled Ancient Monument. A number of buildings around the market place are Listed, including no’s 9, 10 and 11 and the Shambles market stalls which are all Grade II. The application site has been granted a change of use to a public house though it is not currently operational.

The application seeks planning permission for installation of brewery tank over main entrance.

Summary of parish comments, representations and consultee comments

Shepton Mallet Town Council – Objection. Members unanimously did not support this application on the grounds that it is out of keeping in a Conservation Area.

Conservation Officer – Objection. The application seeks to erect a full size brewery tank as an advertising symbol on the exterior of a building located in a conservation area.

The tank will be over 4 meters high and because of its size will dominate the Market Place that contains a number of listed buildings as well as a scheduled ancient monument, thereby impacting on their setting in addition to adversely affecting the appearance of this part of the conservation area. It will serve no useful purpose, and I have concerns relating to its appearance into the future, if it is not well maintained.

Planning Board Report 19th September 2018 Page 21

Highways - No observations

Environmental Protection – No objection.

I understand this will be a non-operation brewery tank its purpose being to advertise the business. As such EP have no objections to this proposal.

Relevant planning history

2011/2123 Change of use of ground floor and part first floor (WC's) to public house, (retaining theatre, stage and associated facilities) to enable theatre to be used separately, 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:

The Council’s Development Plan comprises:

1. Mendip District Local Plan Part I: Strategy and Policies (December 2014) 2. Somerset Waste Core Strategy

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

1. CP1 – Mendip Spatial Strategy 2. CP3 – Supporting Business Development and Growth 3. DP1 – Local Identity and Distinctiveness 4. DP3 – Heritage Conservation 5. DP7 – Design and Amenity

Other possible Relevant Considerations (without limitation):

• National Planning Policy Framework • National Planning Practice Guidance

Assessment of relevant issues

The proposal will be elevated 4 metres high in a prominent position above the historic market square. Within the context of the Conservation Area, the setting of the adjacent Listed Buildings and the scheduled ancient monument (Market Cross) it is considered the proposal would be inappropriate development which would be a discordant feature. The introduction of a proposed brewery tank in elevated position in the town market square would represent a prominent, industrial-type form of development that would be out of keeping with the character of the street-scene.

Planning Board Report 19th September 2018 Page 22

The proposed tank does not have any function (in respect of brewing) and is purely proposed on aesthetic grounds; as such the public benefit do not outweigh the less than substantial harm.

As such, the proposed development fails to reflect its surroundings and is contrary to Policies DP1, DP3, DP7 of the Mendip District Council Local Plan Part 1: Strategy and Policies 2006-2029 (adopted Dec 2014) and advice contained within the National Planning Policy Framework (2018).

Environmental Impact Assessment

This development does not fall within the scope of the Town & Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 and so Environmental Impact Assessment is not required.

Recommendation Refuse.

Reason/s for Recommendation

1. The introduction of a proposed brewery tank in elevated position in the town market square would represent a prominent and discordant form of development that would be out of keeping with the character of the street- scene and the surrounding heritage assets. The development would cause less than substantial harm to the setting of the Conservation Area, adjacent Listed buildings and a scheduled ancient monument which would not be outweighed by the public benefit. As such, the proposed development fails to reflect its surroundings and is contrary to Policies DP1, DP3 and DP7 of the Mendip District Council Local Plan Part 1: Strategy and Policies 2006-2029 (adopted Dec 2014) and the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012).

List of Advices

1. This decision relates to drawings 01/01 and 01/02 validated on 24 AUG 2015.

Planning Board Report 19th September 2018 Page 23

Agenda Item No. DM03

Case Officer Mr James U'Dell

Site 44 Allyn Saxon Drive Shepton Mallet BA4 5QH

Application Number 2017/3272/VRC

Date Received 13th December 2017

Applicant/ Mr Masters Organisation Application Type Variation or Removal of Conditions

Proposal Application to vary condition 4 (parking) of planning approval 2015/2945/FUL (Erection of a dwelling) to remove restrictions on parking on hatched spaces.

Ward Shepton East

Parish Shepton Mallet Town Council

Referral to Ward Member/Chair and Vice Chair

This application is referred to the Chair and Vice Chair of the Planning Board as the previous application (2015/2945/FUL) was decided by the Planning Board and the Ward Members have asked for this application to be called in (see below).

Description of Site, Proposal and Constraints

This application relates to Land South of 44 Allyn Saxon Drive, Shepton Mallet.

The application proposes to vary condition number 4 (parking) of planning approval 2015/2945/FUL (erection of a dwelling) to remove restrictions on parking on hatched spaces.

Application 2015/2945/FUL was approved by the Planning Board on the 20th April 2016 and permitted the ‘Erection of a dwelling’. Condition 4 of that permission specifies:

“No part of the development hereby approved shall be brought into use or occupied unless it is served with associated parking spaces identified on the proposed site plan drawing no: 2015/GUIDIT/01/01 validated on 09/12/2015. The 3 proposed hatched spaces on the same plan shall only be made available for other residents of Allyn Saxon Drive but not to be used by the occupiers of the proposed dwellinghouse. The parking spaces shall thereafter not be used other than for the parking of motor vehicles. Reason: To ensure that sufficient parking is provided to serve the approved development in the interests of highway safety”.

Planning Board Report 19th September 2018 Page 24

The applicant wishes to vary condition 4 to read:

“No part of the development hereby approved shall be brought into use or occupied unless it is served with associated parking spaces identified on the proposed parking plan 1766/02. The parking spaces shall thereafter not be used other than for the parking of motor vehicles”.

The key issue with this application therefore relates to parking and the designation and allocation of parking spaces.

A period of consultation expired on the 1st Feb 2018 and the comments received have been summarised below.

Relevant history

2015/2945/FUL – Erection of a dwelling – Approved by the Planning Board on the 20th April 2016.

2015/1215/FUL - The erection of a 2 storey dwelling with associated parking – Refused by the Planning Board on 21st August 2015 for the following two reasons:

• The development will result in a net loss of on-street parking spaces within an area where parking is already over-subscribed. As such the development will result in competitive on-street parking causing wider parking issues to the detriment of highway safety, contrary to the provisions of Saved Policy DP9 and DP10 of the Mendip District Local Plan (adopted December 2014) and the guidance contained within the County Parking Strategy (2012) and Part 4 of the National Planning Policy Framework. The limited benefit of a single market dwelling does not outweigh the overall harm identified within the reasons for refusal.

• The introduction of a detached dwelling in this location will fail to respect the local distinctiveness and character of development found within this locality, which reflects terraced housing of a uniform pattern and appearance. As such the development is contrary to the provisions of Saved Policies DP1 and DP7 of the Mendip District Local Plan (adopted December 2014) and Part 7 of the National Planning Policy Framework. The limited benefit of a single market dwelling does not outweigh the overall harm identified within the reasons for refusal.

2015/0038/FUL - The erection of a 2 storey dwelling with associated parking – Refused under delegated powers on 10th April 2015 for the following two reasons:

1. The development will result in a net loss of on-street parking spaces within an area where parking is already over-subscribed. As such the development will result in competitive on-street parking causing wider parking issues to the detriment of highway safety, contrary to the provisions of Saved Policy DP9 and DP10 of the Mendip District Local Plan (adopted December 2014) and the guidance contained within the County Parking Strategy (2012) and Part 4 of the National Planning Policy Framework. The limited benefit of a single market dwelling does not outweigh the overall harm identified within the reasons for refusal.

Planning Board Report 19th September 2018 Page 25

2. The introduction of a detached dwelling in this location will fail to respect the local distinctiveness and character of development found within this locality, which reflects terraced housing of a uniform pattern and appearance. As such the development is contrary to the provisions of Saved Policies DP1 and DP7 of the Mendip District Local Plan (adopted December 2014) and Part 7 of the National Planning Policy Framework. The limited benefit of a single market dwelling does not outweigh the overall harm identified within the reasons for refusal.

2014/2303/FUL - Erection of a dwelling – Withdrawn 25th November 2014 as the correct ownership certificates had not been served.

Consultations and Representations

Ward Members:

Cllr Bente Height: I want this application for removal of parking conditions called in to full planning should the planning officer decide to grant permission. Having looked at the application, I believe that the reason for the change of use, is taken directly from the original objections that people made, when they objected against the application that was granted by the Board with these conditions.

Cllr Jeannette Marsh: I wish to request the planning application for the removal of parking conditions to be called in please. We have examined the planning application and there seems to be some doubts around inaccurate drawings and the fact that the parking condition was agreed by the Planning Board in order for the dwelling to be approved. Now it seems the applicant wants the conditions removed as the applicant considers the conditions are unenforceable and unachievable.

Shepton Mallet Town Council: Members do not support this application.

Highways Officer (Somerset County Council):

I have now had an opportunity to review the proposed changes. The access into the site is not from adopted highway as the cul-d-sac is private. The proposed scheme as shown on Dwg No; 1766/02 shows tandem parking and parking for a vehicle to the front of the new property. The tandem parking appears to be accessible but I am not sure that cars will be able to park to the front of the building as shown. I am not sure why previously the applicant appeared to provide tandem parking spaces for other residents I do not have the history on this. The tandem parking as shown however, appears to be acceptable.

Local Representations: 6 letters of objection have been received, raising the following issues (summarised):

• Parking difficulties and congestion in the street will be increased; • Changes will result in the loss of parking for residents; • Site plan drawing is incorrect; • Parking spaces are not workable to fit 11 vehicles into these spaces; • Lack of space for turning and maneuvering; • Lack of space for parking for residents of Allyn Saxon Drive;

Planning Board Report 19th September 2018 Page 26

• Harmful to pedestrian and highway safety; • A new application should be submitted, it’s not a non-material amendment; • Permission was previously approved with tandem parking; • Size of parking spaces is too small; • Parking situation is bad now even without a new dwelling added; • Width of proposed access is not actually 3m, it’s the small width as a parking space; • Previous concerns of residents about tandem parking have been ignored; • Entrance to footpath would be restricted/ blocked.

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

Policy Context

Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 places a duty on local planning authorities to determine proposals in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The following development plan policies and material considerations are relevant to this application: The Council’s Development Plan comprises: • Mendip District Local Plan Part I: Strategy and Policies (December 2014) • Somerset Waste Core Strategy

The following policies of the Local Plan Part 1 are relevant to the determination of this application: • CP1 (Spatial Strategy) • CP2 (Housing) • CP9 (Shepton Mallet Town Strategy) • DP1 (Local Identity and Distinctiveness) • DP7 (Design and Amenity) • DP9 (Transport Impact of New Development) • DP10 (Parking Standards) • DP23 (Flood Risk)

Other Material Considerations:

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

Assessment of relevant issues:

Principle of the Use:

The principle of the development has already been established through the approval of planning permission 2015/2945/FUL, which remains extant.

Planning Board Report 19th September 2018 Page 27

Design of the Development and Impact on Character and Appearance:

The external appearance of the dwelling remains the same as previously proposed, the only difference from a character and appearance perspective relates to the layout of the parking area and the associated landscaping alterations.

Parking on Allyn Saxon Drive is generally upon the street rather than being located on-site, however there are scattered examples of where properties have off-street parking areas. As such the current access and parking arrangement is not considered to be visually out of keeping.

The revised layout and landscaping proposed will respect the character of the area and will not create adverse visual harm.

The proposed site plan shows that the dwelling can be adequately accommodated within the plot without appearing congested and there is adequate amenity space left over to serve the new dwelling.

Overall it is considered that the development will respect the character and appearance of the area and therefore complies with Policies DP1 and DP7 of the Mendip District Local Plan (adopted December 2014) and the guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

Access & Parking

The key issue with this application relates to the revised access and parking arrangements for the development and the knock on impact to on-street parking provision in this area. Objections have been received from local residents in regards to the loss of parking and to the revised parking arrangements (see above).

The previous application showed a tandem parking arrangement with a total of 5 parking spaces provided within the application site (denoted by the red line) with an offering of 3 parking spaces to serve as additional parking to serve the wider locality/ cul-de-sac, but in a tandem format and to the rear of three existing unallocated on- street parking spaces.

The current scheme has removed the 3 additional tandem spaces and instead shown two parking spaces with a turning and access space to serve the new dwelling within the application site.

The on-street parking spaces shown on the proposed site plan (drawing number 1766/02) have been shown as marked out spaces, however these spaces in reality are not marked out or allocated to specific properties/ households. They have been marked out to illustrate how many cars could be parked on the street with the addition of the new dwelling with the revised layout proposed. The applicant is not proposing or intending to mark out these spaces on the street and it must be stressed that these spaces are outside of the application site, where the applicant has no ownership or control over their provision or retention.

Planning Board Report 19th September 2018 Page 28

The applicant’s justification for the revised layout (and the consequent variation of condition 4) is, in summary, because he believes that condition 4 currently fails the tests for the application of planning conditions, as set out within the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG), due to it being: unnecessary, unreasonable, not directly relevant to the development to be permitted and unenforceable (taken from the ‘Planning Statement’ provided by the applicant, validated on 18/12/2017).

Whilst the development itself will provide the required level of parking spaces (2 on site spaces with turning and access space) to serve the development, it will result in a net loss of parking in comparison to the previously approved scheme as the 3 additional spaces offered for general parking would be lost. However the previously approved parking arrangements do not work as the spaces would be blocked in by existing on-street parking spaces/ vehicles (due to parking being unallocated) where residents using the new spaces would then be blocked in by other vehicles not in their ownership, resulting in further parking issues and conflicts between neighbours over specific spaces with the knock on impacts to highway safety in terms of inappropriately parked vehicles, to the detriment of the wider highway network.

It is therefore considered that the proposed development/ revised layout (with condition 4 amended, as proposed) will create less harm to parking issues within the locality than the previously approved parking layout and create less harm to the wider highway network. As such, on balance, the LPA consider that the revised access and parking arrangements are acceptable. The variation to condition 4, as proposed, is therefore considered to be acceptable.

Residential Amenities

The only property that could be directly affected by the development is number 44 Allyn Saxon Drive as all other neighbours are located a suitable distance away. Due to the orientation, layout, scale and position of the dwelling (same as previously approved) the proposal is not considered to result in unacceptable loss of amenity to number 44 Allyn Saxon Drive.

On the basis of the above assessment it is considered that the proposal will preserve the residential amenities of the locality and those of the future occupiers of the dwelling. The proposal accords with Policy DP7 of the adopted Local Plan Part 1 (2014) and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Impact on Trees:

The development will not prejudice the retention of any protected or important trees.

Refuse and recycling

The development proposes an area on site for the location of refuse and recycling bins, which would be brought out to the highway on collection day. These arrangements are considered to be acceptable.

Drainage

The site is not located within a high risk flood zone. The development will not pose a significant risk to drainage or flooding.

Planning Board Report 19th September 2018 Page 29

The development proposes to connect to the mains sewer, which is considered to be acceptable and represents the same arrangements as those previously approved.

Environmental Impact Assessment

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

On the basis of the above assessment the proposal is recommended for approval with the attachment of relevant conditions, with condition 4 suitably amended/ varied.

Recommendation Approve.

Reason/s for Recommendation

1. 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 drainage arrangements are considered to be acceptable. The proposal will not harm protected trees. 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, CP2, CP9, DP1, DP7, DP9, DP10 and DP23 of the Mendip District Local Plan 2006-2029 (Part 1 Strategies and Policies - adopted 15th December 2014) National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), 2018 Planning Practice Guidance (PPG), 2012 Somerset County Council Parking Strategy, 2013 Somerset County Council Standing Advice, 2015

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 number 1766/02 validated on the 18th December 2017 and drawing number 2015/GUIDIT/01/01 (with the exception of the details on the proposed site plan) approved under planning permission 2015/2945/FUL), only. 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 44 Allyn Saxon Drive.

Planning Board Report 19th September 2018 Page 30

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

4. No part of the development hereby approved shall be brought into use or occupied unless it is served with associated parking spaces identified on the proposed parking plan 1766/02. The parking spaces shall thereafter not be used other than for the parking of motor vehicles. Reason: To ensure that sufficient parking is provided to serve the approved development in the interests of highway safety.

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 paragraph 38 of the National Planning Policy Framework the Council has worked in a positive, creative 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. Somerset Building Control Partnership works in tandem with our Development Management team to offer a number of helpful and efficient services that can be accessed via their website www.sedgemoor.gov.uk/SomersetBCP/ by email at [email protected], or by telephoning 0300 303 7790. 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 September 2018 Page 31

Agenda Item No. DM04

Case Officer Mrs Kelly Pritchard

Site Land At Broom Close Corner Roemead Road Binegar BA3 4UL

Application Number 2017/2275/FUL

Date Received 14th August 2017

Applicant/ Mr C Burr Organisation Application Type Full Application

Proposal Formation of new agricultural access and track onto highway.

Ward St Cuthbert Out North

Parish St Cuthbert Out Parish Council

Referral to Ward Member/Chair and Vice Chair:

This application is being referred to ward member as the officer’s recommendation is contrary to the Parish Council comments.

Description of Site, Proposal and Constraints:

The application relates to land at Broom Close Corner, Roemead Road, Binegar. The site is outside the settlement limits, it is within a source protection zone and there is a public footpath at the site. There is an existing vehicle access close to the existing building on the site which is proposed to be stopped up.

The application seeks planning permission for the formation of new agricultural access and track onto highway. The proposal involves the removal of hedge along the road frontage (B3135) to create the new access. It would be approximately 200m to the north west of the existing access, the existing access is proposed to be stopped up. The creation of a 6m wide track which would be behind the roadside hedge boundary. The first 10m of its length will be concrete and the rest being surfaced with clean stone.

Relevant History:

043399/009 – Erection of replacement barn. Approved. 07.07.04 043399/015 – Replacement barn (retrospective). Approved. 10.09.07 2014/1046/PAC – Prior approval for the change of use of an agricultural building to a dwelling. Prior approval refused. 18.07.14 2014/2035/PAA – Prior approval for the change of use of an agricultural building to a dwelling. Prior approval refused. 24.11.14. Appeal dismissed 22.07.15 2016/2193/PAA - Prior approval for the change of use of an agricultural building to a dwelling. Prior approval refused. 13.10.16

Planning Board Report 19th September 2018 Page 32

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

Ward Member: No comments received.

Parish Council: Approval.

Highways Development Officer: No objections.

• On reviewing the recorded Personal Injury Accidents it would appear that there has 2no recorded accidents (2016) within 500m of the junction within the last 5 years, it was noted that both of these accidents were due to skidding, one where oil was present on the road surface. • The level of visibility proposed is acceptable and in all other highway regards subject to conditions which include visibility, surface water disposal, gates, hard surfacing, and that the existing access is blocked off.

Somerset County Rights of Way: No objections.

1. There is a public right of way recorded on the Definitive Map that abuts and runs through the site at the present time. Any proposed works must not encroach onto the width of the PROW.

Local Representations: None received.

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

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

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

The Council’s Development Plan comprises:

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

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

• CP1 – Mendip Spatial Strategy • CP3 – Supporting Business Development and Growth • CP4 – Sustaining Rural Communities • DP1 - Local Identity and Distinctiveness • DP4 - Mendip’s Landscapes • DP5 - Biodiversity and Ecological Networks

Planning Board Report 19th September 2018 Page 33

• DP7 - Design and Amenity • DP8 - Environmental Protection • DP9 - Transport Impact of New Development • DP10 - Parking Standards

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

Other possible Relevant Considerations (without limitation):

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

Assessment of relevant issues:

Background Information:

It is considered important to provide a brief overview with regards to the planning history for this site especially as the submitted Design and Access Statement says the application looks to address highway safety concerns through the creation of a new agricultural access.

The planning history for this site mainly consists of applications which sought to provide a residential property, these applications were refused and an appeal was dismissed. The refusal reasons (amongst other reasons) were mainly about the unsuitability of the existing access for residential use. The use of the access for residential use would constitute a significant increase in the traffic using the access which would be unacceptable in highway safety terms, a view that the Planning Inspector shared.

Whilst the existing access is awkward in its position, it has been utilised for agricultural purposes for some considerable time with no accidents recorded (see Highway comments above). It is considered that the existing access is acceptable in terms of agricultural traffic especially as agricultural traffic tends to be higher than the average car so visibility would be better.

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

The access is proposed on a stretch of main road (B3135), it is in a rural location where development is sporadic and roads are typically bounded by hedgerow. The proposed access will involve the removal of a 10m wide portion of hedge and the remaining hedgerow within the proposed visibility splays will need to be cut back. The first 10m of the track will be concrete and the rest being surfaced with clean stone. It is considered that this development will appear stark and would result in an urban encroachment into agricultural (Greenfield) land. This is considered harmful to the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside where the development carries little public benefit.

In summary, the proposed access and track would be harmful to the rural character of the area.

Planning Board Report 19th September 2018 Page 34

Impact on Right of Way:

Somerset County Rights of Way have not objected to the scheme. The public footpath is accessed via an entrance adjacent to the existing vehicle entrance and then proceeds in an easterly direction. The submitted Design and Access Statement says that the existing vehicle access will be stopped up and if planning permission is granted it is considered appropriate to secure the stopping up details so that we can be sure that it does not block the right of way and in the interests of the appearance of the development.

Impact on Residential Amenity:

There are no immediate neighbours to this site. The entry point of access will be on the opposite side of the road and south east of a house and small industrial estate.

It is considered that the development proposed will not have a detrimental impact on neighbour amenity.

Assessment of Highway Issues:

The Highway Authority have not objected to the proposed access subject to conditions which include, amongst others, the provision of visibility splays. They require that there is no obstruction to visibility greater than 900 millimetres above adjoining road level when measured from a distance 2.4 metres back from the adjoining carriageway at the centre point of the access and 215 metres in both directions. Whilst this is shown to be provided on the submitted plans, the hedge to the north west is not within the applicant’s control.

The most suitable way to secure visibility on third party land would be via a legal agreement. However, planning conditions can be imposed on land not in control of the applicant, normally this should be best achieved by using a condition worded in a negative form (a ‘Grampian’ style condition) i.e. prohibiting development authorised by the planning permission or other aspects linked to the planning permission (e.g. occupation of premises) until a specified action has been taken. However, the online Planning Practice Guidance says that such conditions should not be used where there are no prospects at all of the action in question being performed within the time-limit imposed by the permission. In the absence of a legal agreement or agreement from the land owner the applicant has failed to demonstrate that suitable visibility over third party land can be achieved.

In summary, the application fails to demonstrate that the proposed vehicular access can incorporate sufficient visibility splays that are essential in the interests of highway safety given the land required to supply visibility in a north westerly direction would be outside of the control of the applicant. The proposed development would therefore be detrimental to highway safety.

Planning Board Report 19th September 2018 Page 35

Environmental Impact Assessment

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

Conclusion:

The proposed development would have a harmful impact on the character and appearance of the area which is not outweighed by public benefit and the application fails to demonstrate that adequate visibility splays can be provided in the interests of highway safety.

Refusal is therefore recommended.

Recommendation Refuse.

Reason/s for Recommendation

1. The development by reason of the breach in the existing hedge and the associated track and hardstanding would have an urbanising effect and encroachment into the countryside which results in a harmful impact on the intrinsic character of the rural landscape. The development would therefore be contrary to the provisions of Policies DP1, PD4 and DP7 of the Mendip District Local Plan 2006-2029, Part 1: Strategy and Policies (Adopted Dec 2014) and the advice contained within the National Planning Policy Framework, 2018 in particular Sections 12 and 15.

2. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposed development would be provided with adequate vehicular visibility splays in a north westerly direction required which is necessary to make safe and satisfactory provision for access. The proposed development would therefore be to the detrimental to highway safety contrary to DP9 of the Mendip District Local Plan 2006- 2029 (Part 1 Strategies and Policies - adopted 15th December 2014) and advice contained in the National Planning Policy Framework 2018, in particular section 9.

List of Advices

1. This decision relates to drawing number 2017/CBURR/01/REVA received 27.09.17.

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 September 2018 Page 36

Planning Board Report 19th September 2018 Page 37

Agenda Item No. DM05

Case Officer Mrs Kelly Pritchard

Site Foxridge Launcherley Lane North Wootton Shepton Mallet Somerset

Application Number 2018/1260/FUL

Date Received 22nd May 2018

Applicant/ Mr & Mrs Toby & Bekki Keevil Organisation Application Type Full Application

Proposal Erection of a Single Dwelling House

Ward Croscombe And Pilton

Parish North Wootton Parish Council

Referral to Ward Member/Chair and Vice Chair:

This application is being referred to Board at the Chairman’s request.

Description of Site, Proposal and Constraints:

The application site is land to the south east of a detached property known as Foxridge, which is located on the corner of Launcherley Lane with Middle Lane, North Wootton.

The site is currently served by an existing field gate entrance off of Launcherley Lane, with the host house having its own access from Middle Lane. It is in a rural location, surrounded by fields and at the front of the application site there is an existing Polly Tunnel.

The site is located outside the settlement limits.

This application seeks full planning permission for the erection of a four bedroom detached house set back from Launcherley Lane which will utilise the existing vehicle access onto Launcherley Lane.

Relevant History:

No recent relevant planning history.

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

Ward Member: I suspect this application will generate a lot of interest, so I would like the application referred to me.

Planning Board Report 19th September 2018 Page 38

Parish Council: ecommends approval. This recommendation is made on the basis of local need for a local family which has long standing ties to the community.

Highways Development Officer: Standing advice.

Drainage Engineer: No objections subject to agreeing a foul and surface water drainage scheme, based on sustainable drainage principles.

Local Representations: We have received one letter of objection and eighteen letters of support, their comments are summarised below;

• This tertiary village cannot withstand the increase in traffic. • There is no guarantee that the property will be affordable and in reality it will be another house in addition to the housing consented at the Crossways Inn. • Concern about glare from solar panels.

• The applicants are closely associated with the village. • It will enable a local family to live and work within the village that they have resided in for a number of years. • The applicant needs to be close to the farms where he currently works. • No new access will be required as there is already a gate onto the road. • House prices in the village are high, building a house in the garden will free up their existing rented home for new tenants whilst providing an affordable home. • The house will be next to the family house where the applicant’s mother can conveniently assist with childcare.

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

Policies/Legislation:

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

The Council’s Development Plan comprises:

• Mendip District Local Plan Part I: Strategy and Policies (December 2014) • Somerset Waste Core Strategy (adopted February 2013)

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

• CP1 – Mendip Spatial Strategy • CP2 – Supporting the Provision of New Housing • CP4 – Sustaining Rural Communities • DP1 - Local Identity and Distinctiveness • DP4 - Mendip’s Landscapes

Planning Board Report 19th September 2018 Page 39

• DP5 - Biodiversity and Ecological Networks • DP7 - Design and Amenity • DP8 - Environmental Protection • DP9 - Transport Impact of New Development • DP10 - Parking Standards

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

Other possible Relevant Considerations (without limitation):

• National Planning Policy Framework • National Planning Practice Guidance • Somerset County Council Highways Development Control Standing Advice (2017) • North Wootton Village Design Statement, April 2011

Assessment of relevant issues:

Principle of the Use:

The applicants currently live in the village of North Wootton in a rental property. Their parents live in Foxridge to the north west of the application site. The application submission is heavily weighted on the fact that the applicants are local and in granting permission for a dwelling in this location, it would in the applicant’s view, provide an affordable home. However, this proposal does not comply with Policy DP12 of MDLP and is not a Rural Exception Site, therefore it cannot be justified on these grounds.

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) advices safeguarding the countryside and focusing development within towns and villages. The NPPF (at paragraph 79) stresses that the promotion of sustainable development in rural areas means avoiding …new isolated homes in the countryside… except in specific, and quite limited circumstances, none of which apply in this case.

The need to minimise travelling (NPPF section 9), as a matter of logic, supports the notion that development should be concentrated in and around existing, or proposed, places where jobs and services are concentrated; or put another way not normally in open countryside. MDLP is consistent with this approach.

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

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

Planning Board Report 19th September 2018 Page 40

Policy CP4 says that rural settlements and the wider rural area will be sustained by making planned provision for housing within the Primary and Secondary Villages in line with Policy CP1 and Policy CP2 and making allowance for occupational dwellings in rural locations where there is a proven and essential functional need, to support agricultural, forestry and other rural-based enterprises.

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

Policy CP2 sets out how the planned housing requirement will be met. Although the development would contribute one market dwelling towards meeting the Council’s targets this would not make a significant difference to the overall housing supply in the District as the development would not be on previously developed land or within the development limits.

The scheme would foster the growth in the need to travel by private car, as the site is located outside of a settlement limit where there are limited employment opportunities and facilities. The occupier’s day to day needs would inevitably be made by trips in private vehicles, for shopping, employment, 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.

As a matter of principle the development is considered to be contrary to Policies CP1, CP2 and CP4.

In pulling these points together the application site lies entirely outside of the Development Limits where development is strictly controlled in accordance with Policy CP1 and the application is in advance of the site allocations process expressed in Policy CP2.

The dwelling is unjustified in terms of Policy CP4 and as such the principle of new build, open market dwelling in this location is considered unacceptable insofar as it does not accord with the settlement strategy & policy for the provision of new houses and would foster the growth in the need to travel.

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

The dwelling proposed would be set back from the road, it is traditional in design and would utilise materials which are considered in keeping with properties in North Wootton. As such is it considered that the design of the proposed dwelling would be in keeping with the general design objectives of the North Wootton Village Design Statement. However, whilst the design principles may be acceptable for a plot within the settlement limits or close to other built development, this site is located in the open countryside along a rural lane where development is sporadic.

Planning Board Report 19th September 2018 Page 41

The NPPF emphasises the need to protect and enhance the natural and built environment. Section 15 discusses the need to recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and to conserve and enhance the natural environment.

The main cluster of dwellings are to the east and west side of High Street which is some distance from the application site. The application site is not an infill plot between existing housing and although it would be relatively close to Foxridge it is considered that a dwelling in this location would contribute to the urbanisation of the character of the rural lane where there are currently no other dwellings (save for Foxridge). This would be detrimental to the character of the countryside.

Impact on Residential Amenity:

The occupiers of Wootton House, which is a listed building approximately 250m south of the application site, have expressed their concern about potential glare from the proposed solar panels. These panels are proposed on the southern roof slope of the proposed dwelling.

Solar panels are designed to capture light, not reflect it and are usually designed with an anti-reflective coating to help lessen the risk of glare. Given the distance involved between the two properties it is unlikely that the solar panels will result in loss of amenity to the occupiers of Wootton House.

Other than Foxridge, there are no other properties nearby. It is considered that the proposed dwelling would be far enough away from Foxridge and would not have a harmful impact on their amenity.

Assessment of Highway Issues:

The application site already benefits from an existing vehicle access which would be utilised for the proposed dwelling. Although Launcherley Lane has a 60mph speed limit, it is likely that traffic is travelling slower given the width of the road and that there is a bend and a junction to the east of the plot and a junction to the west. The site is on a relatively straight piece of the road where the verges are deep.

Whilst the visibility splays fall short of what would be required by Somerset County Council’s standing advice, bearing in mind the above comments it is considered that the development would be acceptable in highway safety terms.

There is adequate parking provision within the site to enable parking off of the highway and turning.

Waste and Refuse:

There is adequate room within the site to accommodate the storage of bins.

Drainage:

Our technical consultee has no objection to the proposed development subject to conditions relating to suitable foul and surface water drainage.

Planning Board Report 19th September 2018 Page 42

Environmental Impact Assessment

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

Conclusion:

The development does not accord with the objectives of Policies CP1, CP2 and CP4 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 therefore as a matter of principle it is unjustified. The development would have an urbanising impact which would be inappropriate and harmful to the character of the rural area.

Recommendation Refuse.

Reason/s for Recommendation

1. The development does not accord with the objectives of policies CP1, CP2 and CP4 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 therefore as a matter of principle it is unjustified. The proposal would foster the growth in the need to travel given its location and accessibility to services and facilities. The development fails to accord with the objectives of Policies CP1, CP2, CP4 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 (2018) in particular Section 9 and section 5 which includes paragraph 79.

2. The proposed development by reason of its siting in this rural location would fail to maintain or enhance the environment and its urbanising effect and encroachment into the countryside would have a harmful impact on the countryside's intrinsic character here. As such it conflicts with Policies DP1, DP4 and DP7 of the Mendip District Local Plan Part 1: Strategy and Policies (adopted December 2014) and the National Planning Policy Framework (2018) with particular regards to Sections 12 and 15.

List of Advices

1. This decision relates to drawing numbers 0133_BK_17-PL.01, 0133_BK_17- PL.02 Rev A, 0133_BK_17-PL.03 and proposed site section shown on drawing number 0133_BK_17-PL.04 validated 05.06.18.

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

Planning Board Report 19th September 2018 Page 43

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 September 2018 Page 44

Agenda Item No. DM06

Case Officer Mr Charlie Bladon

Site Little Rye Orchard Cotty Lane Henton Wells Somerset

Application Number 2018/0163/VRC

Date Received 24th January 2018

Applicant/ Messrs Eric and Brian Gibbs Organisation Application Type Variation or Removal of Conditions

Proposal Application to remove condition 1 (Seasonal use only) of planning approval 59827a (siting of mobile home) to allow year round occupancy.

Ward Wookey And St Cuthbert Out West

Parish Wookey Parish Council

Referral to Ward Member/Chair and Vice Chair:

This application is referred to the ward member as the parish council disagrees with the officer recommendation.

Update: this application is referred to the planning board at the request of the vice chairman.

Description of Site, Proposal and Constraints:

The site refers to a mobile home subject to a holiday occupancy condition, on the southern edge of Henton around 5 km west of Wells. The site is on the edge of the village, with dwellings to the north and open fields to the south. The land rises to the south and falls slightly to the north, and there are trees and hedges surrounding the site providing a good amount of screening.

The application seeks permission for the variation of a condition to allow unrestricted residential occupancy throughout the year.

Relevant History:

59827a Use of land as site for one caravan approved August 1963.

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

Ward Member: No comments

Planning Board Report 19th September 2018 Page 45

Town/Parish Council: Object as site is outside development limit and has poor access.

Highways Development Officer: Standing advice applies

Environmental Protection: No comments

Local Representations: 1 objection has been received with concerns that the application site overlooks dwelling called Jamara to North.

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

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

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

The Council’s Development Plan comprises:

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

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

1. CP1 – Mendip Spatial Strategy 2. CP2 – Supporting the Provision of New Housing 3. DP1 – Local Identity and Distinctiveness 4. DP5 – Biodiversity 5. DP6 – Bat Protection 6. DP7 – Design and Amenity of New Development 7. DP10 – Parking Standards

Other possible Relevant Considerations (without limitation):

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

Assessment of relevant issues:

Principle of the Use:

The use of the site for residential purposes has been established for around fifty years since the permission was originally granted, albeit subject to a restrictive occupancy condition. The proposed lifting of the occupancy condition would not have a significant impact in terms of the use of the land in principle, as it would remain in a residential use.

Planning Board Report 19th September 2018 Page 46

The planning condition that was applied to the original permission for the caravan in 1963 reads as follows:

“The caravan shall not be occupied other than during the period 1st March to 31st October in any one year.”

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

The removal of the restrictive occupancy condition would not entail any physical alterations to the property or the wider site. There are no proposed alterations to the appearance of the site over the existing arrangement and it is therefore considered that the proposed variation of condition would not harm the character or appearance of the site or the surrounding area.

Impact on Residential Amenity:

The relaxation of the restrictive occupancy condition would enable the site to be permanently occupied by the same person or family, whereas currently the condition dictates that the site would be occupied by a succession of different people throughout the year. It is considered that the proposed relaxation of the condition would result in a net improvement to the amenities of nearby residents as it would be a less intensive use of the site, and the occupants would settle in over time. The concerns raised by the neighbours in respect of privacy are noted however it is considered that the relaxation of the occupancy condition would not change the impacts of the site on the privacy or amenities of nearby residents including those at Jamara to the north.

Assessment of Highway Issues:

The application proposes to keep the existing access and parking arrangements. The Highways Officer has not raised an objection to the proposal and it is considered that the existing access and parking provision are sufficient to maintain the safe operation of the local highway network in terms of traffic and safety of road users.

Environmental Impact Assessment:

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

Conclusion:

The proposed development is considered acceptable in accordance with the Mendip District Local Plan Part I: Strategy and Policies (December 2014) and is therefore recommended for approval.

Recommendation Approve.

Planning Board Report 19th September 2018 Page 47

Reason/s for Recommendation

1. There remains an extant permission under ref. 59827a for the residential use of the site. 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), DP3 (heritage), DP5 (biodiversity), DP6 (bats), 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)

List of Advices

1. In accordance with paragraph 38 of the National Planning Policy Framework the Council has worked in a positive, creative and pro-active way and has granted planning permission.

2. This decision relates to drawings Site Location Plan and Block Plan.

Planning Board Report 19th September 2018 Page 48

Agenda Item No. DM07

Case Officer Mr Rob Palmer

Site Old Manor House Ham Lane Shepton Mallet BA4 5JR

Application Number 2018/1005/HSE

Date Received 25th April 2018

Applicant/ Mr A Griffiths Organisation Application Type Householder Application

Proposal Demolition of existing west elevation extensions from original main building for replacement with a two storey glazed link and two storey ancillary building complete with veranda over raised patio and associated alterations.

Ward Shepton West

Parish Shepton Mallet Town Council

Referral to Ward Member/Chair and Vice Chair:

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

Description of Site, Proposal and Constraints:

The site is located on the western fringes of Bowlish between two rural lanes which run to the north and south. The building itself is set within its own large grounds and is neighboured by Cleevers (a Grade II listed building) to the north, and ‘Marechiaro’ to the east.

The property is believed to be the former store/agricultural store to the 16th Century Manor House, the remains of which are still visible within the site. It is of long rectangular form with a number of extensions to the south and west elevations. It has a clay tiled pitched roof and is constructed mainly from local natural stone, some of which is finished with render. The property is a Grade II listed building and was first designated on 21st September 1984.

The dwelling is located within generous grounds which contains a number of traditional single-storey outbuildings. Boundaries to the highway comprise historic stone walls, of which elements of the southern wall are Grade II listed in their own right.

The site is also located within the western edge of the Shepton Mallet Conservation Area and is within an Area of High Archaeological Potential.

Planning Board Report 19th September 2018 Page 49

This the proposal is for the demolition of an existing two-storey extension on the west elevation of original main building and its replacement with a two storey extension and two additional single-storey extensions with associated alterations.

Relevant History:

None

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

Ward Member: No comments received.

Shepton Mallet Town Council: Support

Members support the application due to the removal of the existing extension and its sympathetic design. It will bring an old building back into use. The appropriate render finish should be subject to the approval of the Conservation Officer.

Highways Development Officer: Standing Advice Applies

Somerset Historic Environment Officer: No objections

• As far as we are aware there are limited or no archaeological implications to this proposal.

Local Representations: None received

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

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

The Council’s Development Plan comprises:

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

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

• DP1 (Local Identity) • DP3 (Heritage Conservation) • DP7 (Design and Amenity) • DP10 (Parking)

Other possible Relevant Considerations (without limitation):

• National Planning Policy Framework (2018)

Planning Board Report 19th September 2018 Page 50

• Planning Practice Guidance • The Countywide Parking Strategy (2013) • Somerset County Council Standing Advice (2017)

Assessment of relevant issues:

Design of the Development:

The size and scale of the principal proposed extensions, coupled with the plethora of additional proposed extensions results in an overall structure which is of a similar size to the main building. It is therefore not possible for this extension to remain subservient to the existing building whose dominance within the site would be significantly diluted.

The overall design of the proposed structures draws focus away from the existing building, resulting in the extensions becoming the principal structure within the site. This would have a demonstrable detrimental impact on the existing building from an architectural perspective. Therefore, the proposed extensions due to their proposed scale, massing and design would be harmful to the character of the existing building and would be contrary to the guidance set out within the MDC Household Extension Design Guide and Policy DP7 (Design and Amenity) of the Mendip District Local Plan Part I.

Impact on Heritage Assets

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

There is also a duty under Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 to pay special attention to the preservation or enhancement of the character of the surrounding conservation area.

It is one of the core principles of the NPPF that heritage assets should be conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance. Chapter 16 of the National Planning Policy Framework at paragraph 190 sets out that the local planning authority should identify and assess the particular significance of any heritage asset. They should take this assessment into account when considering the impact of a proposal on a heritage asset, to avoid or minimise conflict between the heritage asset’s conservation and any aspect of the proposal.

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

Planning Board Report 19th September 2018 Page 51

Significance of heritage assets

The Old Manor House - Architectural interest

The Old Manor House is believed to be a former store or agricultural building to the 16th century Manor House, the remains of which are still visible on the site. It has a modest, simple character commonly associated with an agricultural building.

It is understood that the building was converted to use as a dwelling in the mid-20th century following the destruction of the ‘original’ Manor House following a fire in 1929. As a result of this, architectural elements from the original Manor House (such as the window and door surrounds on the east elevation) were re-used in the existing building. Architectural features dating from the 19th century (e.g. the vertical sliding sash window on the west elevation) can also be found. These all make a positive contribution to the architectural interest of the heritage asset.

The interior of the building dates predominantly from its mid-20th century conversion to a dwelling and therefore has little architectural interest.

The existing two storey extension constructed from a single skin of brick on the west elevation is an alien and incongruous feature on the historic building – it makes a negative contribution to the architectural interest of the heritage asset.

Historic interest

The asset is a primary historic record of a traditional agricultural building associated with a 16th century Manor House which also includes valuable material from the original Manor House. Its physical presence and existing character denotes the evolution of the site and allows the history of the property to be easily read.

Archaeological interest

There is great potential for the site to yield physical evidence of the original 16th Manor House and its environs which could make a positive contribution to its archaeological interest.

Artistic interest

The asset has artistic interest through its surviving historic fabric, with specific regards to the material which dates from the 16th century.

These interests collectively make up the significance of the property as a designated heritage asset.

Shepton Mallet Conservation Area

The Shepton Mallet Conservation Area Appraisal describes Bowlish as a small rural settlement which has experienced industrial development in the 18th and 19th centuries. It has a collection of good quality historic developments, many of which are designated as listed buildings.

Planning Board Report 19th September 2018 Page 52

Ham Lane has grass verges at west end and a wide junction with Back Lane which gives a good setting to Cleevers and Old Manor House (the property subject of this application).

The area has clear architectural, historic, artistic and archaeological interest, all of which collectively contribute to its overall significance as a designated heritage asset.

Impact of the proposals on heritage assets

The works seek to erect a two storey extension with attached single storey extensions to the west elevation of the principal building.

Whilst it is noted that the removal of the existing mid-20th century extension would have a positive impact on the character of the building, its replacement with the extensions proposed would eradicate any benefits gained from its removal.

The size and scale of the principal proposed extensions, coupled with the plethora of additional proposed extensions results in an overall structure which is of a similar size to the main building. It is therefore not possible for this extension to remain subservient to the designated heritage asset whose dominance within the site would be significantly diluted.

The overall design of the proposed structures draws focus away from the listed building, resulting in the extensions becoming the principal structure within the site. This would have a demonstrable detrimental impact on the architectural and historic interest of the Old Manor House and its position in the architectural hierarchy of the wider area.

The comments of Shepton Mallet Town Council are noted, however, these works are not necessary for the existing building to remain in use, it is capable of residential use in its existing form and has done so for the past 70 years. The works are therefore not necessary to secure the properties optimum viable use as specified within paragraph 196 of the NPPF as this optimum viable use has already been secured.

As a result, it is clear that the proposals would cause a high level of ‘less than substantial’ harm to the significance of the Old Manor House and a low level of ‘less than substantial’ harm to the Shepton Mallet Conservation Area as designated heritage assets. In accordance with paragraph 196 of the NPPF, the removal of the existing mid-20th century extension does bring a small amount of public benefit, however, this is substantially outweighed by the harm caused by the proposed extensions. There are no other public benefits associated with the proposals.

Impact on Residential Amenity:

Due to the size of the site and the location of neighbouring properties, the proposed extensions are not considered to have any negative impacts on neighbouring amenities.

Planning Board Report 19th September 2018 Page 53

Assessment of Highway Issues:

With regards to potential highways issues, it has been confirmed by the Highway Development Officer that standing advice applies. It is considered that the proposed erection of the extensions would not result in an unsustainable increase in traffic movements and means of access will remain unchanged. Therefore the development would not have a detrimental impact on highway safety and is considered to be in accordance with DP10.

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

Conclusions

Having regard to the above, the design and scale of the proposed extensions would harm the character of the existing building, therefore the proposals fail to meet the requirements of Policy DP7 (Design and Amenity) of the Mendip District Local Plan 2006-2029. The proposals would also cause harm to the significance of the identified designated heritage assets (Old Manor House and the Shepton Mallet Conservation Area) which is not outweighed by the public benefit identified and therefore, having due regard to Sections 66(1) and 72 of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Area) Act 1990 and DP3 (Heritage Conservation) of the Mendip District Local Plan 2006-2029 (Part 1 Strategies and Policies - adopted 15th December 2014) permission should be refused.

Recommendation Refuse.

Reason/s for Recommendation

1. The proposal by reason of its design and scale would cause harm to the character of the existing building and the significance of identified designated heritage assets (Old Manor House and the Shepton Mallet Conservation Area) which is not outweighed by the public benefit identified. The proposal therefore fails to accord with the provisions of Policies DP3 and DP7 of the Mendip District Local Plan 2006 - 2029 (Part 1 Strategy and Policies- adopted 15th December 2014) and the National Planning Policy Framework 2018 (with specific regards to Chapters 12 and 16).

List of Advices

1. This decision relates to drawing numbers 17/1934/01, 02, 03, 08, 09, 10 and 11 received 11 July 2018 only.

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

Planning Board Report 19th September 2018 Page 54

immediately removed from the site and suitably disposed of. Your cooperation in this matter is greatly appreciated.

3. In accordance with paragraph 38 of the National Planning Policy Framework the Council works in a positive, creative 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 for the reasons set out.

Planning Board Report 19th September 2018 Page 55

Agenda Item No. DM08

Case Officer Mr Rob Palmer

Site Old Manor House Ham Lane Shepton Mallet BA4 5JR

Application Number 2018/1006/LBC

Date Received 25th April 2018

Applicant/ Mr A Griffiths Organisation Application Type Listed Building Consent

Proposal Demolition of existing west elevation extensions from original main building for replacement with a two storey glazed link extension and two storey main extension complete veranda over raised patio and associated alterations.

Ward Shepton West

Parish Shepton Mallet Town Council

Referral to Ward Member/Chair and Vice Chair:

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

Description of Site, Proposal and Constraints:

The site is located on the western fringes of Bowlish between two rural lanes which run to the north and south. The building itself is set within its own large grounds and is neighboured by Cleevers (a Grade II listed building) to the north, and ‘Marechiaro’ to the east.

The property is believed to be the former store/agricultural store to the 16th Century Manor House, the remains of which are still visible within the site. It is of long rectangular form with a number of extensions to the south and west elevations. It has a clay tiled pitched roof and is constructed mainly from local natural stone, some of which is finished with render. The property is a Grade II listed building and was first designated on 21st September 1984.

The dwelling is located within generous grounds which contains a number of traditional single-storey outbuildings. Boundaries to the highway comprise historic stone walls, of which elements of the southern wall are Grade II listed in their own right.

The site is also located within the western edge of the Shepton Mallet Conservation Area and is within an Area of High Archaeological Potential.

Planning Board Report 19th September 2018 Page 56

This the proposal is for the demolition of an existing two-storey extension on the west elevation of original main building and its replacement with a two storey extension and two additional single-storey extensions with associated alterations.

Relevant History:

None

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

Ward Member: No comments received.

Shepton Mallet Town Council: Support

Members support the application due to the removal of the existing extension and its sympathetic design. It will bring an old building back into use. The appropriate render finish should be subject to the approval of the Conservation Officer.

Local Representations: None received

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

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

The Council’s Development Plan comprises:

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

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

• DP3 (Heritage Conservation)

Other Relevant Considerations:

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

Assessment of relevant issues:

The relevant issues are whether the proposals would preserve the significance of the identified designated heritage asset (The Old Manor House).

Planning Board Report 19th September 2018 Page 57

There is a duty under Section 16 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, when considering whether to grant listed building consent for any works, to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.’.

It is one of the core principles of the NPPF that heritage assets should be conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance. Chapter 16 of the National Planning Policy Framework at paragraph 190 sets out that the local planning authority should identify and assess the particular significance of any heritage asset. They should take this assessment into account when considering the impact of a proposal on a heritage asset, to avoid or minimise conflict between the heritage asset’s conservation and any aspect of the proposal.

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

Significance of heritage assets

The Old Manor House

Architectural interest –

The Old Manor House is believed to be a former store or agricultural building to the 16th century Manor House, the remains of which are still visible on the site. It has a modest, simple character commonly associated with an agricultural building.

It is understood that the building was converted to use as a dwelling in the mid-20th century following the destruction of the ‘original’ Manor House following a fire in 1929. As a result of this, architectural elements from the original Manor House (such as the window and door surrounds on the east elevation) were re-used in the existing building. Architectural features dating from the 19th century (e.g. the vertical sliding sash window on the west elevation) can also be found. These all make a positive contribution to the architectural interest of the heritage asset.

The interior of building dates predominantly from the mid-20th century conversion to a dwelling and therefore has little architectural interest.

The existing two storey extension constructed from a single skin of brick on the west elevation is an alien and incongruous feature on the historic building – it makes a negative contribution to the architectural interest of the heritage asset.

Historic interest –

The asset is a primary historic record of a traditional agricultural building associated with a 16th century Manor House which also includes valuable material from the original Manor House. Its physical presence and existing character denotes the evolution of the site and allows the history of the property to be easily read.

Planning Board Report 19th September 2018 Page 58

Archaeological interest –

There is great potential for the site to yield physical evidence of the original 16th Manor House and its environs which could make a positive contribution to its archaeological interest.

Artistic interest –

The asset has artistic interest through its surviving historic fabric, with specific regards to the material which dates from the 16th century.

These interests collectively make up the significance of the property as a designated heritage asset.

Impact of the proposals

The works seek to erect a two storey extension with attached single storey extensions to the west elevation of the principal building.

Whilst it is noted that the removal of the existing mid-20th century extension would have a positive impact on the character of the building, its replacement with the extensions proposed would eradicate any benefits gained from its removal.

The size and scale of the principal proposed extensions, coupled with the plethora of additional proposed extensions results in an overall structure which is of a similar size to the main building. It is therefore not possible for this extension to remain subservient to the designated heritage asset whose dominance within the site would be significantly diluted.

The overall design of the proposed structures draws focus away from the listed building, resulting in the extensions becoming the principal structure within the site. This would have a demonstrable detrimental impact on the architectural and historic interest of the designated heritage asset.

The comments of Shepton Mallet Town Council are noted, however, these works are not necessary for the existing building to remain in use, it is capable of residential use in its existing form and has done so for the past 70 years. The works are therefore not necessary to secure the properties optimum viable use as specified within paragraph 196 of the NPPF as this optimum viable use has already been secured.

As a result, it is clear that the proposals would cause a high level of ‘less than substantial’ harm to the significance of the Old Manor House as a designated heritage asset. In accordance with paragraph 196 of the NPPF, the removal of the existing mid-20th century extension does bring a small amount of public benefit, however, this is substantially outweighed by the harm caused by the proposed extensions. There are no other public benefits associated with the proposals.

Planning Board Report 19th September 2018 Page 59

Environmental Impact Assessment

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

Conclusions

Having regard to the above, the harm to the significance of the designated heritage asset is not outweighed by the public benefit identified and therefore, having due regard to Section 16 of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Area) Act 1990 and DP3 (Heritage Conservation) of the Mendip District Local Plan 2006-2029 (Part 1 Strategies and Policies - adopted 15th December 2014) consent should be refused.

Recommendation Refuse.

Reason/s for Recommendation

1. The proposals by reason of its design and scale would cause harm to the significance of the designated heritage asset which is not outweighed by the public benefit identified. The proposal therefore fails to accord with the provisions of Policy DP3 of the Mendip District Local Plan 2006 - 2029 (Part 1 Strategy and Policies- adopted 15th December 2014) and the National Planning Policy Framework 2018 (with specific regards to Chapter 16).

List of Advices

1. This decision relates to drawing numbers: 17/934/01, 02, 03, 08, 09, 10 and 11 received 11 July 2018 only.

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 cooperation in this matter is greatly appreciated.

3. In accordance with paragraph 38 of the National Planning Policy Framework the Council works in a positive, creative and pro-active way with Applicants and looks for solutions to enable the grant of listed building consent. However, in this case the proposal is not sustainable development for the reasons set out.

Planning Board Report 19th September 2018 Page 60

Agenda Item No. DM09

Case Officer Miss Lynsey Bradshaw

Site Ringolds Way Play Area Ringolds Way Street Somerset BA16 0RF

Application Number 2018/1577/RE4

Date Received 19th June 2018

Applicant/ Mrs Jenny Marshfield Organisation Street Parish Council Application Type Full Application Under Regulation 4

Proposal The installation of new play equipment on existing play area.

Ward Street West

Parish Street Parish Council

Scheme of Delegation:

In accordance with the scheme of delegation, this application is referred to the Planning Board. This is because the application site land is owned by Mendip District Council.

Description of Site, Proposal and Constraints:

The application relates to the existing Ringolds Way play area. The site is within an open recreation space in a suburban area of the village of Street. The boundaries of site and wider park area are adjacent to the gardens of single and two storey dwellings.

The application seeks full planning permission for the installation of new play equipment, on an existing play area, with associated protective surfacing.

Relevant History:

There is no relevant planning history.

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

Ward Member: No response

Street Parish Council: (Applicant) Recommend that the decision be left to the Planning Officer following consultation responses.

Highways Development Officer: No observations

Planning Board Report 19th September 2018 Page 61

Neighbourhood services: No response

Procurement Facilities and Assets: No response

Local Representations: No other representations have been made.

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

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

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

The Council’s Development Plan comprises:

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

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

• CP1 (Spatial Strategy) • CP8 (Street Parish Strategy) • DP1 (Local Identity and Distinctiveness) • DP7 (Design and Amenity) • DP8 (Environmental Protection) • DP9 (Transport Impact of New Development) • DP10 (Parking Standards) • DP16 (Open Space and Green Infrastructure)

Other possible Relevant Considerations (without limitation):

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

Assessment of relevant issues:

Principle of the Use:

Core Policy 1 (CP1) of the adopted “Mendip District Local Plan - Part 1” says that to enable the most sustainable pattern of growth for Mendip District the majority of development will be directed to towards the five principal settlements (Frome, Shepton Mallet, Wells, Glastonbury and Street). The site is within the development limits of Street.

Planning Board Report 19th September 2018 Page 62

Core Policy 8 (CP8) of the adopted “Mendip District Local Plan - Part 1” has a green infrastructure strategy to promote a network of open spaces across the parish. Further to this, Development Policy 16 (DP16) seeks to protect existing open, sport or recreation space. The proposal is considered to be in accordance with the strategies of these policies by securing modern facilities within an existing area of open space to promote the continued long term use of the recreation area.

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

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

The area has largely flat topography, sloping slightly from the south down to the north. Currently, the site is largely grassed, with some existing play equipment with protective floor below. There is also a low wooden fence separating the play area from the rest of the grass park area. It is considered that the site currently has a tired appearance.

The proposed development would introduce a number of new elements of play equipment, in similar positions to the existing equipment. The design and materials are consistent with what would be expected of modern play equipment.

The proposed design and materials for the site are therefore considered to be in accordance with Policies DP1 and DP7.

Impact on Residential Amenity:

The proposal is adjacent to existing housing, particularly the bungalows to the east of the site. Although some of the equipment is higher than the existing elements, the taller structures are considered to be sympathetically sited further away from the east boundary fence than some of the lower elements.

Given the existing use of the site for recreation, the proposal is not considered to generate additional harmful impacts to neighbour amenity, over and above the existing situation. The impact of the proposal on neighbour amenity is therefore considered to be in accordance with Policies DP7 and DP8.

Assessment of Highway Issues:

There are no proposed changes to the access or parking for the site. The impact of the proposed development is not considered to have a significant impact over and above the existing situation on highway safety.

The proposed access and parking for the site are therefore considered to be in accordance with Policies DP9 and DP10.

Planning Board Report 19th September 2018 Page 63

Environmental Impact Assessment

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

Conclusion:

It is recommended that planning permission is approved with conditions because the proposal is within an existing recreation space, and would result in improvements to the facilities.

Recommendation:

Approve with Conditions

Reason/s for Recommendation

1. The proposal accords with the Council's settlement strategy for the location of new development, and 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 (principle of development), DP1 (local identity), DP7 (design and amenity), DP9 (transport), DP10 (parking), DP16 (open space) 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)

Planning Board Report 19th September 2018 Page 64

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 location plan at a scale of 1:1250 and the site plan at a scale of 1:500, and drawing numbers O6UJ9A003A5V, PCM721420 1/5, PCM721420 2/5, PCM721420 3/5, PCM721420 4/5, and PCM721420 5/5, and the details of the play equipment detailed in the "KOMPAN" document titled "Street Parish Council Ringolds Way Play Area" submitted for the application validated on 28th June 2018 only. 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. 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. Somerset Building Control Partnership works in tandem with our Development Management team to offer a number of helpful and efficient services that can be accessed via their website www.sedgemoor.gov.uk/SomersetBCP/ by email at [email protected], or by telephoning 0300 303 7790. 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.

3. In accordance with paragraph 38 of the National Planning Policy Framework the Council has worked in a positive, creative and pro-active way and has imposed planning conditions to enable the grant of planning permission.

Planning Board Report 19th September 2018 Page 65