Planning Board NOTES: DATE: 20Th December 2017 1. Items May Be

Planning Board

DATE: 20th December 2017 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.

1 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Planning Board - 20th December 2017

Item Page Application Ward/Site Case Number Officer

DM01 04 2017/0022/FUL Land At 353491 146562, Mr Daniel Wookey Hole Road, Wells, Foster Somerset,

St Cuthbert Out North DM02 32 2017/2002/FUL Former Frome Police Station , Mr James Oakfield Road, Frome, BA11 U'Dell 4JG

Frome Oakfield DM03 44 2017/0660/HSE Arch Cottage, John Beales Mrs Lorna Hill, Pilton, Shepton Mallet, Elstob Somerset, BA4 4DB

Croscombe And Pilton DM04 47 2017/2239/HSE Warley, Pitcot Farm, Pitcot Mr Carlton Lane, Stratton On The Fosse, Langford Shepton Mallet, Somerset, BA3 4SX

Ashwick, Chilcompton And Stratton DM05 49 2017/2276/VRC Pitchperfect Campsite , Sleight Mr Carlton Farm To Bath Road, Woolverton, Langford Frome, BA2 7QU

Rode And Norton St Philip DM06 63 2017/2277/VRC Pitchperfect Campsite , Sleight Mr Carlton Farm To Bath Road, Woolverton, Langford Frome, BA2 7QU

Rode And Norton St Philip DM07 71 2017/1779/FUL Land At Manor Farm, Piltown, Mr Robert West Pennard, Glastonbury, Brigden Somerset, BA6 8NQ

The Pennards And Ditcheat DM08 75 2017/1998/FUL The Walled Garden, Little Mr Robert Pennard Lane, East Pennard, Brigden Somerset, BA4

The Pennards & Ditcheat DM09 87 2017/2567/FUL TheDitch CyderDitcheat Barn , Woodlands Mr Daniel Road To Stockbridge Lane, Foster West Pennard, Glastonbury, BA6 8NH

The Pennards And Ditcheat DM10 93 2017/2220/FUL Northover Manor House , Mr Daniel

Beckery, Glastonbury, BA6 Foster 9NU

Glastonbury St Benedicts DM11 101 2017/2455/FUL Village Hall, Green Street, Ston Miss Lynsey Easton, Wells, Radstock, Bradshaw Somerset, BA3 4DA

Chewton Mendip And Ston Easton

3 Agenda Item No. DM01

Case Officer Mr Daniel Foster

Site Land At 353491 146562 Wookey Hole Road Wells Somerset

Application Number 2017/0022/FUL

Date Received 6th January 2017

Applicant/ Mr David Russell Organisation Bovis Homes (South West) Ltd

Application Type Full Application

Proposal An application for 203 Residential dwellings and associated public open space, landscaping and infrastructure (amended plans and details, including revised layout, storeys height and landscaping).

Ward St Cuthbert Out North

Parish St Cuthbert Out Parish Council

This application is referred to Planning Board given the scale of the proposed development and in-light of the request of the Ward Member.

Description of Site, Proposal and Constraints

The application relates to land south of Wookey Hole Road, to the west of Wells.

The application seeks full planning permission for the erection of 203 residential dwellings and associated public open space, landscaping and infrastructure.

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

The site is within the Settlement Limits for Wells. Local Plan Core Policy 10 (CP10B) relates specifically to this application site which is referred to as ‘Land West of Wells’ and identifies this site as the ‘Northern Development Area’ for which about 200 dwellings and the school site are identified.

In respect of constraints, the site is designated as Flood Zone 1 (at the lowest risk from flooding) except for a small watercourse on the southern part of the site which is designated as Flood Zone 3. In landscape terms, the site is within the ‘Polsham to Lodge Hill Hillocks’ Landscape Character Area. It consists of grade 3 agricultural land.

Procedural note

The application has been subject of various amendments following the initial consultation period and feedback to the applicant. These revisions have been subject of formal re- consultation and the responses below are the latest receive in respect of each consultee.

Summary of Parish/City Council comments, any objections or conflict with the recommendation

4 The application site lies within St Cuthbert Out Parish but the development would, in effect, be an enlargement of the City of Wells. Both the Parish and City Council have been consulted on that basis.

St Cuthbert Out Parish Council

Comments to re-consultation on revised plans 15/11/17

Recommend refusal, comments:

1. The infrastructure is inadequate to accommodate the significant increase in traffic, parking and narrowing of roads. 2. There is insufficient affordable housing. 3. The original plans are not available on Mendip District Council's website to enable comparison with the revised plans. 4. There is lack of detail of what the changes are. 5. The Council were given insufficient consultation time. 6. Should Mendip District Council approve this application, the Council would like to reiterate and emphasise their recommendation conditions and comments for application 2017/0022 FUL (Planning Committee 15th February 2017) in particular relating to S106 monies (see recommendation below). 7. The Council would like to add to the original application recommendation (Planning Committee 15th February 2017) "in perpetuity" to their comment 5. "The adjoining land (edged blue on the plans) to be designated exclusively for community and school use and not housing". 8. The Council would like to reiterate their recommendation comments for application 2017/0688 VRC (Planning Committee 14th April 2017) (see recommendation below).

Comments to initial consultation 15/2/17

Recommended: Approval subject to the following conditions and comments:

1. A maintenance charge to be levied on each property to protect the Parish Council from the maintenance costs of the green spaces. 2. The Parish Council welcome the increase in the number of houses but with the provisos that the extra housing is affordable and there is no increase in density above the current 203 homes. 3. Security fencing to be erected on the west boundary to prevent encroachment onto private land. 4. Protection required from future development for the public open spaces surrounding the site. 5. The adjoining land (edged blue on the plans) to be designated exclusively for community and school use and not housing. 6. Section 106 funding to be secured for a community facility on the adjoining land (edged blue on the plans). 7. The Parish Council would like to know if there are any more details on the proposed school and who is going to fund it? 8. Point 2.3.19 of the proposed Framework Travel Plan is unrealistic. Consultation with Somerset County Council Routes for Schools is necessary to ensure safe crossing from this site. 9. Funding is needed for a crossing on Wookey Hole Road and Highways to be consulted. 10. There needs to be an adequate pathway front of the site on Wookey Hole Road. 11. All paths should be of a suitable gradient and hard surfaced for disabled access. 12. There should be a 2 metre wide disabled accessible and cycle friendly path onto St Cuthberts Avenue. 13. The access paths onto the old Strawberry Line need to be disabled accessible.

5 14. Section 106 funding to be secured to support the costs of the 67 bus service for a defined long-term period. 15. The sewage system to be updated to ensure it has the capacity for the development. The sewage company to confirm that the pumping station is capable of dealing with the additional volume of both waste and flood risk. 16. There are major concerns about the adequacy of all infrastructure. 17. St Cuthbert (Out) Parish Council request that they are represented at Section 106 negotiations. 18. St Cuthbert (Out) Parish Council request that a Bovis representative attends any future meetings to present their plans, especially if they require amendments.

The Planning Committee are in full agreement with the comments already made by the neighbouring Parish Wells City Council.

Wells City Council

Comments to re-consultation on amended plans 3/11/17

Recommend approval with conditions

The Vice-Chairman of St Cuthbert Out parish Council spoke about application 2017/0022 Wookey Hole Road. There was a detailed discussion in which Cllr Munt also took part. The committee decision was taken by vote with the majority in favour, Cllr Kennedy against. i. Wells City Council is in agreement with all the points made by St Cuthbert Out Parish Council ii. Wells City Council strongly recommends that St Cuthbert Out PC be involved in all S106 condition discussions and requests that Wells CC be included also. iii. The travel plan for the original application stated that there was a bus service (the 67 route); this has been much reduced and is likely to be closed completely in April 2018. S 106 conditions should include provision for the continuance of a public transport service. iv. The City Council welcomes the provision of land for a school within the site. Conditions should include the control that if a school is not built, that land should be retained for public use. v. The City Council supports the suggestion by St Cuthbert Out PC that a maintenance charge must be set on all properties on the development, so that responsibility for the open spaces does not fall on the parish. vi. There should be sufficient off-street provision for parking of vehicles, roads must be wide enough for proper highway safety and so that vehicles do not have to park on pavements. vii. Pavements must be wide enough for all pedestrian safety. (pushchairs etc) viii. Proper separated cycle-ways must be provided, in the interests of all users.

Comments to initial consultation 3/2/17

Recommend approval subject to conditions: i. There must be a minimum of 25% affordable housing. ii. The 'plan of travel', or timescale of the build, must show clearly that there will be provision of infrastructure prior to the release of dwellings; particularly in relation to the school and to medical services. The Council requires reassurance that adequate infrastructure will be put in place. iii. There must be clear and adequate flood planning; part of the area is known to be subject to flooding. iv. The transport plan must be adjusted to take account of the recent withdrawal of the 67 bus service.

6 Plans must be adhered to and these conditions must be robustly enforced, in the interests of the existing, and future, community.

Ward Member

If you were in mind to approve the two new applications from the Bovis site on the Wookey Hole road please could you ask the Chair and Vice Chair of planning to consider both of the new applications to be determined by the Planning Board.

I met last night with a group of the residents from Wookey Hole, they put their views cross very positively and did expect there is a clear need for new housing in and around the Wells area, but felt that the site density was high enough without a further 43 homes.

Their reasons were very clear that there would be a large strain on the infrastructure in Wookey Hole and Haybridge, also this is a rural village area and people felt that more space is needed around each property. The second application for change of conditions was some concern as they felt that if this work was not done at the start it would be many years before it would be completed and leaving the site untidy.

Principal Planning Policy Officer

Principle of Development

There are no objections in principle to increasing the number of dwellings from the original consent. Policy CP10b in the adopted Local Plan allocates the application site for 200 homes and a site for a primary school. In general terms, the application retains the layout from the extant permission for 160 dwellings on this site. It would therefore also address in principle the Local Plan requirements for open space and mitigation for bats.

This site is included as part of the latest five year housing supply of deliverable sites with a contribution of around 100 dwellings.

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is very clear on the approach to allocated sites in a development plan - in that they should be approved 'without delay' (para 14).

Affordable Housing.

Further comments received 21/11/2017

The above development proposal, follows the broad principles set out in earlier consultation requests and pre-planning meetings.

We have considered this scheme very carefully, taking account of the sites' position for a primary school, the general development requirements and constraints, our local plan policy and local housing need, and are comfortable with the housing tenure mix for this development.

This is in line with what has been agreed and presented as affordable rented units, shared ownership properties with an extended provision for Discounted Market Housing. This is to provide a wider choice of affordable housing for differing age groups and demographics in Wells, as well as encouraging development and growth.

The affordable housing layout is acceptable on each phase and so is the recently requested development 'trigger' amendment, acceptable. This is to facilitate better links between the delivering of the affordable housing to the market housing units. It allows a better phased approach in the delivery of the development as a whole. I therefore, have no reason to object to this proposal.

7 Comments received 13/10/2017

The application provides an affordable housing contribution of 25% and tenure mix based on the extant scheme (51 dwellings in total). The agreed contribution is lower than the policy target for Wells of 40%.

The 25% agreed on the 160 dwelling scheme reflected viability discussions on the s106. It was agreed that a lower figure was appropriate given the contribution of the school site. In relation to this application, policy advice was sought in March 2016 on whether the contribution originally agreed could be applied to a revised application of 200 dwellings. This was in the context that retaining the 25% contribution would be a critical factor in a developer taking the site forward. Confirmation was provided (at officer level advice) that 25% would be considered acceptable as a starting point in principle. This took into account the importance of securing delivery on an allocated housing site – within the five year supply and the pro- rata uplift in the number of on-site affordable dwellings.

No detailed assessment has been made of the extent to which the additional market dwellings in this proposal will improve the overall viability of the scheme. However, the scheme will be more viable with a higher number of dwellings and it would be appropriate to negotiate an improved mix of tenures within the 25%, in line with local plan and housing policy.

Infrastructure Issues

School Provision

The application retains a primary school site which meets the requirements of policy CP10. The need for this site is confirmed in the most recent school infrastructure plan (2015) which predicts a shortfall in primary school capacity from 2020. There will also be pressure on secondary school places but this can be accommodated though the overlap of capacity between secondary schools. The school infrastructure plan is updated annually taking into account the Mendip housing trajectory and takes account of both committed and future speculative proposals.

This site alone will not generate pupil numbers to require a new school to be built. Therefore there is no planning justification for the Council to that a primary school is built as a condition of determining this application. Beyond providing the school site, the timing and provision of a new primary school will be the responsibility of Somerset County Council as Local Education Authority. The LEA will be able to provide further information on their approach to delivering the school and would be likely to look at the options to extend capacity in existing primary schools in the short term.

Primary Care

Responsibility for managing and responding to the growth in demand for primary care lies with the Somerset Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) at county level and with the GP practices. The combined practices in Wells have around 18,700 registered patients. New registrations from housing in Wells could add around 6% to this over the next five years. Discussions have taken place with the CCG to ensure that planned housing growth from development in the District is taken into account in forward plans.

Habitats provision

The application site has a potential impact on the Wookey and Mendip Bats SAC. Specific mitigation measures were agreed in the approved outline application which are incorporated in this proposal. SCC has recently updated is technical guidance for the SAC and should be consulted to confirm this does not change the mitigation previously agreed for this site.

8 Conclusions

There are no objections in principle to increasing the number of dwellings from the original consent

SCC Highway Authority

Initial comments

Principle

This is a green field site which lies along Wookey Hole Rd a un-classified road that is subject to a 30mph speed restriction. The application is a full planning application, there was a previous outline application on the site 2013/1033 which was for 160 dwellings and a seven-form primary school, which was approved with conditions and to which the Highway Authority raised no objections.

Transport Assessment

With this application a Technical Note - Transport Update - ( WSP Parsons Brinkhoff 8th December 2016 ) has been submitted. This document details the impact that the additional 43 dwellings will have on the local highway network and local junctions over and above that of the permitted development. The submitted document has been fully considered and the methodology is acceptable. The findings of the Technical Note have been reviewed and considered also to be acceptable. The document, undertakes a capacity assessment of the Wookey Hole Road/Strawberry Way/Portway/Whiting Way signalised junction, and concludes that it will still operate within theoretical capacity 2022. ., in that with the addition of 43 dwellings whilst traffic generation from the site will increase such increase will be nominal and will not have a severe impact on the local highway network or local junction capacity. A percentage impact assessment at the Strawberry Way/Glastonbury Road roundabout was also undertaken, this assessment concluded that a maximum of impact of 3% would occur on Strawberry Road, which is deemed acceptable. In conclusion the HA feel that the proposed additional dwellings will not have a severe impact either on highway safety or on the local highway network.

Parking Levels

Having considered Drawing No: 02.201 Planning Layout the parking levels appear to be appropriate for each the dwellings, however, visitor parking provision does not accord with SCC parking strategy. With most of the parking allocated there is a requirement for 0.2 space per dwelling for visitor parking unless there is justification for less.

Access

As with the previous application the proposed access is shown to be positioned centrally along the sites frontage which will give better visibility and is a sufficient distance away from any existing junctions or accesses in the vicinity. The main access should have visibility splays of 2.4 metres x 43.0 metres in either direction, with no obstruction to visibility over 300mm should be provided. It would appear that these splays are not annotated shown on the submitted plans but it is evident that such splays can be achieved.

As with the previous application the HA would seek a 2m wide footway along the site frontage on both sides of the proposed access. This footway again does not seem to be shown on the submitted plans. Such works should be undertaken prior to occupation of any dwellings and whilst it will be acceptable to use adopted highway verge to obtain the 2m width it may be necessary to encroach onto developer land that will need to be dedicated as

9 highway. Such works should form park of the s106 agreement for the site and any works on the highway will need to be undertaken through a highways agreement.

Internal Layout Below are estate road officer comments :- Based on submitted drawings Sheet 1 and Sheet 2 preliminary Highway Layout ( PHL-101 rev a and PHL - 102 revA ) and Preliminary swept path Analysis Sk-111 and Sk110

Pedestrian and cycling links

The southern boundary runs close to the Wells to Cheddar Multi-User Path (MUP) which runs towards the centre of Wells providing a traffic free route into the city. The plans show that there is at least one link to this MUP although it's not clear whether the red line does indeed go up to its boundary.

Travel Plan

A travel Plan fee has been briefly mentioned, but the fee is £2,000 plus VAT, however, there is no mention of a safeguard sum within the TP, this will be £50,750. Car parking provision has not been included within the TP, nor has motorcycle parking provision. The Travel Plan should be secured by a S106 Further measures to be included: travel plan management fund (for promotional events); signage; description of bus stop facilities; EVC's; commitment to ATC's.

In conclusion, the Highway Authority raises no objection to this application subject to the following conditions being attached to any permissions granted (provides list of suggested conditions).

Subsequent comments following revisions/additional information

The information now provided by the applicant at this stage is satisfactory. Parking levels are acceptable, and the access arrangements including the proposed new footway along Wookey Hole Rd form part of the 2013 outline. Therefore, there is no highway objection to the proposal subject to the following conditions being attached to any permissions granted (provides a list of suggested conditions).

MDC Land Drainage

Initial comments

The site is within Flood Zone 1 and so the development is deemed appropriate in accordance with the NPPF. The site is currently greenfield and so there will be an increase in surface water runoff as a result of the proposed development. A surface water drainage strategy that limits discharge from the site to current greenfield rates will be the minimum required. It is noted that the FRA proposes to reduce this by a further 30% to provide additional benefit. This is supported.

There is a small watercourse running through the site that appears to be fed by a 300mm diameter culvert, which collects water from the adjacent housing development. The EA surface water flood mapping clearly indicates this watercourse and also highlights an area of flooding along the southern boundary of the site where the site meets the railway embankment. The FRA states that this is mainly from overland flow off fields to the north" despite earlier stating (Section 3 of the FRA) that the site is at no risk from 'overland flow flooding' or 'pluvial flooding'. It is unclear whether this might be a capacity issue of the receiving watercourse or if the topography provides a dip at the embankment where water collects.

10 The FRA uses FEH to define the catchment and estimate flows. However, we would expect to see a more thorough assessment of the volumes of runoff entering the watercourse from not only the culvert (the catchment entering this system should be assessed) but from overland flow routes to the north. Additionally, the applicant will need to demonstrate that current flow paths for runoff are retained post development and that the runoff that currently floods the southeast of the site is captured. Two of the proposed attenuation ponds are currently in this location, which will mimic existing conditions, but we would like a further detailed analysis of the flow routes and volumes to provide confidence that the strategy will not pose a risk to the proposed development.

The applicant has gone some way to assess the size and capacity of the watercourse but there is no mention of the size or condition of the railway culvert that the site will need to flow into at the southernmost point of the site. This will be the limiting factor with regards to discharge from the site irrespective of the capacity of the receiving watercourse further downstream. The Wessex Water utilities plan seems to indicate a 300mm culvert under the railway but there is no mention of this in the FRA. The applicant will need to assess this culvert and its continued capacity to discharge the site. As part of this the applicant should provide a detailed plan of the existing watercourse and culverts with dimensions and all current flow routes entering the catchment clearly indicated.

The Drainage Officer therefore objects to this application as the details provided in the FRA are not sufficient to determine the viability of the proposed surface water drainage scheme.

As noted above, the current proposal does not provide sufficient detail on the watercourse and the railway culvert for us to determine that it has sufficient capacity to discharge the runoff from the site. This is not an objection in principle to the proposal. The applicant can overcome the objection by providing the additional information outlined above.

Subsequent comments

I am now satisfied that the information provided by the applicants can remove my objection to the scheme, however I would like to condition as follows (provide suggested conditions relating to surface water and foul drainage).

SCC Local Lead Flood Authority

Initial comments

The development indicates an increase in impermeable areas that will generate an increase in surface water runoff. This has the potential to increase flood risk to the adjacent properties or the highway if not adequately controlled.

The applicant has provided initial details of the proposed drainage designs for the capture and removal of surface water from the development. The proposals include the use of attenuation ponds with controlled outfall to the existing watercourse running through site, at rates to match existing greenfield runoff rates. Furthermore the applicant is proposing to enlarge the existing watercourse to create a two stage feature thus providing additional flow capacity and storage.

Initial assessments utilising FEH indicate the downstream has capacity to cope with the 1:100yr + 40% climate change, however a detailed assessment of the upstream culvert (feeding the existing stream) to establish discharge flows still needs to be undertaken.

The LLFA is supportive (in principle) of the proposed surface water drainage strategy and therefore, has no objection to the proposed development, as submitted, subject to a drainage condition being applied to allow for a detailed surface water drainage design to be submitted and approved in writing, along with the outstanding details of the upstream culvert flows.

11 Subsequent comments

The amended plans relate to hard and soft landscaping on plots, no amendments have been submitted with regards to the proposed surface water drainage. The LLFA would refer the LPA and applicant back to the original LLFA response dated 15 February 2017 (as above).

Somerset Drainage Board

This site is located just outside of the Axe Brue Drainage Board area however, any increased surface water run-off will discharge into the Board's area, within which it has jurisdiction and powers over matters relating to ordinary watercourses. The Board's responsibilities require it to ensure that flood risk and surface water drainage are managed effectively.

The Board previously did not object to the planning application submitted in 2013 (2013/1033) however, requested details of the surface water drainage disposal were not forthcoming.

The Board is minded to object to the above planning application as there is insufficient information regarding the disposal of surface water run-off however, should the Local Planning Authority consider the application is acceptable and is to be approved a condition in relation to flood risk and surface water must be secured.

Reason: The application contains insufficient information to determine if matters of flood risk and surface water drainage have received adequate attention. It is therefore not possible to determine if the development will have an adverse impact on flood risk elsewhere which is contrary to the principles set out in Section 103 of the National Planning Policy Framework and Section 2 of the Technical Guidance to the National Planning Policy Framework.

If however, should further information become available which sets out an acceptable surface water strategy, then the condition set out below would need to be secured. Cont….

Condition - No development should proceed until a surface water disposal scheme compliant with best engineering practices has been submitted and agreed with the Local Planning Authority (LPA) in consultation with the Board.

Reason: The additional surface water run-off generated by this development will need to be controlled in a manner that does not increase flood risk elsewhere which is in accordance with the principles set out in Section 103 of the National Planning Policy Framework and Section 2 of the Technical Guidance to the National Planning Policy Framework.

Informative: The Board would advise the applicant that Land Drainage Consent will be necessary to formalise any connection to the receiving network within the Board's area of responsibility and that those details will need to regulate rate and volume to the Board's network other than connection with, and to, a Main River.

However, the Board has had no contact with the applicant, or any agent, to confirm the surface water disposal details are acceptable. Previously the Board pointed out its requirements regarding surface water drainage disposal and linkage to the receiving network under the Board's control. Furthermore an adjacent development has recently been approved and which the surface water discharge rate has been agreed with the District Council which will discharge through this land.

The Board would draw the developer's attention to the limitations of the receiving network downstream. It will be necessary to undertake off-site works and investigations of private culverts through which it is likely that any connection to the downstream system will be made.

12 The Board would expect that a practical sustainable drainage solution should be included within the requested details and the use of water harvesting, or storage, or attenuation, should be included to mitigate the development's impact on the receiving land drainage network.

If the suggested condition can be included on any permission granted by the Local Planning Authority (LPA) the details should be agreed in consultation with the Board.

Wessex Water

Further comments received 21/11/2017 repeat previous advice

The level of detail submitted on the foul sewage proposals under this application for 203 dwellings is similar to that previously submitted under 2013/1033. Therefore we request the application of a foul water drainage condition.

MDC Housing Enabler

This proposal is in line with earlier negotiations and discussions, and reflects the range and mix of house types, we considered to be useful and appropriate for this development.

The increase in overall provision will help to provide an additional 11 x affordable units on site and this will go some way to supporting residents with a good mix of affordable tenure and homes.

The market housing component is also in line with discussions and is not over dominated with larger ‘over-sized’ homes. And the affordable homes are reasonably distributed and integrated with the market housing across the scheme. This will all contribute towards delivering a more sustainable development. I therefore, have no reason to object to this proposal.

MDC Tree Officer

No reply to date

MDC Land Contamination

The application included the report: 'Phase 1 Desk Study and Phase 2 Preliminary Ground Investigation Report. Wookey Hole Road, Wells.' by Geo Consulting Engineering Ltd dated June 2014. The report detailed areas of elevated contamination where precautions were recommended in order to mitigate potential risks. Therefore the following conditions are recommended on an approval (provides a list of suggested conditions).

NHS England

No reply to date

Mendip Hills AONB Partnership

No reply to date

Police Liaison officer

I am happy with the confirmation that all of the gates as outlined will be put into place and that the alleyway created to the left of the lower block of flats will be gated to prevent it becoming a crime generator.

SCC Archaeology

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

SCC County Ecologist

Initial comments

The Habitats Regulations Assessment for this application, as agreed with Natural England, requires the following to be conditioned:

A Landscape and Ecological Management Plan (LEMP), principally aimed at horseshoe bats, shall be submitted to, and be approved in writing by, the local planning authority prior to the commencement of the development. The content of the LEMP shall include the following: a. Description and evaluation of features to be managed. b. Ecological trends and constraints on site that might influence management. c. Aims and objectives of management. d. Appropriate management options for achieving aims and objectives. e. Prescriptions for management actions. f. Preparation of a work schedule (including an annual work plan capable of being rolled forward over a five-year period). g. Details of the body or organisation responsible for implementation of the plan. h. On-going monitoring, including for horseshoe bats, and remedial measures.

The LEMP shall also include details of the legal and funding mechanism(s) by which the long-term implementation of the plan will be secured by the developer with the management body(ies) responsible for its delivery. The plan shall also set out (where the results from monitoring show that conservation aims and objectives of the LEMP are not being met) how contingencies and/or remedial action will be identified, agreed and implemented so that the development still delivers the fully functioning biodiversity objectives of the originally approved scheme. The approved plan will be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

I have reviewed the A Landscape and Ecological Management Plan prepared by Engain dated 27 June 2017 in respect of the above and consider that it complies with the above requirement apart from one minor amendment in Table 6.1: The statement 'Cut sward to 150 mm and remove arisings in late October - every other year or more frequently if required' should be changed to 'Cut sward to 150 mm and remove arisings in late October - every other year or more frequently in October if required' to avoid cutting being undertaken at less favourable times of year. In addition do we need to know more detail of the proposed 'Residents Management Company' who would supervise the implementation of the plan? What is this doesn't happen?

I do not know the state of the planning application. If it has not been approved then the above condition should be changed as follows:

The submitted Landscape and Ecological Management Plan (Engain, 27 June 2017) will be implemented in strict accordance with the details contained therein.

Reason: In order to ensure the integrity of a European site.

Subsequent comments

Plans ok now thanks. I look forward to seeing the lighting plan.

SCC Education

I can confirm that the school is still required and the LA has not yet begun negotiations to transfer the land.

14 For the avoidance of doubt it would be best to include the school land within the s106 for this application and would expect the terms to reflect those in the previous s106.

Other Representations

16 letters of objection received raising the following concerns (summarised):

 Mendip has a five-year supply of housing  Impact of the additional houses on wildlife, in particular the role of the hedgerows on the site in providing foraging and commuting routes for bats and impact on reptiles  Traffic generation and volume of traffic on Wookey Hole Road and resultant safety concerns  Impact on the wider road infrastructure  Change in character from rural to suburban  Number of new homes and lack of jobs and facilities in Wells  Expansion of Wells into the gap between Wells and Wookey Hole  The need for a S106 agreement to secure the play area and provision of suitable equipment, including use by nearby residents not part of the new estate  Lack of capacity for car parking in Wells  Capacity of services to cater for an increased population, including schools and medical facilities  Impact on Wells’ appeal as a tourist destination  Additional houses are not needed  Loss of important habitat and ecology, the survey identifies that the hedgerows are important for bats, part of the hedge is to be removed, some works have already been carried out. Importance of hedgerow contradicted by proposals  Loss of agricultural land  The new designs make for a cramped development with insufficient open space and parking  Likelihood of flooding and risk of subsidence  Site contamination  Housing mix, which has insufficient smaller and lower cost homes  There is a valid planning permission for a pyrolysis plant dating form 2014 on the nearby waste management site at Haybridge. This would affect the site, need either confirmation that this application has been withdrawn or EIA that addresses air quality.  Not enough affordable housing included  Absence of renewable energy provision such as solar panels

Relevant planning history

 2013/1033 – Planning application for outline planning permission (all matters reserved except access) for up to 160 dwellings, a seven-form primary school, and associated public open space, landscaping and infrastructure, approved with conditions and s106 on 12.09.2014;

 2017/0688/VRC – Variation of conditions 7 (sample panel), 8 (landscaping), 10 (estate roads), 13 (provision of woodland habitat) and 18 (car and cycle parking) of planning permission 2013/1033, to allow highway (s278) works to start before details in respect of these conditions have been submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority, currently under consideration;

 2017/0701/APP - Approval of details reserved by condition 14 (wildlife management plan), condition 15 (partial - lighting strategy), and condition 16 (construction environmental management plan) of planning permission 2013/1033, currently under consideration.

15 To the south of the application site is the ‘Southern Development Area’, for which outline planning permission was granted on appeal for up to 220 dwellings (ref. 2014/1522/OTS).

To the east of the application site is the former Thales site, which has planning permission for 173 dwellings which are currently under construction (outline ref. 2012/0700 and reserved matters 2014/1763/REM).

Summary of all planning policies relevant to the proposal

Mendip District Local Plan 2006-2029 (Part 1) adopted 15th December 2014

CP1 and CP2 (principle of development), CP10 (Wells) DP1 (local identity), DP3 (heritage), DP4 (landscape), DP5 (biodiversity), DP6 (bat protection), DP7 (design and amenity), DP8 (environmental protection), DP9 (transport), DP10 (parking), DP11 (affordable housing), DP14 (housing mix and type), DP16 (open space) DP19 (development contributions) DP23 (flood risk)

Other Guidance

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

Assessment of relevant issues

Principle

The site lies within the Development Limits of Wells which in strategic terms is a sustainable location being a principal town where Core Policies 1 and 2 of the adopted Local Plan Part 1 seek to concentrate development.

Furthermore, the adopted Local Plan Part 1 says, in Core Policy 10 (Wells City Strategy), the following about this application site (referred to as Land West of Wells);

‘Land West of Wells (located between the A371 and Wookey Hole Road) is allocated to provide about 200 new homes, a site for a new 7 class primary school and public open space.’

The allocation in the adopted Local Part 1 of this application site for development carries significant weight in determining the current application. In preparing, and in the subsequent examination of, the Part 1 Local Plan the land to the west of Wells was considered to have the greatest potential for development in landscape terms. The Inspector said the following in his Local Plan Part 1 Examination Report (October 2014):

“The land to the west of Wells proposed for allocation in the Plan is divided into two parts, a northern development area which is allocated as a Strategic Site and a southern development area which is allocated as a Future Growth Area. The Council has already resolved to grant planning permission for housing on the northern development area subject

16 to the signing of a section 106 agreement. To all intents and purposes, therefore, the principle of developing this land has been established. It is also the case, as has already been referred to, that the development of many sites on the edge of Wells is ruled out by existing constraints, particularly landscape constraints”.

As the Inspector noted the planning history of the site is a material planning consideration. The application site has, until recently, benefited from outline planning consent (ref. 2013/1033) for up to 160 dwellings, a seven-form primary school, and associated public open space, landscaping and infrastructure. The current application proposes an additional 43 dwellings than the previous outline planning permission but such an approach is in line in line with paragraph 58 of the NPPF which, amongst other things, says that planning decisions should aim to ensure that developments optimise the potential of a site to accommodate development. Optimising the use of this allocated site is also a prudent strategy in a location such as Wells where options for finding new housing allocations appear limited.

Core Policy 2 and DP7 of the adopted Local Plan Part 1 say that all allocations (such as this) will be the subject of either an appropriately detailed Development Brief or Masterplan or other structured and agreed pre-application process prepared in conjunction with the relevant community. The policies go onto say where a Development Brief/Masterplan is prepared, it will, where appropriate, be adopted as a Supplementary Planning Document prior to the granting of planning permission. However, at the Public Inquiry for the adjoining site south of the former railway line (ref. 2014/1522/OTS) the Council advanced a case that the absence of a Development Brief (for that site) was sufficient reason to dismiss the appeal. The Inspector did not agree with that argument and considered, amongst other things, that the delivery of housing to meet Mendip’s requirement, including much needed affordable housing, was an important material consideration to which substantial weight could be attached, especially in view of the relatively low levels of affordable housing provision in Wells which have been delivered in recent years. It is considered that a similar position prevails here insofar as whilst there is no Development Brief for the site the NPPF is very clear on the approach to allocated sites in a development plan in that they should be approved 'without delay'. Furthermore, as the Council’s Principal Planning Policy Officer points out the site forms part of the Council’s five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. It is considered that the timely delivery of the housing site, including the important affordable housing element, outweighs the absence of a Development Brief.

In pulling these points together the applications site is allocated in the Local Plan for ‘about 200 houses’ which the current application of 203 dwellings would be in accordance with. The site has also, until recently, benefited from an outline planning permission for up to 160 dwellings. The principle of residential development is therefore considered to be acceptable.

Dwelling Mix

Local Plan policy DP14 requires that development proposals provide for a mix of affordable and market housing types and sizes that reflect the recognised housing need, both locally and across the District. As amended, the application proposes the amounts as set out below.

For the market units (152 units), the application proposes 3 x 1 bed units, 36 x 2 bed units, 87 x 3 bed units and 26 x 4 bed units.

For the affordable units (51 units) the application proposes 19 x 1 bed units, 20 x 2 bed units, 10 x 3 bed units and 2 x 4 bed units.

The Housing Enabler has confirmed that the proposed housing mix is acceptable, and as such it is considered that the scheme accords with adopted Local Plan policy DP14.

Design, density and landscape impact

17 Land West of Wells is allocated, through the adopted Local Plan Part 1, to provide about 200 new homes, a site for a new 7 class primary school and public open space. In-light of this policy allocation there is a degree of inevitability that the character of the application site will change from a predominantly agricultural landscape to having a more built up, urban appearance. As such, it is considered that any assessment should be primarily restricted to detailed design, layout and landscaping considerations rather than the general principle of this quantum of development.

The site comprises two fields of arable land, divided by hedges (there is a third field to the south-east of the application site to be retained for the proposed primary school). The most notable landscape features are the hedgerows, some of which are tall and overgrown. The site is contained by the urban edge of Wells to the east and by open countryside to the west. The eastern side is of urban fringe character and the application site abuts the former Thales site (now being re-developed for housing) and St Cuthbert Avenue.

The application site is largely unconstrained by environmental designations. The land immediately north of the site (on the opposite side of the Wookey Hole Road) is designated as a Special Landscape Feature in the Local Plan. Due to its mainly low lying position and vegetation surrounding the application site and in the local area, views of the site are local, or from limited areas of elevated land to the north and south. The western boundary hedgerow would be reinforced to provide a clearly defined green urban edge. Hedgerows within the site would be largely retained and strengthened to retain the landscape structure and wildlife value.

The proposal is for 203 new build dwellings. These comprise a mix of flats, terraced, semi- detached and detached units the majority of which are two-storey in height and scale, with a few three storey blocks. The affordable units (51 in total) are pepper-potted throughout the site.

The units have pitched roofs, in a variety of materials reflective of those used on the development to the east (the former Thales site). Parking spaces are allocated to each dwelling, and either attached or detached garages, in single, double or tandem layouts are proposed according to which dwelling they are attributed to. The design and layout of the development is considered to respond acceptably to the character of development being constructed on the former Thales site to the east and the existing housing stock that forms the remaining character to the area.

The density of the development layout (approximately 28 dwellings per hectare over the 7.28 ha application site) is reflective of those densities on the adjoining for Thales site, and whilst the previously approved outline permission indicated a development of approximately 160 dwellings, the layout and density of the 203 units proposed, accords with the 30 – 40 dwellings per hectare range for sites within towns outlined paragraph 4.44 of the Local Plan. Furthermore, to revisit a previous point, the site is of course allocated for about 200 dwellings.

The north, south and western boundaries of the application site all of have wide margins of soft landscaping proposed and such areas help to soften the transition of the built development into the countryside beyond. This includes a strip of land retained adjacent Wookey Hole Road to preserve a perception of openness on this approach to the city.

In conclusion on this matters it is considered that the development is proposed with a suitable appreciation of the built and natural context of the locality and proposes a development which is of a scale, mass, form and layout appropriate to the local context.

Amenity

The application site is bounded to the north (beyond the Wookey Hole Road), south and west by agricultural fields such as there would be no amenity conflict arising from the proposed development in respect of these adjoining land-uses.

18 The land to be reserved for the school site forms a buffer between the proposed housing development and the existing dwellings in St Cuthberts Avenue. Details of the school itself (appearance and layout for example) are not subject of this application which simply provides a mechanism (via the S106) to transfer the land to the Education Authority for use in the future to deliver a school, as such those details relating any school would be subject of a separate planning application. However, it is considered that the layout of the proposed housing development is sufficient to ensure that it would be possible to achieve the future development of the school site without significant amenity conflict arising between the dwellings proposed here and the school.

The remainder of the eastern boundary of the application site would abut the former Thales site which is currently being developed for 173 residential units (outline ref. 2012/0700 and reserved matters 2014/1763/REM). In due course (once the Thales development is completed) there will be houses on the former Thales site whose back gardens will border the development proposed here. However, following revisions to the site layout of the development it is considered that there is sufficient distance between the two adjoining housing sites such as to ensure that future occupiers will be afforded a satisfactory living environment.

Finally, representations have been made about the potential conflict with the thermal waste treatment facility (pyrolysis plant) granted planning permission near Haybridge by Somerset County Council in 2008. It is not considered however that there would be any significant conflict arising in respect of the current housing development proposals for three principal reasons. Firstly, the waste treatment facility is not materially closer to this proposed housing development than it is to a number of other existing residential neighbours, particularly those properties at Haybridge, in respect of whom the Waste Planning Authority was satisfied that the waste facility would have no unacceptable adverse impact. Secondly, the application site was granted planning permission in 2014 for residential development without objection from the Local Planning Authority regarding the location of the site. Finally, the Council has allocated this site for housing through an extensive Local Plan process, which included examination by an Inspector, and which culminated with the adoption of the Local Plan Part 1 (including this site allocation) in December 2014 i.e. after permission for the waste facility was granted.

Highways matters

The application site is located on the edge Wells but benefits from reasonably good pedestrian and cycleway links to the rest of the city including opportunities to access employment, shopping, education and health centres.

As with the previous outline permission, the application proposes access to the site from a single vehicular access point off Wookey Hole Road, serving both the residential development and the land reserved for a school. Within the development site, access to the school would be provided from the proposed residential internal road network.

The applicants have submitted a Technical Note updating their original Transport Assessment for the development previously granted outline planning permission here for 160 dwellings and a new primary school. The Technical Note has considered the implications for traffic both on Wookey Hole Road and on the surrounding highway network, including junctions further into the city between Strawberry Way, Portway, Whiting Way, the A39 and A371.

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

19 In relation to public transport, the applicant argues that Wells is extremely well linked to the rest of the District by public transport and can be considered the transport hub of the District with most bus services passing through the city linking it with other towns and villages, as well as to other places such as Bristol and Bath. Interested parties have pointed out recent changes to bus services in Wells but it is not considered that these changes in and of themselves would make the development fundamentally unsustainable in transport terms bearing in mind this is an allocated housing site on the edge of one of the District’s five principal settlements. It has been suggested through third party consultation responses that the development should fund a bus service, however there is no technical evidence (notably from the County Highway Authority) to suggest that such an obligation is necessary to make the development acceptable or to quantify what that contribution should be (how much) and for how long.

The 203 houses proposed would be served by a total of 469 parking spaces, including visitor spaces and parking within garages. Again the County Highway Authority do not object to the parking provision made and it is considered to be in accordance with the Countywide Parking Strategy.

Protected Species

The application includes an Ecology Report. The Report outlines the bat and habitat surveys conducted and the results found compared with relevant legislation and national and local policy. It advises that the western and southern hedgerows are to be retained in their entirety and areas of replacement habitat in mitigation for the horseshoe bat foraging areas be provided. The majority of the north/south hedgerow that bisects the site – with 2 small sections removed for access will be retained. Additional sections of hedgerow are to be retained at the east end of the existing east/west hedgerow. The hedgerows will be reinforced with additional planting of native, woody species that provide food sources for small animals and birds. These details and their future management, are proposed to be outlined in a long term Landscape and Ecological Management Plan (LEMP).

The County Ecologist does not object to the findings of the Ecology Report and the Landscape & Ecological Management Plan (LEMP) which are considered to be acceptable, and the proposed enhancement details and their future management, can be secured by planning condition.

The proposal therefore accords with the provisions of adopted Local Plan policies DP5 and DP6 and the requirements of paragraph 118 in the NPPF.

Drainage

The vast majority of the application site is in Flood Zone 1 which is an area at low risk of flooding, the only area identified as being in a Flood Zone 3 (high risk) is a narrow feature that follows a watercourse that runs along the eastern boundary of the housing site where it borders the land reserved for the school. The application is accompanied by a site-specific flood risk assessment.

Both the Council’s own Drainage Engineer and the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) raise no objections to the proposals on the basis of the flood risk assessment that has been submitted and the proposed drainage solutions. The Somerset Drainage Board do raise some concerns about the proposals but go onto acknowledge that a planning condition could secure the technical details. It is considered in-light of the advice from both the Drainage Engineer and LLFA, and the Drainage Board’s acknowledgement that a suitable condition could be imposed, that the scheme is acceptable in drainage terms.

Section 106 and Infrastructure

Consideration of the need for a planning obligation (S106) must be undertaken in the light of the policy set out at paragraph 204 of the National Planning Policy Framework and the

20 statutory requirements of Regulation 122(2) of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations. These require that planning obligations should only be accepted/required where:

 they are necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms;  are directly related to the development; and  are fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to it.

The applicant is proposing to enter into a Deed of Variation to tie the new permission to the obligation that accompanied the outline planning permission 2013/1033 subject to some variations with the detail, such as the phasing of the development. The assessment of the proposed S106 in respect of the policy and legislative requirements are set out below:

 Affordable Housing

Local Plan policy DP11 (and paragraph 6.109) sets out that an expectation that in Wells and on its fringes 40% of the dwellings should be affordable and provided on site. The application proposes 51 affordable units which, given the overall number of units (203) amounts to 25% which would be secured via the S106.

Both the Council’s Principal Planning Policy Officer and Housing Enabling Officer have been involved with pre-application discussions with the developer regarding the viability of the site and the affordable housing levels proposed and neither raise an objection to the scheme now proposed. The Principal Planning Policy Officer writes;

In the absence of a technical objection from either the Planning Policy or Housing Enabling Officers it is considered that this provision in acceptable and adequately justified in this instance.

 Public Open Space

Policy DP16 of the Part 1 Plan requires new development to make a contribution towards the provision of new open space, where necessary. The text accompanying DP16 says that the National Playing Fields Association’s long-standing standard of 2.4 ha of new space per additional 1,000 people will remain the benchmark level of new provision sought within Mendip.

The applicants set out that based on an average dwelling occupancy of 2.4 persons per dwelling, this equates to approximately 487 people living on site (2.4 persons x 203 units). This means that the required area of Open Space based on the proposed population is around 1.16ha (2.4ha /1000 x 487).

The layout proposes areas of open space that are directly accessible to the public for recreation (excluding the land reserved for the school) of around 1.48ha in area, therefore exceeding the requirements of the Local Plan policy.

In terms of layout, the application proposes open space and informal green space to be located around the northern, western and southern edges of the site and smaller areas within, and amongst, the housing development. These areas provide a buffer between the

21 southern and eastern site boundary hedges and the northern site boundary with Wookey Hole Road. The development also includes the provision of a LAP (Local Area for Play) and LEAP (Local Equipped Area for Play).

Overall, the proposed level of open space would be acceptable and complies with Local Plan policy DP16 and the provision and maintenance of the public open space should be secured via the S106.

 Highway Obligations

The Section 106 requires the applicant to agree a highway scheme with the County Council to include highway works such as the provision of a new footway on the Wookey Hole Road, bus stops, cycleway access and other highway works. Such an obligation is necessary in the interests of highway safety.

 Travel Plan

Paragraph 36 of the NPPF says that ‘All developments which generate significant amounts of movement should be required to provide a Travel Plan’, travel plans are therefore a nationally accepted tool to help facilitate opportunities for the use of sustainable transport modes. It is considered that the scheme is of a scale that would warrant a Travel Plan to maximise the sustainable travel opportunities available and details of this secured via the S106, in conjunction with the County Council, in relation to matters such as providing a Travel Plan Co-ordinator, a travel voucher scheme, notice boards and signage.

 The proposed school site

Local Plan policy DP10 includes a requirement that the land west of Wells should include a site for a new 7-class primary school.

The need for a school was requested by the Local Education Authority to meet medium to long term demand in Wells, so it is not required solely to serve this specific site. The application includes land for a primary school located immediately to the south-east of the housing land which meets the requirements of policy DP10.

The County Council as Education Authority is satisfied with the proposal subject to the same terms, as were agreed through the earlier outline planning permission (2013/1033), being entered into again to transfer the land to the County Council.

Other issues

St Cuthbert Out Parish Council, having initially recommended approval to the scheme, now recommended refusal on a number of grounds amongst which include concerns that the original plans are not available on Mendip District Council's website to enable comparison with the revised plans. However, this is not the case – the original plans submitted to the Local Planning Authority in January 2017 remain available to view. Furthermore, this is not in itself a reason to refuse planning permission and is not a planning harm arising from the development.

The Parish Council were also concerned they were given insufficient consultation time, however they were re-consulted for the standardised 21 day period given to all consultees.

Environmental Impact Assessment

This development has been considered within the scope of the town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 and it is considered that an Environmental Impact Assessment is not required.

Conclusion

22 It is considered that the development of 203 dwellings (including 51 affordable housing units) would be acceptable in principle based on Core Policies 1, 2 and 10.

Clearly, the loss of several fields on the edge of Wells would have some effect on the character and appearance of the landscape due to the fact that there would be a change from a rural to an urban use. This, however, needs to be placed in the context that the Local Plan, at Core Policy 10, considers that residential development is acceptable in principle and the site is allocated for this purpose. Any impact on the AONB would be minimal and the development would be relatively well screened and contained in the local landscape and would not result in the coalescence of Wells and Haybridge/Wookey Hole.

The relevant social aspects of the development are that the scheme would deliver a significant quantum of affordable housing as well as market housing, which is also needed in Wells (and the District), a site for a new school and new areas of public open space.

The proposal would contribute to increasing the working age population in accordance with policy CP10 which states, amongst other things, that ‘the overarching aim is to deliver new housing development to meet the needs of the workforce and local people”. There would also be short-term construction employment and an indirect, positive effect on shops and other facilities and services in Wells.

The application site is located with relatively convenient access to the main facilities in Wells (one of the District’s five ‘principal’ settlements), including employment, shops, schools and health centres and in overall terms it is considered that the proposed development is in a sustainable location.

It is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to a S106 to secure the transfer of the school site to the County Council, the provision and maintenance of Public Open Space (including the LAP and LEAP), affordable housing, highway works and a Travel Plan.

23 Reason/s for Recommendation

1. The proposal accords with the Council's settlement strategy for the location of new development and is allocated in the adopted Mendip District Local Plan Part 1 to provide about 200 new homes, a site for a new 7 class primary school and public open space.

The proposal, by reason of its design, scale and layout would be in keeping with its surroundings and would not unacceptably harm the landscape.

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 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 and CP2 (principle of development), CP10 (Wells), DP1 (local identity), DP3 (heritage), DP4 (landscape), DP5 (biodiversity), DP6 (bat protection), DP7 (design and amenity), DP8 (environmental protection), DP9 (transport), DP10 (parking), DP11 (affordable housing), DP14 (housing mix and type), DP16 (open space), DP19 (development contributions) and DP23 (flood risk) 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)

24 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:

0145-02-200 Location Plan Rev. A 0145-02-201 F Planning Layout 0145-02-202 F Materials Layout 0145-02-203 E Storey Heights Layout 0145-02-204 E Affordable Layout 0145- 02-205 E Enclosures Layout 0145-02- 206 D Ecology Layout 0145-02-207 C Affordable Delivery Plan 0145-02-208 C Public Open Space Delivery 0145 Street scene 1 of 2 REV B 0145 Street scene 2 of 2 REV B 0145-07-701B P202-Model Village - Render 0145-07-702B P202-Model Village - Brick 0145-07-703B P202-Model Village - Stone 0145-07-704B P202-Green Edge 0145-07-705B P302-Model Village Render 0145-07-706B P302-Model Village Brick 0145-07-707B P302-Green Edge 0145-07-708B P303-Model Village Render 0145-07-709B P303-Model Village Stone 0145-07-710B P303-Model Village Brick 0145-07-711B P303-Green Edge 0145-07-712 Rev C P306-Model Village - Render 0145-07-713B P306-Model Village Brick 0145-07-714 Rev C P306-Green Edge 0145-07-715B P309-Model Village Render 0145-07-716B P309-Model Village Brick 0145-07-717 GE- P309-Green Edge 0145-07-717 Rev. B P309-Model Village -Stone 0145-07-718 Rev C P402-Model Village - Render 0145-07-719 Rev C P402-Green Edge 0145-07-720B P403-Model Village Render 0145-07-721C P403-Model Village Stone 0145-07-722B P403-Green Edge Type 1 0145-07-723B P403-Green Edge Type 2 0145-07-724B P404-Model Village Render 0145-07-725B P404-Green Edge 0145-07-726C PF01-Model Village Brick 0145-07-727C PF01-Model Village Brick-DT 0145-07-728B SH203-Model Village Brick 0145-07-730B SH309-Model Village Brick 0145-07-732 Rev B SH425-Model Village - Brick 0145-07-733-1B SH101-Model Village Brick Elevations 2 0145-07-733B SH101-Model Village Brick Elevations 1 0145-07-734-1B SH101-Model Village Brick GF Plans 2 0145-07-734B SH101-Model Village Brick GF Plans 1 0145-07-735-1B SH101-Model Village Brick FF Plans 2

25 0145-07-735B SH101-Model Village Brick FF Plans 1 0145-07-736C SH101-Green Edge Elevations 0145-07-737B SH101-Green Edge GF Plans 0145-07-738B SH101-Green Edge FF Plans 0145-07-740B P308-Model Village Brick 0145-07-741A P308-Model Village Render 0145-7-1DF Natural Stone Dwarf Wall 0145 SK-301 Rev. A 0145-PHL-101-B Preliminary Highway Layout - Sheet 1 0145-PHL-102-B Preliminary Highway Layout - Sheet 2 0145-PHL-201-A Road Long Sections Sheet 1 0145-PHL-202-A Preliminary Road Long Sections Sheet 2 0145 07 FT Rev. A Fire Tender Tracking 0145 07 RT Rev. C Refuse tracking Sk02A Rev A - preliminary drainage strategy JBA 16 264 01 REV D Detailed Landscape plots and POS Wookey Hole Rd Wells JBA 16 264 02 REV D Detailed Landscape plots and POS Wookey Hole Rd Wells JBA 16 264 03 REV D Detailed Landscape plots and POS Wookey Hole Rd Wells JBA 16 264 04 REV D Detailed Landscape plots and POS Wookey Hole Rd Wells JBA 16 264 05 REV D Detailed Landscape plots and POS Wookey Hole Rd Wells JBA 16 264 06 REV D Detailed Landscape plots and POS Wookey Hole Rd Wells JBA 16 264 07 REV D Detailed Landscape plots and POS Wookey Hole Rd Wells JBA 16 264 08 REV D Detailed Landscape plots and POS Wookey Hole Rd Wells

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

3. The development hereby approved shall be carried out using external facing materials as specified on drawing 0145 02-202 Rev. F, unless an alternative schedule of materials and finishes, and samples of the materials, has been first submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. In the event that an alternative schedule of materials is approved the development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: in the interests of the character and appearance of the area.

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

26 5. No dwelling in each relevant phase as shown on drawing 0145 02-208 Rev. C (titled: Public Open Space Delivery) hereby approved shall be occupied until all hard and soft landscape works (excluding the LAP and LEAP areas which are subject of condition 6) associated with that phase have been carried out in accordance with the approved landscaping details. Any trees or plants indicated on the approved scheme which, within a period of five years from the date of planting, die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced during the next planting season either with the same tree/plant 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. All hard landscaping shall be retained in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure the provision of an appropriate landscape setting to serve the development.

6. The following dwellings (plots) shall not be occupied unless the Local Area for Play (LAP) or Locally Equipped Area for Play (LEAP), as relevant, immediately adjacent those dwellings has been laid out and made available for use in accordance with the approved plans and details:

LEAP adjacent Plots 26 through to 32 LAP adjacent Plots 98 and 99 LAP located between Plots 172 through to 176 and Plots 186 through to 188 and Plot 203

The approved LAPs and LEAP shall thereafter be retained in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure the provision of an appropriate landscape setting to serve the development.

7. All existing trees and hedgerows shown for retention shall be fully safeguarded during the course of the site works and building operations and no work shall commence on site unless a detailed method statement in accordance with BS5837:2012 has been first submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The method statement shall contain full details of the following:

(a) Timing and details of any arboricultural and hedgerow works in relation to the approved development; (b) Construction exclusion zones; (c) Protective barrier fencing; and (d) Service positions.

The development shall thereafter be carried out in strict accordance with the approved method statement. Reason: To ensure that trees and hedgerow to be retained are adequately protected from damage to health and stability throughout the construction period in the interests of amenity and ecology.

8. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the approved ecology plan (drawing 0145 02 206 Rev. D) and shall be thereafter be managed and maintained in accordance with the Landscape & Ecological Management Plan prepared by Engain (dated 14th July 2017), including Table 6.1 Schedule of Works and Table 6.2 Capital Works Plan. Reason: in the interest of the ecological value of the site.

27 9. No external lighting, including street-lighting, shall be installed in connection with the development hereby approved unless in accordance with details, and a strategy, to avoid disturbing features used by bats that shall have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the first occupation of any dwelling. Such details and the strategy shall include, as necessary:

(a) details of the areas/features on site that are likely to be particularly sensitive for bats and provide important routes used to access key areas of their territory, including foraging; (b) the location, number, luminance, angle of illumination, the type of each luminaire or light source, details UV filters to prevent the migration of insect prey from bat habitat and light shields; (c) a lux diagram with contours showing Lux levels (to 0.1 Lux) which demonstrates the lighting will minimise disturbance to bats.

Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and strategy. Reason: To minimise and mitigate disturbance to wildlife and protected species using the site.

10. No development shall be commenced until details of the surface water drainage scheme based on sustainable drainage principles and the details contained in the Flood Risk Assessment produced by Hamson Barron Smith (update July 2017) and the email dated 25th July 2017 from Hamson Barron Smith regarding culvert capacity, together with a programme of phasing, implementation and maintenance for the lifetime of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The drainage strategy shall ensure that surface water runoff post development is attenuated on site and discharged at a rate and volume no greater than greenfield runoff rates and volumes. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure that the development is served by a satisfactory system of surface water drainage and that the approved system is retained, managed and maintained in accordance with the approved details throughout the lifetime of the development.

11. No dwelling hereby approved shall be occupied until details of the foul drainage strategy to serve the development, including points of connection and capacity improvements, a programme of phasing and implementation, alongside maintenance for the lifetime of the development, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure that the development is served by a satisfactory system of foul drainage and that the approved system is retained, managed and maintained in accordance with the approved details throughout the lifetime of the development.

12. Unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority, no development other than that required to be carried out as part of an approved scheme of remediation must not commence until Parts A to C (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 Part C has been complied with in relation to that contamination.

28 A. SUBMISSION OF REMEDIATION SCHEME

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).

B. IMPLEMENTATION OF APPROVED REMEDIATION SCHEME 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.

C. REPORTING OF UNEXPECTED CONTAMINATION 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 and where remediation is necessary a remediation scheme must be prepared in accordance with the requirements of Part A, 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.

13. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the Construction Environmental Management Plan (Document Ref: 0145/CEMP/01/rev C), unless any agreed variation is first submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: in the interests of minimising the impacts of the construction process.

14. No development shall be take place until full details of the proposed estate roads, footways, footpaths, tactile paving, cycle ways, bus stops/bus lay-bys, verges, junctions, street lighting, sewers, drains, retaining walls, service routes, surface water outfall, vehicle overhang margins, embankments, visibility splays, accesses, carriageway gradients, drive gradients, street furniture, a highway drainage scheme showing details of the gullies, connections, soakaways and means of attenuation; and a timetable for provision of such works, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA. No dwelling shall be occupied until the items so approved have been provided in accordance with the approved details, unless an alternative timetable is agreed in writing with the LPA. Reason: in the interests of highway safety.

29 15. The proposed roads, including footpaths and turning spaces where applicable, shall be constructed in such a manner as to ensure that each dwelling before it is occupied shall be served by a properly consolidated and surfaced footpath and carriageway to at least base course level between the dwelling and existing highway. Reason: in the interests of highway safety.

16. The development hereby approved shall be constructed in such a manner as to ensure that each dwelling before it is occupied shall be served by its associated parking spaces (including spaces within garages where relevant) as shown on the approved drawings. The parking spaces shall thereafter be permanently retained for the parking of vehicles associated with the development. Reason: in the interests of highway safety.

17. There shall be no obstruction to visibility greater than 300 millimetres above adjoining road level when measured from a distance 2.4 metres back from the adjoining carriageway at the centre point of the proposed access onto the Wookey Hole Road and extending 43 metres in either direction to the nearside carriageway edge. No dwelling hereby approved shall be occupied unless such visibility is available and thereafter be permanently maintained. Reason: To ensure that visibility is provided in the interests of highway safety.

18. No dwelling hereby approved shall be occupied until a 1.8m wide footway has been constructed over the entire frontage of the site onto Wookey Hole Road in accordance with details that shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: in the interests of highway safety and sustainable development.

19. Notwithstanding the details submitted no works shall be carried out on site unless a contractors' parking and compound area has been provided, surfaced and drained in accordance with a detailed scheme, which shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: 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.

30 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

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

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

31 Agenda Item No. DM02

Case Officer Mr James U'Dell

Site Former Frome Police Station Oakfield Road Frome BA11 4JG

Application Number 2017/2002/FUL

Date Received 25th July 2017

Applicant/ Mrs Sarah Kay Organisation Newland Homes Ltd

Application Type Full Application

Proposal Erection of 6 new dwelling houses and associated parking

Ward Frome Oakfield

Parish Frome Town Council

This application is referred to the Planning Board as a previous application (2014/2211/FUL) at this site was determined by the Planning Board

Description of Site, Proposal and Constraints

This application relates to The Former Frome Police Station car park located on Oakfield Road, Frome.

The site is currently used as a parking area serving the development site adjacent to the site, being built out by Newland Homes Ltd. Some informal parking is also available to the public/ local residents, however it offered at the discretion of the land owner and is not a public car park.

The scheme proposes the erection of 6 new dwellings (4 x 3 bed and 2 x 2 bed) and associated parking and is submitted by Newland Homes Ltd.

A period of public consultation expired on the 13th September 2017. The relevant comments received have been summarised below.

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

Ward Member

A few thoughts on this...

Firstly, I note the applicant description does not explicitly explain that it is Newland Homes that are the developer - can I ask why this is when I have received information directly from them about the scheme? It seems rather underhand.

Secondly, I feel very strongly that this is taking advantage of the planning system when they should have included this in the original application - thus being required to make the appropriate contributions regarding affordable housing and S106. Is there anyway that we can hold then to account on this? It seems grossly unfair when we are desperate for affordable housing that developers are allowed to develop chunks of neighbouring space and submit separate applications to void them of these responsibilities. Particularly in light of the fact that on appeal their agreed contributions were significantly reduced!

Thirdly, the car park is a busy space, actively used and relieving the already congested road at the Oakfield junction. I am pretty certain that in the appeal for the main application that the inspector made reference to this space and the fact that it reduced the impact on the highway which undoubtedly played a part in her decision to uphold the appeal and allow development to progress. I have grave concerns about the road safety implications for the displacement of these vehicles; particularly during school time when many vulnerable young families use this space which as I say is already hugely congested. I have informed the county councillor John Clarke of my concerns regarding highways and the town council are also aware of my thoughts.

Finally, I would suggest that 6 houses on this space is rather a lot! It calls into question density yet again, and would undoubtedly add to the impact on the local community, already coming to terms with gross overdevelopment on the same site!

I would ask that this application goes to board to be discussed fully if you feel that a recommendation for approval is appropriate.

Frome Town Council

No objection in principal but we are very disappointed that this application has come forward separately, if this had been included in the original application the number of affordable units required would have increased together with other S106 contributions.

Frome Civic Society

No objection in principle but the loss of parking spaces and use of the site as a drop off and pick up point for Oakfield Academy will create significant problems on Oakfield Road and surrounding streets. The area is already congested at both ends of the school day, compounded by the Steiner Academy operating without fulfilling its Travel Plan planning condition, and the adjacent Newland Homes development.

Drainage Officer

The proposed development will reduce the overall hardstanding areas and there will be an overall reduction in runoff. Additionally, the type of development proposed will capture and drain the site more effectively, thus reducing surface water runoff direct onto the highways.

MDC have no objection to the above application in terms of surface water drainage, however, the applicant will need to ensure they have agreement from Wessex Water to continue to discharge surface water into the sewer system, as currently. As this is a new development, they may require this to be separated as they usually do not accept new surface water discharge connections into sewers. If Wessex Water do not accept this proposal then the applicant will need to submit further details to MDC for approval.

Wessex Water

I refer to your letter of inviting comments on the above proposed development and advise the following on behalf of Wessex Water as sewerage and water supply undertaker for the area in question:

Water Supply and Waste Connections: Please note that Bristol Water is responsible for Water Supply in this area.

33 Waste water connections will be required from Wessex Water to serve this proposed development. Application forms and guidance information is available from the Developer Services web-pages at our website www.wessexwater.co.uk Further information can be obtained from our New Connections Team by telephoning 01225 526333 for Waste Water.

Building Near to a Public Sewer: No building will be permitted within the statutory easement width of 3 metres from the pipeline without agreement from Wessex Water. Please contact our sewer Protection team to discuss further 01225 526333. Separate Sewer Systems Separate systems of drainage will be required to serve the proposed development. No surface water connections will be permitted to the foul sewer system.

Please find attached an extract from our records showing the approximate location of our apparatus within the vicinity of the site.

I trust that you will find the above comments of use, however, please do not hesitate to contact me if you require further information or clarification.

County Highways Officer (Somerset County Council)

I have reviewed the plan Sketch Layout 211-12 rev B …there are no highway objections to the proposal, subject to the attachment of relevant conditions being attached to any permissions granted.

Environmental Protection (MDC)

Thank you for consulting the Environmental Protection Team.

I have considered the information provided and have no objections to these proposals although it would be helpful to be provided with window details to ensure noise sensitive rooms are protected particularly from road noise.

County Archaeologist (SCC)

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

Representations

The Local Planning Authority has received 4 letters of OBJECTION following public consultation. The following issues are raised (summarised): - Conflict with traffic and safety of school pupils; - Residential amenity; - Traffic and highways concerns; - Excessive density of houses (added to 61 being built); - Lack of open space/ green space; - Loss of temporary parking for school and residents; - Issues with manoeuvring in local roads; - Congested roads and increase in traffic; - Knock on impact to traffic infrastructure as a whole; - Site should be kept for local community use; - Overlooking and loss of privacy; - Built up feel; - Out of character with other houses; - Houses are too tall; - Access lane design is poor and will increase incidents of crime; - Poor location for refuse bins; - Poor level of amenity.

Relevant planning history

2014/0174/FUL - Proposed Development of 64 Homes, Garaging, Parking and Associated Works - New Plans received 26.03.2014 – Refused 20th June 2014.

2014/2211/FUL - Erection of 61 no. one, two, three and four bedroom dwellings. Access from Oakfield Road and associated works (re-submission of App. No. 2014/0174/FUL) – Refused 17th April 2015 by the Planning Board but allowed on appeal on 22nd December 2015.

2016/0278/APP - Application for approval of details reserved by conditions 3 (ecological mitigation) and 4 (construction management) on appeal decision APP/Q3305/W/15/3051173 – Approved 1st March 2016.

2016/0706/APP - Approval of details reserved by conditions 5 (materials), 6 (floor levels), 7 (landscaping) and 8 (surface water drainage) of planning permission 2014/2211/FUL – Approved 27th May 2016.

2016/1664/APP - Application for approval of details reserved by condition 7 (provision and subsequent management of the 'green space') on appeal APP/Q3305/W/15/3051173 – Approved 31st August 2016.

2016/1855/PREAPP - Construction of 6 new dwellings with associated private parking – Informal advice offered.

2017/1669/S106 – Modification of affordable housing element of legal agreement from 2014/2211/FUL - Live application/ not yet determined.

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

Development Plan

The following policies of the Mendip District Local Plan 2006-2029, Part 1: Strategy and Policies (adopted December 2014): CP1: Spatial Strategy CP2: Housing CP5: Encouraging Community Leadership CP6: Frome DP1: Local Identity and Distinctiveness DP7: Design and Amenity of New Development DP8: Environmental Protection DP9: Transport Impact of New Development DP10: Parking Standards DP14: Housing Mix DP23: Managing Flood Risk

Material Considerations

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) Somerset County Council Standing Advice, 2015 Somerset County Council Parking Strategy, 2013 Frome Design Statement, 2015 Frome Neighbourhood Plan, 2016

35 Consideration of Issues:

Principle

This application has been the subject of a previous pre-application submission, as confirmed in the history section above. The scheme is the same as that presented under 2016/1855/PREAPP, where informal advice was offered to the applicant.

The site in question is a brownfield site located within the development limits of Frome, one of the District’s 5 principal towns. The site is within a relatively short distance of the town centre and local services and facilities.

In principle the site is considered a sustainable and suitable location for redevelopment and as such is supported by the provisions of Core Policy 1, 2 and 6 of the Mendip District Local Plan as it will make a positive contribution to housing provision within the town, on a brownfield site within development limits.

The NPPF requires LPAs to significantly boost the supply of housing and considers that proposals that involve the delivery of housing should be considered significant benefits where they are sustainable developments. The housing proposed (6 dwellings) would contribute to the housing needs of Frome and the wider District. The development will also allow for better self-containment within Frome, which adheres to the requirements of Policy CP6 of the MDLP and the Frome Neighbourhood Plan. As such the principle of the development is supported.

Planning Obligations

The Planning Practice Guidance, under Paragraph 31, makes reference to the Ministerial Guidance of the 28th November 2014 and sets out when/ where contributions (planning obligations) can be sought. It states:

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

The development proposes less than 10 residential units (6 proposed) and the combined gross floorspace is less than 1000sqm, as such no planning obligations are to be sought or provided.

Members of Frome Town Council and the District Councillor for Frome Oakfield have expressed their disappointment that this site did not come forward at the same time as the main site, where planning obligations would have been altered by the increased supply of 6 additional dwellings (added to the 161 allowed under the appeal relating to application 2014/2211/FUL). The applicant has seen these comments and provided the following rebuttal:

“We note the question as to why this site did not form part of the previous main application. As explained in our Design & Access Statement, after the disposal of the main site for redevelopment, the application site was retained by Avon & Somerset Constabulary whilst they explored their own needs and options for policing facilities in Frome. (The attached sales particulars for the main site clearly show the land being retained.) The A&SC have since resolved to remain in the town centre, which they believe is best suited to their policing service, and accordingly have concluded that the retained land at Oakfield Road is surplus to their needs. The application site was not available for development during the planning process of the main site, having been retained by A&SC, and as such could not have formed part of the application for the adjacent main site. Given the site’s context in a predominantly residential area, the disposal of the site for housing development is a suitable and appropriate use of the land”.

It is considered, given the above rebuttal, that there is no explicit evidence to suggest that the proposal is a deliberate attempt to circumnavigate the planning system, as the site was not available to the applicant at the time that the adjacent site was purchased and developed. The

36 current scheme is set below the threshold for requiring planning obligations and as such the LPA has to accept the scheme as proposed and determine it on its own individual planning merits.

Loss of Employment Site

The site in question is not regarded as an employment site any longer as it now serves as purely a parking area, but was previously associated with a commercial use (Police Station) now replaced by the residential development being built out by Newland Homes Ltd adjacent to the application site. As such it is considered that the employment site has already been replaced/ lost.

Affordable Housing

The development will not provide affordable housing or contribute payments as the development is below the relevant thresholds set out within the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG), i.e, less than 10 dwellings are proposed and the combined residential floor area is less than 1000sqm. As such there is no requirement for the development to provide affordable housing on site or any commuted sums.

Mix of Units

There is a strong need for small-family sized dwellings within Frome and the wider Mendip District. The housing mix proposed includes 4 x 3 beds and 2 x 2 bed dwellings. The development secures an appropriate mix of dwelling sizes to adhere to Policy DP14 of the Mendip District Local Plan. The proposed mix is therefore considered to be acceptable.

Character and Appearance

Design is subjective and will not always be to everyone’s tastes but the NPPF is clear that:

“Design policies should avoid unnecessary prescription or detail and should concentrate on the overall scale, density, massing, height, landscape, layout, materials and access of new development in relation to neighbouring buildings and the local area more generally” (Para 59 of NPPF).

The site is located within an area dominated by residential development with Oakfield School located opposite. The site is generally flat and currently surfaced with hard-standing (tarmac), therefore there is potential for both landscaping and design improvements to the site and wider site setting.

The design/ architectural approach used with this development is traditional with a terrace of 6 dwellings proposed to match the design and materials used on the development being built out on the adjacent site. The terraced design and external materials are considered to be acceptable and will provide a continuation of the street-scene and the use of appropriate materials and detailing.

There are no listed buildings located within close proximity of the site, however the site adjoins a conservation area. The external appearance of the development is however considered to be acceptable and will not create adverse harm to the setting of heritage assets.

The layout of the development is good and has been designed to facilitate both an appropriate level of parking provision, amenity space and turning and access facilities, whilst also preserving future and existing residential amenities of the locality. The density of the development proposed is modest and will allow for good levels of spacing within the site, creating a development which does not appear congested within its setting, as illustrated by the plans provided, particularly the proposed street-scene drawing.

Soft and hard landscaping details will need to be conditioned (including boundary treatments) as the plans offer a lack of specific detail, other than showing the general layout of the site. In

37 addition, permitted development rights will be removed for further extensions and outbuildings as these will require further assessment given the site constraints.

The development, with the incorporation of appropriate materials and landscaping details, will integrate well into the site setting and will respect the character and appearance of development found within the locality. It will also provide design and landscaping improvements in comparison to the existing situation.

Bearing in mind the above assessment it is considered that the visual appearance, layout, scale, massing, density and landscaping of the development are acceptable, subject to the attachment of relevant conditions. The development will preserve the character and appearance of the area. As such the visual impact of the development is considered to be acceptable and will adhere to the design guidance and principles set out within the Frome Design Statement and Frome Neighbourhood Plan, in addition to the Mendip District Local Plan and NPPF.

Residential Amenities

The development has been carefully designed to ensure that the proposed units will neither overlook nor appear overbearing to one another and the separation distances proposed are considered to be acceptable. The dwellings are also positioned suitably within the site so as not to appear overbearing or dominant to the existing residential amenities of the locality and will not overshadow or overlook neighbours to a harmful degree. The dwellings are located within good sized plots and the level of amenity provided for future occupiers is considered to be of a good standard.

The site was previously used as a car park associated with the Former Frome Police Station, located in a busy part of Frome. As such it is considered that the proposed parking area will not cause any adverse noise and disturbance to the amenities of the locality given the reduction in the number of parked cars/ spaces within this part of the site.

The Environmental Protection Officer has raised no objections to the development and no conditions have been recommended for attachment.

Bearing in mind the above assessment and with the attachment of relevant conditions, it is considered that the development will not cause significant harm to existing or future residential amenities.

Access and Parking

The development will utilise an existing mean of access from Oakfield Road, as shown within the proposed plans, which previously served the Former Frome Police Station car park, serving a higher number of cars/ vehicles than currently proposed.

In terms of parking provision, the development includes a total of 15 spaces, including 3 visitor’s spaces and 2 spaces per dwelling (12), which is considered to be an acceptable level of provision.

Whilst the development may result in some displacement of parking from the car park to the streets in this locality, it should be noted that this car park has never been a public car park facility and the level of parking proposed, together with the access and turning arrangements, have been considered acceptable by the County Highways Officer, who raises no objections to the development (see full comments above), subject to the attachment of relevant conditions. The conditions recommended by the Highways Officer will be carried forward in the event that planning permission is granted.

Bearing in mind the above assessment and the comments received from the County Highways Authority, the LPA consider that the development will not prejudice highway or pedestrian safety.

38 Open Space

The development does not provide an area of public open/ recreation space on site and there is no policy requirement to provide such a space or commuted sums.

Archaeology

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

Flooding and Drainage

The site in question is located within flood zone 1, which is defined as an area at low risk of flooding. The site is currently a hard-surfaced car park and the development proposed will increase the level of permeable areas within the site, to the overall drainage benefit of the site and wider locality.

The Drainage Officer suggests that “MDC have no objection to the above application in terms of surface water drainage, however, the applicant will need to ensure they have agreement from Wessex Water to continue to discharge surface water into the sewer system, as currently. As this is a new development, they may require this to be separated as they usually do not accept new surface water discharge connections into sewers. If Wessex Water do not accept this proposal then the applicant will need to submit further details to MDC for approval”. Wessex Water has not explicitly confirmed acceptability of the scheme/ surface water discharge and as such the LPA consider that such matters will need to be satisfactorily controlled/ mitigated by way of a planning condition, to secure and agree the finer details of the drainage scheme.

Bearing in mind the above assessment it is considered that the development can be satisfactorily designed to adhere to the provisions of Policy DP23 of the Mendip District Local Plan to ensure that the development does not add to surface water flooding within the area.

Environmental Impact Assessment

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

Conclusion On the basis of the above assessment it is considered that there are no adverse impacts that would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of granting planning permission for the development proposed. It is therefore recommended that delegated authority is given to APPROVE planning permission, subject to the attachment of the relevant conditions, as set out below.

Reason/s for Recommendation 1. The proposal accords with the Council's settlement strategy for the location of new development. The proposal, by reason of its appearance, scale, layout and landscaping 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 parking and turning arrangements meet the required safety standards and will ensure the free flow of traffic on the highway. The proposal makes acceptable drainage arrangements. 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, 2, 5 and 6 and DP1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14 and 23 of the Mendip District Local Plan 2006-2029 (Part 1 Strategies and Policies - adopted 15th December 2014)

39 National Planning Policy Framework Planning Practice Guidance Somerset County Council Standing Advice, 2015 Somerset County Council Parking Strategy, 2013 Frome Design Statement, 2015 Frome Neighbourhood Plan, 2016

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: 211-12 Revision B and 211-1005 received on 13th September 2017 and drawing numbers: 211-1041; 211-1042; 211-18; 211-19; 211-20; 211-21; 211-22; 211- 23 and 211-R/PA001 (DRAINAGE STRATEGY) validated on the 25th July 2017 only. Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interest of proper planning.

3. No development shall take place until a surface water drainage scheme, based on sustainable drainage principles, together with a management and maintenance plan for the lifetime of the scheme, has been first submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No dwelling hereby permitted shall be occupied until the drainage scheme has been completed in accordance with the approved details. The drainage scheme shall be managed and maintained in accordance with the approved details thereafter. Reason: This condition needs to be a pre-commencement condition In the interests of mitigating the risks of flooding to the locality.

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

5. No piece of external joinery shall be installed or undertaken unless full details of that piece have been first submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such details shall be at full or half scale and shall include cross-sections, profiles, reveal, surrounds, materials, finish and colour. The works shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: This condition needs to be a pre-commencement condition in the interests of the character and appearance of the development and wider area.

6. No ducts, pipes, rainwater goods, vents or other external attachments shall be fitted or installed unless in accordance with details that have been first submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All such attachments shall thereafter be retained in that form. Reason: This condition needs to be a pre-commencement condition in the interests of the character and appearance of the development and wider area.

40 7. Notwithstanding the details provided on the submitted plans, the development hereby approved shall not be occupied until a hard and soft landscape scheme has been implemented in accordance with details that have first 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 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: This condition needs to be a pre-commencement condition to ensure the provision of an appropriate landscape setting to the development.

8. 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 roof/s) of the dwelling/s hereby approved shall be carried out without the granting of planning permission from the Local Planning Authority. Reason: Further extensions require detailed consideration by the Local Planning Authority in the interests of the character and appearance of the area and the living conditions of neighbouring properties.

9. 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 boundary treatments, other than those shown on the approved plans or approved under details submitted for condition 7, shall be erected forward of any dwelling hereby approved or within the general site (excluding to the rear of any of the approved dwellings), other than those expressly authorised by this permission, without the granting of planning permission from the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of retaining the open character and appearance of the development.

10. 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 dwelling/s hereby approved, other than those expressly authorised by this permission, without the granting of express planning permission from the Local Planning Authority. Reason: Further outbuildings require detailed consideration by the Local Planning Authority in the interests of the living conditions of the future occupiers of the development. 11. Notwithstanding the details provided on the approved plans, there shall be no obstruction to visibility greater than 600 millimetres above adjoining road level in advance of lines drawn 2.4 metres back from the carriageway edge on the centre line of the access and extending to points on the nearside carriageway edge 35 metres either side of the access. Such visibility shall be fully provided before the development hereby permitted is first brought into use and shall thereafter be maintained at all times. Reason: To ensure that sufficient visibility is provided in the interests of highway safety.

12. Notwithstanding the details provided on the approved plans, the proposed access shall have a minimum width of 6 metres and shall be properly consolidated and surfaced (not loose stone or gravel) for at least the first 10 metres of its length, details of which shall first be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The access shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details and shall be permanently retained and maintained as such thereafter at all times. Reason: This condition needs to be a pre-commencement condition in the interests of highway safety.

41 13. Provision shall be made within the site for the disposal of surface water so as to prevent its discharge onto the highway, details of which shall first be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such provision shall be installed before the development hereby permitted is first brought into use and shall be permanently retained and maintained in accordance with the approved details thereafter. Reason: This condition needs to be a pre-commencement condition in the interests of highway safety.

14. No part of the development hereby approved shall be brought into use or occupied unless provision has been made for the parking of bicycles (1 safe and secure cycle space per bedroom) in accordance with details which shall first be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved cycle store(s) shall thereafter be permanently maintained and retained in accordance with the approved details thereafter. Reason: This condition is a pre-commencement condition in the interests of highway safety and to encourage sustainable travel.

15. The area allocated for parking and manoeuvring on the approved plan, drawing number 2611-12 Revision B received on the 13th September 2017, shall be kept clear of obstruction at all times and shall not be used other than for the parking of vehicles in connection with the development hereby permitted. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and the future amenities of the occupiers of the development.

List of Advices

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

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

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

42 and suitably disposed of. Your co operation in this matter is greatly appreciated.

5. Where a Planning Permission, Listed Building Consent, Certificate of Lawful Development or Prior Approval has been issued, approval may also be required under the Building Regulation Legislation before any work is commenced, and throughout the building process. 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 [email protected] 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.

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

7. Water Supply and Waste Connections: Please note that Bristol Water is responsible for Water Supply in this area. Waste water connections will be required from Wessex Water to serve this proposed development. Application forms and guidance information is available from the Developer Services web-pages at: www.wessexwater.co.uk. Further information can be obtained from our New Connections Team by telephoning 01225 526333 for Waste Water.

43 Agenda Item No. DM03

Case Officer Mrs Lorna Elstob

Site Arch Cottage John Beales Hill Pilton Shepton Mallet Somerset

Application Number 2017/0660/HSE

Date Received 6th March 2017

Applicant/ Mr and Mrs Kevin Fleming Organisation

Application Type Householder Application

Proposal Fixing of black matt log burner flue to outside wall.

Ward Croscombe and Pilton

Parish Pilton Parish Council

This application is referred to Planning Board as the applicant is a close relative of a staff member in the Development Management Team.

Description of Site, Proposal and Constraints

This application relates to Arch Cottage, John Beales Hill, Pilton.

The application site has the following constraints: Conservation Area, Area of High Archaeological Potential.

The application seeks planning permission fixing of black matt log burner flue to outside wall.

Summary of parish comments, representations and consultee comments

Pilton Parish Council

Recommended Approval.

Environmental Protection:

I've reviewed this application on behalf of the Environmental Protection Team.

Having reviewed the application, the Environmental Protection team has no adverse comment to make in relation to this application.

Conservation: The application seeks to install a flue on the principal elevation of a building within the Pilton Conservation Area. The application should preserve or enhance the character of the area. The traditional building, the subject of this application, makes a positive contribution to the character of the area.

Prominent flues across the front of traditional buildings do have a detrimental effect on conservation areas. In this instance it is over 3m and quite dominant. Justification should therefore be provided for why the flue has to go in this position. It is likely the flue could be placed elsewhere. For this reason I object to the application as it is not in accordance with the NPPF due to the 'less than substantial harm' being caused to the heritage asset without 44 justification.

Relevant planning history

The only recent applications on this site are for tree works.

Summary of all planning policies relevant to the proposal

Mendip District Local Plan 2006-2029 (Part 1) adopted 15th December 2014

CP1 and CP2 (principle of development), DP1 (local identity), DP3 (Heritage and Conservation), DP4 (landscape), DP7 (design and amenity), DP9 (transport), DP10 (parking)

Other Guidance

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

Assessment of relevant issues

Character and appearance

The property is located in a Conservation Area and the proposed works would be fully visible from the public realm. The property is set slightly back from the road but the flue is proposed to be installed on the most visible elevation. Insufficient justification has been provided for the positioning of the flue in such a prominent location. Although effort has been made to choose the least visually intrusive design it is felt that the negative impact on the Conservation area is not justified.

Amenity

The flue would be away from the neighbouring property so would have minimal impact on residential amenity.

Highway Safety

It is not considered that the development would have any material impact on the existing access and parking arrangements.

Environmental Impact Assessment

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

Conclusion

That planning permission be refused as the proposal would have a detrimental impact on conservation areas.

46 Reason/s for Recommendation

1. The proposed development by reason of the position of the flue protruding from the front elevation of the property together with its height results in an unsightly addition to the detriment of the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and is therefore contrary to policy DP3 of the Mendip District Council Local Plan Part 1 (adopted 2014).

List of Advices

1. This decision relates to drawings 2598 and DF/RS/EA/1 validated on 6th March 2017.

47 Agenda Item No. DM04

Case Officer Mr Carlton Langford

Site Warley Pitcot Farm Pitcot Lane Stratton On The Fosse Shepton Mallet

Application Number 2017/2239/HSE

Date Received 8th August 2017

Applicant/ Mr And Mrs Howard And Mary Coles Organisation

Application Type Householder Application

Proposal Single storey extension to east elevation as amended by revised drawings received on the 26 Oct 2017.

Ward Ashwick, Chilcompton And Stratton

Parish Stratton On The Fosse Parish Council

This application has been brought before the Planning Board as the applicant’s Agent is a Member of the Council.

Description of Site, Proposal and Constraints

The application relates to Warley a dwellinghouse at Pitcot Farm Stratton on the Fosse. The site has no planning constraints.

The application seeks planning permission for a small lean-to extension. The scheme has been slightly revised.

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

Parish Council – Recommend approval. County highway authority – No observations Ward Cllrs – No observations. Other Representations – None received.

Relevant planning history None

Assessment of relevant issues Design and Appearance – The proposed extension will be in keeping with the character of the existing barn conversion and contribute positively to maintaining local identity. All materials are to match those of the existing barn conversion.

Neighbouring amenity – The siting and design of the proposed extension raises no adverse amenity issues of overlooking or overshadowing which would warrant the application’s refusal.

Highway safety – Parking and access will not be affected by the proposed extension.

Environmental Impact Assessment This development does not fall within the scope of the town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 and so Environmental Impact

48 Assessment is not required.

Conclusion It is recommended that planning permission be granted.

Reason/s for Recommendation

1. The proposal, by reason of its design, scale and layout would be in keeping with its surroundings. The proposal, by reason of its design, scale and layout, would safeguard the amenities of neighbouring residents and adjoining land users. The means of access and parking arrangements meet the required safety standards and will ensure the free flow of traffic on the highway. All practical measures for the conservation of energy have been included in the design, layout and siting of the proposal. The proposal makes satisfactory arrangements for the protection of biodiversity. The proposal has been tested against the following Development Plan policies. In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, and subject to the conditions below, the proposal is acceptable:- DP1 (Local Identity), DP7 (Design and Amenity) and DP10 (parking) (amend as appropriate) of the Mendip District Local Plan 2006-2029 (Part 1 Strategies and Policies - adopted 15th December 2014) National Planning Policy Framework Planning Practice Guidance The Countywide Parking Strategy (2013) The Household Extension Design Guide

Conditions

2. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with location and site plans and existing plans and elevations validated on the 8 August and amended proposed plans and elevations received on the 26 Oct 2017. Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interest of proper planning.

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

List of Advices

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

Agenda Item No. DM05

Case Officer Mr Carlton Langford

Site Pitchperfect Campsite Sleight Farm To Bath Road Woolverton Frome BA2 7QU

Application Number 2017/2276/VRC

Date Received 18th August 2017

Applicant/ Mr James Burton Organisation

Application Type Variation or Removal of Conditions

Proposal Variation of condtions 3 (dates of operation) and 7 (permitted use) and remove conditions 6 (caravan on site), 8 (portakabins on site), 11 (use of ancillary building), 13 ( yearly removal of caravan) and 14 (removal of portakabin) from application 2012/1645

Ward Rode And Norton St Philip

Parish Tellisford Parish Council

Description of Site, Proposal and Constraints The application relates to land and buildings at Pitchperfect Campsite which is situated within the open countryside on the outskirts of Woolverton.

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

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

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

This is one of two applications submitted by the applicant to vary conditions on planning permissions at their camp site. Whilst not wholly necessary, it would be helpful to assess both applications at the same time (See application ref: 2017/2277/VRC seeking to vary conditions on planning permission 2015/0237/FUL).

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

51 The key aspects of the change to the original permission are to extend the period of operation on site from Maundy Thursday to the 1st of March and to allow campervans on the site as the site is currently restricted to tents. Large motorhomes and towing caravans will still be restricted.

Summary of parish comments, any objections or conflict with the recommendation Lullington Parish Meeting – The meeting voted unanimously to recommend refusal of these applications for the following reasons:

Applications 2017/2276VRC Variation - Condition 3 (dates of operation) Change to: "The office, reception and shop hereby approved shall not operate or be open for business other than between 1st March and 31st October in any calendar year. Reason: The lengthening of the season will help capture the school Easter holidays which often fall earlier in the year and prior to the Easter weekend."

Reasons: Historically, the earliest date for school holidays is 25 March so 20 March would be a reasonable opening date. The original planning consent was given on the basis that the business would only ever need to be open during the summer months. There is no justification to open longer than this.

Removal - Condition 6 (caravan on site)

The buildings mentioned within this condition are no longer on site.

Reasons: There remains a caravan on site (in breach of this condition. Until it is removed, the condition remains relevant and should be enforced.

Variation - Condition 7 (permitted use)

Change to: "The camping pitches hereby approved shall only be used for the siting of tents, campervans and visitors' vehicles, provided that no motorhome, towing caravan or trailer tents shall be brought on to the site."

Reasons: There is no legal definition of a 'campervan'. The site was originally granted permission on the basis that it was to be a tented campsite only. There is no justification to change this and create a potential increase in larger traffic on the single track Lullington Lane. We recommend, for the avoidance of doubt, that the condition be clarified to exclude all vehicles that allow sleeping accommodation.

Removal of conditions 8, 11, 13 and 14.

All of these conditions have now been superseded, so their removal is irrelevant.

Tellisford Parish Meeting -

52 2017/2276VRC Vary condition 3 to say: The site shall not be operated as a camp site other than between 1st March and 31st October in any one year. Reason: The lengthening of the season will help capture the school Easter holidays which often fall earlier in the year and prior to the Easter weekend. The concern for visual amenity and to safeguard the character and appearance of the area is redundant as permanent facilities have been built.

We do not agree with this variation see rationale above, opening date should not be earlier than 20 March

Vary condition 7 to say: The camping pitches hereby approved shall only be used for the siting of tents, campervans and visitors' vehicles, provided that no motorhome, towing caravan or trailer tents shall be brought on to the site. Reason: The access to the site and the wider road network in particular Lullington Lane that junctions with the A36, are not suitable for use by large, slow-moving vehicles. The need to allow campervans which were previously restricted, is because vehicles of a much larger size (e.g. transit vans / sign written vans / work vehicles) are allowed on site, which may or may not be slept in, converted or not converted. Therefore, campervans which are typically smaller in size, wheel base and height should be allowed on site, and be allowed their custom rather than be turned away. By allowing campervans which families often have as their family vehicles won't restrict those that want to camp here.

We disagree with this variation because a clear definition of a campervan cannot be specified. As far as DVLA and DVSA are concerned campervans and motorhomes are not treated differently. Anything larger than a VW Combi/ Westfalia type campervan may need a different type of pitch to park on. It is normal in campsites to have hard standing for motorhomes because of their weight. This camp site was established on the principle that it would revert over winter to agriculture and equestrian use. This would be difficult if there are a number of hard standing pitches. Campervans might be allowed on the site if it is specified that a campervan is a converted domestic vehicle with an overall length no longer than 4.9m overall height in driving mode no more than 2m. Such vehicles are small and nippy enough to turn off the A36 as quickly as a regular saloon car and small enough to fit down the single track road that serves the site. Access by larger vehicles will exacerbate the problem at the junction with the A36 and clog the narrow access lanes. Supply vehicles which are allowed on site are only there to supply the site facilities they do not go beyond the existing hard standing and so will not damage the grassland.

Remove condition 6 refuse No more than one caravan shall be brought onto the site at any one time. The caravan shall be no greater than 9m long, 3.6m wide and 3.3m high (measured from adjacent ground level), and shall be sited in the location shown on the approved plan PL3066/3B. The caravan shall only be occupied by staff employed at the camp site and shall not be occupied other than between Maundy Thursday and the 31st October in any calendar year. Reason: To minimise the visual impact of the site and to ensure that the caravan is used in direct relation to the camp site use and not for separate residential purposes, which would be unacceptable and unsustainable in the open countryside, having regard to Saved Policies Q1 and S1 of the Mendip District Local Plan 2002 and guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework.

We do not agree with this condition being removed. The reason cited is not correct. One mobile home has been removed and another one put in its place. Currently there is also a caravan on the site in breach of existing conditions.

Remove condition 8 agreed Remove condition 11 agreed Remove condition 13 agreed Remove condition 14 agreed

53 County Highway Authority - There are no highway objections to the variation of conditions 3, 7, 6, 8, 11, 13, and 14 of application 2012/1645. I note that the applicant is also requesting that campervans are permitted but no towing vehicle or motorhome which is acceptable in highway terms.

Highways England – Our initial response was no objections as we have a sift/filter system in place kindly provided by our business support team, however, it was an error.

I understand your point about NPPF etc, but the original condition restricted all movements of vehicles of this type and the LPA were content enough to apply it to the decision notice for reasons of highway safety and amenity. You/the applicant now want to allow for campervans to be used at the site – we have no objection subject to the condition that the dimensions are restricted to avoid additional large, slow moving vehicles making turns at the junction. I presume the road safety reason, and the Council’s own amenity reason, remain.

If that is correct, then we can agree that the length restriction meets both our requirements, the tests and that as per the original condition (and grounds for that condition) the LPA would be in a position to enforce.

Environmental Protection – No objections.

Ward Cllr - I support Tellisford Parish fully in their recommendations for this application submitted to you by Anthony Battersby. Lullington Parish, which is geographically closer to the site, also fully endorses Tellisford Parish view and has submitted comments in line with that of Tellisford. If the planning authority were therefore to recommend approval that is at odds with the recommendations of Tellisford Parish then I would like the opportunity to refer the application to the planning board and would like to have a copy of your report. This site is agricultural land in an area of open countryside and is highly prominent within the landscape. These are two important planning considerations in this regard. First of all, the very poor and potentially dangerous access for vehicles entering and leaving the site via narrow country lanes, from or to the very busy nearby A36. This is why conditions were applied to restrict the type of vehicles able to use the site. Unfortunately there have been breaches of these conditions, which have not been actively enforced. This problem should be avoided this time round. I have spoken to the SCC Highways Planning officer, Jacquie Hobbs, who has responded to this planning application on behalf of SCC. Both Tellisford Parish and myself feel very strongly that there needs to be a clear distinction about the type of vehicle can be permitted to use the site and which cannot. This is because there is no clear distinction between a camper van and a motorhome. In order to ensure any condition is enforceable the type of vehicle that is restricted needs to be very clearly identified. As a result of discussions with Jacquie Hobbs recognises that it makes sense to limit use to a certain size of motorised vehicle. She is therefore reviewing the situation from a Highway Authority perspective and will be making further recommendations to the LPA. The restriction on any towing vehicle should still apply. The second important planning consideration of this application is that the operation is SEASONAL and that the accommodation is Wardens accommodation, linked to the campsite operation. This was specifically to avoid a new residential dwelling in the countryside, which would be contrary to planning policy. Out of season, the approval states that the land is then used for agricultural purposes. This use does not require a warden to live on site and certainly administration related to the seasonal use does not require the warden to live on site permanently. Maintenance and repairs to the wooden buildings can be carried out as a matter of course throughout the season and in daylight hours and therefore do not require the site to provide permanent living accommodation The buildings on site were therefore approved on the basis that permanent occupation was not necessary to support this seasonal business. Any attempt to occupy these buildings permanently is tantamount to supporting a residential development in the open countryside which should be avoided at all costs.

54 Other Representations – 2 letters of representation have been received both objecting for the following reasons –

7. Increased traffic 8. The dwelling should not be used for all year round occupancy. 9. There is no reason to extend the open time of the campsite to the 1st March. 10. Campervans should not be allowed on site.

Relevant planning history 2012/1645 Planning Permission granted in 2013 for Change of use of land from agriculture to a mixed use of campsite and equestrian use from Maundy Thursday to 31st October in any one year, and equestrian and agricultural use outside of those dates; comprising a camping site for up to 45 pitches (39 tents, 6 yurts/pods), keeping of horses and erection of reception/office building, and temporary stationing of four portable WC/showers portakabins, and siting of a caravan for use as seasonal warden's accommodation; Formation of new vehicular access and access tracks and formation of passing bay on highway. Permission now implemented.

2015/0237/FUL Planning permission granted in 2015 for the erection of permanent washing, shower and toilets facilities building, shop/office/reception and seasonal wardens accommodation. Permission now implemented.

Assessment of the reasons to either vary or remove conditions 3, 6, 7, 8, 11, 13 and 14

3. The site shall not be operated as a camp site other than between Maundy Thursday and the 31st October in any one year. Reason: In the interest of visual amenity and to safeguard the character and appearance of the area, because the visual impact of the site would be substantially greater in the winter months, having regard to Saved Policies Q1 and E14 of the Mendip District Local Plan 2002.

The applicant has suggested that the operating times of the campsite be extended to help capture the school Easter holidays which often fall earlier in the year and prior to the Easter weekend. The proposal is to allow the operation of the campsite from the 1st of March rather than the existing Maundy Thursday which can fall anytime between the 3rd week in March and the 3rd week in April. The end of October closing date shall remain unchanged.

In reality the applicant is asking for a potential 3 to 6 week extension to the open times of the campsite. The applicant has provided evidence that on the odd occasion school holidays might fall before Maundy Thursday which is factually correct.

The reason condition 3 was imposed was to minimise the visual impact of the development (the camping activities and paraphernalia on site) on the character and appearance of the area especially within the winter months. Reason: In the interest of visual amenity and to safeguard the character and appearance of the area, because the visual impact of the site would be substantially greater in the winter months, having regard to Saved Policies Q1 and E14 of the Mendip District Local Plan 2002.

The key consideration is assessing what the visual harm might there be if the operation dates were extended to the 1st of March in comparison to the site being operated as early as the 25th March (Maundy Thursday 2027).

Since permission was first granted and the condition imposed the applicant has implemented the approved landscaping and in comparison to when the application was first being considered the main campsite has improved screening and whilst the site can still be seen from several surrounding vantage points and more so in the winter months, it is not considered that opening on the 1st of March will have any more of a visual impact on the character of the area than opening on say the 25th of March (Maundy Thursday 2027). Furthermore, it is unlikely that the site will attract campers before the school holidays start

55 (as early as the 3rd week in March) and therefore in reality the site is unlikely to be occupied at full capacity from the 1st of March.

It is considered that the variation of this condition as proposed is not wholly unreasonable and the following amendment to condition 3 is recommended.

The site shall not be operated as a camp site other than between the 1st March and the 31st October in any one year. Reason: In the interest of visual amenity and to safeguard the character and appearance of the area, because the visual impact of the site would be substantially greater in the winter months.

6. No more than one caravan shall be brought onto the site at any one time. The caravan shall be no greater than 9m long, 3.6m wide and 3.3m high (measured from adjacent ground level), and shall be sited in the location shown on the approved plan PL3066/3C. The caravan shall only be occupied by staff employed at the camp site and shall not be occupied other than between Maundy Thursday and the 31st October in any calendar year. Reason: To minimise the visual impact of the site and to ensure that the caravan is used in direct relation to the camp site use and not for separate residential purposes, which would be unacceptable and unsustainable in the open countryside, having regard to Saved Policies Q1 and S1 of the Mendip District Local Plan 2002 and guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework.

This condition was imposed before the permanent warden’s accommodation was erected on site under planning permission 2015/0237/FUL when temporary accommodation was brought to the site to be used as warden’s accommodation.

It is therefore considered that the condition is no longer necessary and should be removed.

Should it be the case that there are other temporary buildings on site, these are currently without planning permission and a separate matter for the Council’s Planning Enforcement Team and not for this application to consider. The approval of this application would not provide planning permission for any building either permanent or temporary on the land that were not originally agreed under planning permission 2012/1645/FUL.

7. The camping pitches hereby approved shall only be used for the siting of tents and visitors' vehicles, provided that no caravan, motorhome, campervan or any other vehicle with provision for sleeping accommodation shall be brought onto the site other than the caravan for staff accommodation permitted by condition 6 of this permission. Reason: The access to the site and the wider road network, in particular Lullington Lane the junctions with the A36, are not suitable for use by a large number of large, slow-moving vehicles. Furthermore the visual impact of larger vehicles would be detrimental to the character of the area. The restriction is necessary in the interests of visual amenity and highway safety having regard to Saved Policies Q1 and Q3 of the Mendip District Local Plan 2002.

The applicant is requesting that the above condition be varied to allow campervans on the site with all other restrictions within the condition to remain especially towing caravans and larger motorhomes which would find it difficult to navigate the surrounding narrow lanes and egress what are restricted junctions onto the nearby A36. (The access to the site and the wider road network, in particular Lullington Lane the junctions with the A36, are not suitable for use by a large number of large, slow-moving vehicles. Furthermore the visual impact of larger vehicles would be detrimental to the character of the area. The restriction is necessary in the interests of visual amenity and highway safety).

The applicant makes a valid point in their argument for the variation of condition in that the condition does not exclude large ‘visitors’ vehicles’ which cannot be slept in and they are finding that many visitors arrive in large work vans as their ‘vehicle’ and erect a tent to sleep in. For this reason it would not be unreasonable to accept this small variation with

56 campervans being no more intrusive than the visitors’ van already visiting the site. It is within the Council’s Local Plan Core Policy (CP4) that ‘’the Council will support proposals which extend the attraction of the area to visitors’’ and with many campers now having campervans rather than tents, the restrictions of the current condition could be seen as affecting the vitality of the business. Furthermore, there are no highway restrictions on the surrounding country lanes and neither the County Highway Authority nor Highways England object to the variation of the condition as proposed. It is also not thought necessary or reasonable to impose a weight limit or a restriction on vehicle dimensions as the term ‘campervan’ is thought sufficient to describe the size of vehicle which can visit the site. Motorhomes are recognised as being larger vehicles and as such the term ‘campervan’ is enforceable.

Campervans - A van equipped as a self-contained travelling home, campervans are normally smaller than a motorhome. There is generally no divide between the cab and the living quarters. Campervans usually have basic facilities for cooking, washing, and sleeping.

Motorhomes - A motor vehicle built on a truck or bus chassis and designed to serve as self- contained living quarters for recreational travel. There is normally a divide between the cab and the living quarters behind, which contain sleeping space, ablution and kitchen facilities.

It is recommended that the proposed variation of the condition is not unreasonable and the condition should be amended to read -

The camping pitches hereby approved shall only be used for the siting of tents, campervans and visitors' vehicles, and no towing caravans, motorhomes, or any other vehicle larger than a campervan with provision for sleeping accommodation shall be brought onto the site. Reason: The access to the site and the wider road network, in particular Lullington Lane the junctions with the A36, are not suitable for use by a large number of large, slow-moving vehicles. Furthermore the visual impact of larger vehicles would be detrimental to the character of the area. The restriction is necessary in the interests of visual amenity and highway safety.

8. No more than four portakabins shall be sited on the application site at any time. The portakabins shall not be first brought onto the site more than 28 days prior to the first operation of the site as a camp site, they shall be sited in the locations shown on the approved plan PL 3066/3C and they shall not be larger in any dimension than shown on the approved plans PL 3066/8, PL 3066/9A, PL 3066/10A and PL 3066/13. Reason: The portakabins are only acceptable in the approved locations having regard to their poor quality appearance. Their permanent retention would not be acceptable in the interests of visual amenity having regard to Saved Policy Q1 of the Mendip District Local Plan.

11. The building hereby approved shall only be used as an office, reception, shop and cycle store for purposes ancillary to the operation of the camp site. The shop shall not be available for use other than by persons camping on the site. The office, reception and shop hereby approved shall not operate or be open for business other than between Maundy Thursday and the 31st October in any calendar year. Reason: The location in the open countryside is not appropriate or sustainable for new commercial development unrelated to the camp site having regard to Saved Policy S1 of the Mendip District Local Plan 2002.

13. The portakabins and staff accommodation caravan shall be removed from the site no later than the 7th November in any year and shall not be returned earlier than 1 calendar week before Maundy Thursday in any year (other than their first placement on the site which shall be in accordance with condition 8 of this permission). Reason: In the interests of visual amenity having regard to their poor quality appearance which would be unacceptably prominent in winter months when vegetative screening is reduced, having regard to Saved Policies Q1 and E14 of the Mendip District Local Plan 2002.

57 14. The portakabins shall be removed from the site no later than 3 calendar years from the date of the first use of the site as a campsite. Reason: The portakabins are only acceptable on a temporary basis and in the approved locations having regard to their poor quality appearance. Their permanent retention would not be acceptable in the interests of visual amenity having regard to Saved Policy Q1 of the Mendip District Local Plan.

Conditions 8, 11, 13 and 14 above are no longer necessary and should be removed from the permission with all approved temporary buildings having now been removed from the site and superseded by the erection of the permanent timber building approved under planning permission 2015/0237/FUL. This approved building provides the necessary wardens accommodation, washing, shower and toilet facilities and a reception/camp shop.

Assessment of the remaining conditions as to assess if they are now necessary having regard for the scheme having been implemented –

Conditions 15, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 27 are to be amended and to remain on the permission to ensure the compliance aspect of the conditions continues throughout the life of the development.

Conditions 1, 12, 16 and 25 are to be removed on the basis that they have either been superseded by the granting of planning permission 2015/0237/FUL or that they are now non- compliant.

Conditions 2, 4, 5, 9, 10, 20, 26 and 28 are compliant conditions which remain relevant post implementation and are to remain unaltered on the permission.

Other issues raised

Increased traffic off a dangerous access – The access at the site has been constructed in accordance with the approved plans which when approved, were considered acceptable in providing the development with a safe means of access. Whilst there will be an increase in traffic movements arising from the extended operation dates of the campsite, neither the County Highway Surveyor nor Highways England have raised an objection to the extended operation dates. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) suggests that development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impact of the development are ‘severe’. There is no evidence to suggest that the proposed development would have a severe impact on the wider transport network as to warrant the application’s refusal.

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

Conclusion It is recommended that planning permission be granted for the variation and removal of conditions as proposed.

58 Reason/s for Recommendation

1. The proposal for a camp site is for tourism development that would support the rural economy and would result in economic benefits. At the scale proposed, while the development would increase traffic in the local area this would not be so significant as to harm highway safety, and appropriate measures are included to provide realistic alternatives to use of the private car. On balance the proposal is considered sustainable in this location at this scale. The use of the remainder of the site for equestrian use is acceptable.

The proposal, because of its scale, layout, design and landscaping would not harm the character or appearance of the area or the amenities of neighbouring land uses or occupiers of local residential properties. The proposal makes adequate provision for protection of trees and hedges, and would not result in a net loss of biodiversity.

The proposal makes provision for safe access to and from the site and would not be prejudicial to highway safety.

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, CP3 and CP4 (principle of development), DP1 (local identity), DP4 (Mendip Landscapes), DP5 (biodiversity), DP6 (bats), DP7 (design and amenity), DP8 (Environmental Protection), DP9 (transport), DP10 (parking) and DP13 (Accommodation for rural workers) 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)

59 Conditions

1. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing numbers: PL 3066/1A, PL 3066/2, PL 3066/3C, PL 3066/4B, PL 3066/5, PL 3066/6A PL 3066/7A, PL 3066/8, PL 3066/9A, PL 3066/10A, PL 3066/11, PL 3066/12, PL 3066/13 and Travel Plan. Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interest of proper planning.

2. The site shall not be operated as a camp site other than between the 1st March and the 31st October in any one year. Reason: In the interest of visual amenity and to safeguard the character and appearance of the area, because the visual impact of the site would be substantially greater in the winter months.

3. No more than 45 camping pitches shall be provided on the site at any time. Of these, a maximum of 6 pitches in total shall be used for the siting of yurts or camping pods at any one time. The pitches shall be laid out in the locations shown on the approved plan PL 3066/3C and no pitches shall be provided elsewhere in the application site. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and to ensure that the scale of development is appropriate and sustainable in this location having regard to Saved Policies Q1 and E14 of the Mendip District Local Plan 2002.

4. The camping pitches hereby approved shall only be occupied for the purposes of holiday accommodation. Reason: The site is in the open countryside where development is strictly controlled and where new residential use would be unsustainable. The development hereby approved is acceptable only because of its contribution to local tourism and the rural economy, having regard to Saved Policies S1 and E14 of the Mendip District Local Plan and guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework

5. The camping pitches hereby approved shall only be used for the siting of tents, campervans and visitors' vehicles, and no towing caravans, motorhomes, or any other vehicle larger than a campervan with provision for sleeping accommodation shall be brought onto the site. Reason: The access to the site and the wider road network, in particular Lullington Lane the junctions with the A36, are not suitable for use by a large number of large, slow-moving vehicles. Furthermore the visual impact of larger vehicles would be detrimental to the character of the area. The restriction is necessary in the interests of visual amenity and highway safety.

6. No yurt greater than 5 metres in diameter and greater than 2.5 metres in height (measured from adjacent ground level) shall be erected on the site. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity because larger structures would be prominent and potentially harmful to the character and appearance of the area.

7. Any camping pods sited on the application site shall be of the size and design shown on the approved drawing PL 3066/12. Reason: The camping pods hereby approved would have an acceptable visual impact but any structures of different size or design would require further consideration by the Local Planning Authority.

60 8. In the event that the site ceases to be used for camping for a period of 12 consecutive months, all yurts, camping pods and other ancillary structures other than the structure allowed by planning permission 2015/0237/FUL shall be removed from the site and the land on which they stood (and associated access tracks) shall be laid to grass and any resultant material shall be removed from the land. The works shall be completed no later than 14 calendar months from the last use of the site for camping. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity because there is no justification for retention of any structures on the site without operation of the camping use, and such structures would otherwise be harmful to the character of the area.

9. The camp site shall be operated in accordance with the approved Travel Plan. Reason: To increase opportunities for visitors to use means of transport other than the private car given the location of the site, having regard to the Somerset Countywide Parking Strategy and guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework.

10. The access shall be maintained in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

11. The approved visibility splays identified on drawing number PL 3066/3C shall be permanently retained and kept clear of obstruction. Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

12. No external lighting shall be erected, placed or operated on the site unless in accordance with details that shall have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Under no circumstances shall external illumination be operated on the site other than in accordance with the approved scheme. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring residential properties and the visual amenity of the locality.

13. The approved parking, turning and access tracks to serve each pitch shall not be used for any purpose other than the parking, turning, and access for vehicles associated with the development. Reason: To ensure that sufficient provision is made for off-street parking, turning, loading and unloading of vehicles in the interests of highway safety.

14. The approved surface water drainage scheme, based on sustainable drainage principles, shall be maintained in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure the adequate provision of drainage infrastructure, to prevent an increase in flooding and where possible reduce flooding.

15. The facilities for the disposal of foul sewage shall be maintained in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure the adequate provision of drainage infrastructure.

16. All hard and soft landscape works shall be maintained in accordance with the approved details. Any trees or plants indicated on the approved scheme which, within a period of five years from the date of planting, die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced during the next planting season with other trees or plants of a species and size to be first approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the landscape scheme is implemented and maintained.

61 17. No sound reproduction or amplification equipment which is audible at the boundaries of the site shall be installed or operated on the site, except for that which is required for emergency/safety reasons, unless in accordance with details that have first been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To safeguard the quiet character of the area.

18. The approved refuse storage facilities shall be permanently retained while the camp site is in operation. No refuse shall be stored outside other than in the refuse store hereby approved. Reason: In the interests of the appearance of the development and of the amenities of the area.

19. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the recommendations set out in paragraphs 6.2, 6.5, 6.7 and 6.9 of the Ecological Appraisal by ACE Consulting ref. S1109.001 dated 18th April 2012. Reason: To ensure that there is no net loss of biodiversity as a result of the development and no disturbance to protected species.

List of Advices

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

62 Agenda Item No. DM06

Case Officer Mr Carlton Langford

Site Pitchperfect Campsite Sleight Farm To Bath Road Woolverton Frome BA2 7QU

Application Number 2017/2277/VRC

Date Received 18th August 2017

Applicant/ Mr James Burton Organisation

Application Type Variation or Removal of Conditions

Proposal Variation of condtions 3 (date of operation) and 5 (use of office accommodation), removal of condition 6 (removal of cabin and mobile home) from 2015/0237FUL

Ward Rode And Norton St Philip

Parish Tellisford Parish Council

Description of Site, Proposal and Constraints

The application relates to land and buildings at Pitchperfect Campsite which is situated within the open countryside on the outskirts of Woolverton.

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

The above permission was fully implemented and the applicant now seeks permission to vary and remove several conditions to include variation of condition 3 (date of operation) and 5 (use of office accommodation) and to remove condition 6 (removal of cabin and mobile home) from permission 2015/0237FUL. This is one of two applications submitted by the applicant to vary conditions on planning permissions at their camp site. Whilst not wholly necessary, it would be helpful to assess both applications at the same time having regard for the extension of opening times (See application ref: 2017/2276/VRC seeking to vary conditions on planning permission 2012/1645).

Notwithstanding the proposal to vary or remove conditions 3, 5 and 6, all 8 of the conditions attached to the original permission will need to be reassessed having regard for their relevance now that the permission has been implemented in full.

Summary of parish comments, any objections or conflict with the recommendation Lullington Parish Meeting –

Variation - Condition 3 (dates of operation) Change to: "The office, reception and shop hereby approved shall not operate or be open for business other than between 1st March and 31st October in any calendar year. Reason: The lengthening of the season will help capture the school Easter holidays which often fall earlier in the year and prior to the Easter weekend." Reasons: Historically, the earliest date for school holidays is 25 March so 20 March would be a reasonable opening date. The original planning consent was given on the basis that the business would only ever need to be open during the summer months. There is no

63 justification to open longer than this.

Variation - Condition 5 (dates of operation) Change to: "The warden's accommodation hereby approved shall be limited to members of staff employed at the campsite and can be occupied all year round." Reasons: The original application was for temporary accommodation to support this seasonal business. Allowing all year round occupation effectively permits residential development in the open countryside, specifically contrary to Core Policies 1 and 2 of the Local Plan. The business has apparently been a success over the last three years without the requirement for all year occupancy.

No response given to the removal of condition 6.

Tellisford Parish Meeting -

If it not possible to approve some parts of these applications and refuse others then we recommend Refusal for reasons listed below. Most importantly we recommend refusal to the request to live on site permanently. However if it is possible to approve some parts and refuse others our recommendations are as follows: Recommendation: Refuse conditions 3, 5 and 6 in 2017/2277VRC Reasons 2017/2277VRC Vary condition 3 to say: The Building hereby approved shall only be used as an office, reception and shop for the purposes ancillary to the operation of the campsite. The shop shall not be available for use other than by persons camping on the site. The office, reception and shop hereby approved shall not operate or be open for business other than between 1st March and 31st October in any calendar year. Reason: The lengthening of the season will help capture the school Easter holidays which often fall earlier in the year and prior to the Easter weekend.

We do not agree with this variation. The dates for Easter and the associated school holidays (based on historic data) are shown below, Maundy Thursday falls before the school holidays in 40% of the years so a change in opening dates is reasonable. The earliest date for state school holidays is 25 March and for Public school holidays it is 21 March so 20 March would be a reasonable opening date This date does not prevent the owners preparing the site for the season before its opening to the customers.

Vary condition 5 to say: The warden's accommodation hereby approved shall be limited to members of staff employed at the campsite and can be occupied all year round. Reason: The buildings are now permanent, the visual impact argument as per planning conditions set out in 2012/1645 are redundant. The need to support the business out of season is still great in terms of ongoing administration, repairs, and maintenance to the land and buildings to ensure that they are up to scratch and ready for the following season.

We do not agree with this variation. We do not agree that the accommodation should be lived in all the year round. There is no requirement to live on the site to carry out maintenance. Maintenance and site development has been carried out for the last three years without permanent occupation. The building is only there to support the campsite. If the building became permanently occupied it would be development in the open country which is against planning policy.

Condition 6 to be removed Reason: This condition is no longer required as the cabin and mobile home are no longer in situ and has been removed off site as per the original planning application 2012/1645.

65 We do not agree with this condition being removed. While the old cabin has been replaced by the new structure, the reason cited is not correct. One mobile home has been removed and another one put in its place. Currently (photo below taken August 19) there is also a caravan on the site both these are in breach of existing conditions

County Highway Surveyor - No objections.

Highways England – No objections.

Environmental Protection – No objections.

Other Representations – 2 letters of representation have been received both objecting for the following reasons –

11. Increased traffic 12. The dwelling should not be used for all year round occupancy. 13. There is no reason to extend the open time of the campsite to the 1st March.

Relevant planning history

2012/1645 Planning Permission granted in 2013 for Change of use of land from agriculture to a mixed use of campsite and equestrian use from Maundy Thursday to 31st October in any one year, and equestrian and agricultural use outside of those dates; comprising a 66 camping site for up to 45 pitches (39 tents, 6 yurts/pods), keeping of horses and erection of reception/office building, and temporary stationing of four portable WC/showers portakabins, and siting of a caravan for use as seasonal warden's accommodation; Formation of new vehicular access and access tracks and formation of passing bay on highway. Permission now implemented.

Assessment of the reasons to either vary or remove conditions 3, 5 and 6 -

3. The building hereby approved shall only be used as an office, reception and shop for purposes ancillary to the operation of the camp site. The shop shall not be available for use other than by persons camping on the site. The office, reception and shop hereby approved shall not operate or be open for business other than between Maundy Thursday and the 31st October in any calendar year. Reason: The location in the open countryside is not appropriate or sustainable for new commercial development unrelated to the camp site.

The applicant has suggested that the operating times of the camp office/reception and shop be extended to help capture the school Easter holidays which often fall earlier in the year and prior to the Easter weekend. The proposal is to allow the operation of the shop and other facilities from the 1st of March rather than the existing Maundy Thursday which can fall anytime between the 3rd week in March and the 3rd week in April. The end of October closing date shall remain unchanged.

In reality the applicant is asking for a potential 3 to 6 week extension to the open times of the campsite shop and reception etc. which is to coincide with the separate application being applied for (2017/2276/VAR) which is seeking similar opening hours for the whole campsite.

The reason condition 3 was first imposed was to ensure that the shop was not operated all year round due to its unsustainable countryside location. It is not considered that extension to the opening hours of the shop will be so unsustainably harmful as to warrant the application’s refusal. Furthermore, the condition also suggests that the shop can only be used by guests of the campsite and therefore not used by nearby residents etc. and will ensure the development will not foster the growth in the need to travel.

It is considered that the variation of this condition as proposed is not unreasonable and the following amendment to condition 3 is recommended.

The building hereby approved shall only be used as an office, reception and shop for purposes ancillary to the operation of the camp site. The shop shall not be available for use other than by persons camping on the site. The office, reception and shop hereby approved shall not operate or be open for business other than between 1st March and the 31st October in any calendar year. Reason: The location in the open countryside is not appropriate or sustainable for new commercial development unrelated to the camp site.

5. The wardens accommodation hereby approved shall be limited to members of staff employed at the campsite and shall not be occupied other than between Maundy Thursday and the 31st October in any calendar year. Reason: Permission has only been granted on the basis of a specified need to support the campsite use.

The applicant have asked for this condition to be amended to allow all year round occupation of this permanent building to manage the campsite use and the ongoing administration, repairs and maintenance of the land and buildings over the winter months to ensure the site is ready for the following season.

67 It is considered that this is not an unreasonable request. There seems little point in leaving the accommodation vacant over the winter months when the applicants will be on site most of the time undertaking repair and maintenance works. It is difficult to understand what the harm would be in refusing this request. The reason for the condition was that ‘’permission has only been granted on the basis of a specified need to support the campsite use’’. The use of the land is a campsite use all year round with a restrictive condition on when it can be ‘operated’ as a campsite. The occupation of the accommodation over the winter months to undertake necessary maintenance will satisfy the ‘reason’ the condition was originally imposed in that the accommodation is needed even in the winter months to ‘’ support the campsite use’. As such, it would be more appropriate to amend the above condition to allow all year round occupation, and not dissimilar to the Council’s standard agricultural workers tie condition, restrict occupation for the operators of the campsite only e.g. –

The occupation of the dwelling shall be limited to a person working at the campsite or a widow or widower of such a person, and to any resident dependants. Reason: Permission has only been granted on the basis of a specified need to support the campsite use.

6. Notwithstanding the timescales set out in condition 1 and on plan PL3413/3, the reception cabin and mobile home shall be removed from the site and campsite on or before the 1 July 2016 as was agreed on the implementation of planning permission 2012/1645 under condition 14. Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity of the site and landscape.

There is no reason that this condition should not now be removed. Having regard for the temporary buildings shown on Plan PL3413/3, these temporary buildings are no longer in the locations as shown on plan and therefore the condition has been complied with in full.

Assessment of the remaining conditions as to assess if they are now necessary having regard for the scheme having been implemented -

On the basis that planning permission 2015/0237/FUL has now been implemented in full, condition 1 of this permission is no longer necessary and therefore should be removed from any varied permission granted.

2. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with drawing numbers PL3413/1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interest of proper planning.

This condition remains valid and should be retained.

4. The shop hereby approved shall not be open for business, no customer shall be served, and no deliveries shall be received outside the hours of 2300 to 0700 on any day. Reason: To reduce potential for noise and to safeguard the character of the area.

This condition remains valid and should be retained.

68 7. The accommodation hereby approved shall not be brought into use until provision has been made within the site in accordance with the approved plans for the parking and turning of vehicles. Such areas shall not thereafter be used for any purpose other than the parking, turning, and access for vehicles associated with the development. Reason: To ensure that sufficient provision is made for off-street parking, turning, loading and unloading of vehicles in the interests of highway safety.

As the parking and turning has now been provided in accordance with the requirements of this condition, only the compliant aspect of this condition should be imposed should permission to vary conditions be granted and the condition should read –

The off-street parking and turning areas as approved shall not be used for any purpose other than for the parking, turning, and access for vehicles associated with the development hereby approved. Reason: To ensure that sufficient provision is made for off-street parking, turning, loading and unloading of vehicles in the interests of highway safety.

8. The development hereby approved shall be carried out using external facing materials, windows, doors and roof coverings as specified on the application forms only. Reason: in the interests of the character and appearance of the area.

This condition is no longer required for the reason that the building allowed has been erected on site using the materials at stated and therefore should be removed from any varied permission granted.

Other issues raised

Conclusion It is recommended that planning permission be granted for the variation and removal of conditions as proposed.

69 Reason/s for Recommendation

1. The proposal accords with the Council's settlement strategy for the location of new development. The proposal, by reason of its design, scale and layout would be in keeping with its surroundings. The proposal, by reason of its design, scale and layout, would safeguard the amenities of neighbouring residents and adjoining land users. The means of access and parking arrangements meet the required safety standards and will ensure the free flow of traffic on the highway. 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:- CP3 and CP4 (principle of development), DP1 (local identity), DP5 (biodiversity), DP7 (design and amenity), DP9 (transport), DP10 (parking) of the Mendip District Local Plan 2006-2029 (Part 1 Strategies and Policies - adopted 15th December 2014) National Planning Policy Framework Planning Practice Guidance The Countywide Parking Strategy (2013)

Conditions

1. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with drawing numbers PL3413/1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interest of proper planning.

2. The building hereby approved shall only be used as an office, reception and shop for purposes ancillary to the operation of the camp site. The shop shall not be available for use other than by persons camping on the site. The office, reception and shop hereby approved shall not operate or be open for business other than between 1st March and the 31st October in any calendar year. Reason: The location in the open countryside is not appropriate or sustainable for new commercial development unrelated to the camp site.

3. The shop hereby approved shall not be open for business, no customer shall be served, and no deliveries shall be received outside the hours of 2300 to 0700 on any day. Reason: To reduce potential for noise and to safeguard the character of the area.

4. The occupation of the dwelling shall be limited to a person working at the campsite or a widow or widower of such a person, and to any resident dependants. Reason: Permission has only been granted on the basis of a specified need to support the campsite use.

5. The off-street parking and turning areas as approved shall not be used for any purpose other than for the parking, turning, and access for vehicles associated with the development hereby approved. Reason: To ensure that sufficient provision is made for off-street parking, turning, loading and unloading of vehicles in the interests of highway safety.

70 List of Advices

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

2. The 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.

70 Agenda Item No. DM07

Case Officer Mr Robert Brigden

Site Land At Manor Farm Piltown West Pennard Glastonbury Somerset

Application Number 2017/1779/FUL

Date Received 28th June 2017

Applicant/ Mr David Bowditch Organisation

Application Type Full Application

Proposal The proposal is for a single storey dwelling and double garage to the rear of the site with some level of hard and soft landscaping.

Ward The Pennards And Ditcheat

Parish West Pennard Parish Council

Description of Site, Proposal and Constraints The application site comprises open land located on the northern side of the A361. The site is traversed, from north to south, by a public right of way. Part of the site is crossed by a power line. The site’s southern boundary lies adjacent to the public highway; its remaining boundaries adjoin open, agricultural land. The site’s southern, eastern, and northern boundaries are marked by existing hedgerows. The site is located outside the village envelope.

This planning application proposes the erection of a detached, single-storey, 3-bed dwelling, to be accompanied by a detached garage, parking and manoeuvring area, along with front and rear gardens. A new hedgerow would be planted along the western, and part of the northern, boundaries. A pole associated with an electricity line would be relocated.

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

West Pennard Parish Council

Approval recommended.

Highways Authority

No objections subject to sufficient visibility splays and standing advice.

Other Representations Letters of support have been received from four neighbouring occupiers, commenting as follows: a. The site is an eyesore and of a low agricultural grade; b. The site does not have any special ecological value; c. The area would be enhanced by such a development; d. The applicant has always farmed in the location and needs the proposed development; e. There are no problems in terms of access; f. There is a shortage of bungalows in the area; g. The proposal should be allowed, however, it should not set a precedent for further development of a similar development, given the rural character of the area and highway safety.

71 h. The speed limit for the village should be lowered to 30mph.

Relevant planning history There are no previous planning decisions of particular relevance to the proposal.

Summary of planning policies:

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

Development Plan

1. Policies CP1 (Spatial Strategy), CP2 (Housing), CP4 (Sustaining Rural Communities), DP1 (Local Identity and Distinctiveness), DP4 (Mendip’s Landscapes), DP5 (Biodiversity and Ecological Networks), DP7 (Design and Amenity), DP8 (Environmental Protection) DP9 (Transport Impact of New Development), DP10 (Parking Standards), DP12 (Rural Exception Sites) of the Mendip District Local Plan 2006-2029, Part 1 Strategy and Policies (adopted December 2014) (MDLP)

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

Assessment of relevant issues This planning application proposes the erection of a dwelling, and associated development, in open countryside.

Principle

The NPPF advises that the countryside should be safeguarded, and that development should be focussed within towns and villages. The NPPF (at paragraph 55) 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, paragraph 34), supports the objective of concentrating development in and around existing, or proposed, places where jobs and services are concentrated. The MDLP is consistent with this approach.

Policy CP1 of the MDLP states that to enable the most sustainable pattern of growth for Mendip District, development in the open countryside will be strictly controlled but may exceptionally be permitted in accordance with Policy CP4. Such development will only be permitted where it benefits economic activity or extends the range of facilities available to local communities.

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

Policy CP4 states that rural settlements and the wider rural area will be sustained by making planned provision for housing within the Primary and Secondary Villages in line with Policies CP1 and CP2, 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. Exceptions may also be allowed for rural affordable housing in accordance with Policy DP12.

73 The application site is located outside the Development Limits of West Pennard. The proposed private residential development would not benefit economic activity, extend facilities available to the local community, or provide affordable housing in accordance with Policy DP12. The proposal would foster growth in the need to travel. The proposal is not in accordance with Policies CP1, CP2, or CP4, and is contrary to the guidance contained in the NPPF. The proposal is therefore considered to be unacceptable in principle.

Character and Appearance

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

Policy DP1 of the MDLP states that development proposals should contribute positively to local identity and dinstinctiveness; and be formulated with an appreciation of the built and natural context of their locality. Policy DP7 states that proposals should be of a scale, mass, form, and layout appropriate to the local context.

The proposal would result in the erection of a single-storey dwelling of modern proportions, along with a detached garage. The proposed cladding materials are stone and slate roof tiles. Other dwellings in the locality are traditional, two-storey, stone structures with red-tile roofs. The proposal would be located in open countryside, beyond the village envelope. Even allowing for the use of a condition to secure cladding materials sympathetic to the local area, it is considered that the proposal, owing to its siting, scale, and form, would be harmful to the open character of the countryside and the local distinctiveness of this part of West Pennard. As such, the proposal is considered to be contrary to Policies DP1 and DP7 of the MDLP.

Highways

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

Neighbour Amenity

It is considered that the proposal would provide an adequate amount of amenity space for the enjoyment of future occupiers. Given its siting, scale, and design, it is considered that it would not result in significant harm to the amenities of neighbouring occupiers or users in terms of their outlook, privacy, or access to light. In these respects, the proposal is considered to be in accordance with Policy DP7 of the MDLP.

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

Conclusion The proposal is considered to be unacceptable in principle and visually harmful, and therefore unacceptable having regard to Policies CP1, CP2, CP4, DP1, DP4, DP7, DP8, DP9, DP10, and DP12 of the MDLP.

74 Recommendation

It is recommended that planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

Reason/s for Recommendation

1. The proposal is for the creation of new residential development outside Development Limits. The proposal would foster growth in the need to travel and does not meet any of the exceptional circumstances described in Policies CP1, CP2, and CP4 of the Mendip District Local Plan, and is therefore considered to be contrary to these policies, and the guidance contained in the National Planning Policy Framework.

2. The proposal would be located beyond the village envelope of West Pennard and in close proximity to dwellings that have a traditional character. Given its siting, scale, and design, it is considered that the proposal would not be in keeping with the traditional character of other, existing dwellings in this part of West Pennard, and that it would have an urbanising and harmful effect on the open character of the countryside. The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to Policies DP1 and DP7 of the Mendip District Local Plan.

List of Advices

1. This decision relates to drawings:

959/001 Rev B 959/002 Rev A 959/004 Rev C 959/030 Rev A 959/040 Rev A 967/041 003 Plan 2 Rev A

2. In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework the Council has worked in a positive and pro-active way with the Applicant and has looked for solutions to enable the grant of planning permission. However, the proposal remains contrary to the planning policies set out in the reasons for refusal and was not therefore considered to be sustainable development.

Agenda Item No. DM08

Case Officer Mr Robert Brigden

Site The Walled Garden Little Pennard Lane East Pennard Somerset BA4

Application Number 2017/1998/FUL

Date Received 24th July 2017

Applicant/ Mr & Mrs H & G Dearden Organisation

Application Type Full Application

Proposal Erection of a manager's dwelling for Pennard House

Ward The Pennards And Ditcheat

Parish East Pennard Parish Council

Description of Site, Proposal and Constraints

The application site, known as The Walled Garden, forms part of the estate of Pennard House. It comprises land in use as a nursery, and includes associated paraphernalia, such as greenhouses and polytunnels. The submitted information states that the site is used as part of an horticultural business. The site is enclosed by a high brick wall and forms part of the listed curtilage of Pennard House, which is a Grade II Listed Building. The walls themselves form part of the Grade II listing. The site is located outside development limits. The site’s northern boundary adjoins Church Lane. The western boundary lies adjacent to land associated with the Garden Cottage, which is a Grade II Listed Building, and itself associated with the curtilage of Pennard House. The eastern boundary adjoins land associated with a complex of buildings known as Carpenter’s Yard. The southern boundary abuts open land. The site is located in the East Pennard Conservation Area.

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

Consultation Responses

A summary of the comments received is as follows:

Parish Council

East Pennard Parish Council has raised no objections to the proposal, deferring to the Planning Officer’s assessment.

Highways Officer (Somerset County Council)

76 Standing Advice.

Conservation Officer (MDC)

Objections raised owing to the harm the proposal would cause to the character of the estate and the setting of the listed walled garden.

County Archaeologist No Objections.

Representations

Mendip Conservation Advisory Panel

1) The walled garden of Pennard House is both curtilage listed and an unrestored historic asset. Kitchen gardens of this ilk remaining in use (even if not full use), in conjunction with country houses and their pleasure gardens, are a significant asset which should continue to be used for horticulture and serve to maintain and support the other heritage assets in this group. 2) The listed former stable block has already been brought into use as part of the wedding and corporate entertaining business use of Pennard House and its gardens. The proposal to build a large modern house for the owner's family and offices from which the business may be run is antipathetic to the historic group and its continuing legacy. 3) We query the need and desirability of now turning the whole of Pennard House into a Wedding/Corporate function operation and decanting the family with a new build house into the walled garden. The effect on the historic interiors of Pennard House will be harmed (see for instance the recent interior treatment of the listed stable block into a function room) by wedding facilities. An application for change of use will also be required and is likely to be resisted. 4) The proposed house is large and has in consequence a very substantial budget. We doubt raising such a large capital sum against Pennard House is prudent. 5) The design of the proposed house is unfortunate for this setting and will do active harm to the curtilage listed walled garden. The form and materials have no clear generating idea; the boarded finish sprawls and the openings appear arbitrary. 6) The house will subdivide the unity of the walled space so that it can no longer be appreciated as a single space. 7) It is recommended that advice is sought from a historic buildings specialist. 8) The proposed location and design will also impact adversely on the adjacent former listed schoolhouse and, to a lesser degree, on Pennard House itself. 9) The planning statement claims the design has local character, which it does not.

Ward Member

The Ward Councillor for East Pennard supports the proposal, but given the conflicts between allowing a new building in the countryside and a conservation area, with the benefits the proposal would bring to a business, it is requested that the application be brought before the Planning Board.

Other Representations The Local Planning Authority has received four letters of support from neighbours, citing the following material considerations:

77 10) The high quality design of the proposed dwelling; 11)The benefits of the proposal to the village; 12)The proposal would benefit a local business.

However, one of the respondents objects to the way in which agricultural workers restrictions are being applied, with a lack of affordable housing available in the area to house agricultural workers.

Relevant planning history The previous planning decisions of most relevance to the proposal are as follows:

2014/1794/FUL - Construction of permanent wooden structure (4.5m x 2m) within the gardens of Pennard House which can be licensed for civil ceremonies and civil partnerships – Approved.

2011/1607/FUL - Change of use of two rooms in the house from antiques shop to the holding of wedding ceremonies – Approved.

2011/0811/LBC - Single storey extension to coach-house (new toilet building) including new door opening in external wall and associated internal alterations – Approved.

2011/0810/FUL - Single storey extension to coach-house (new toilet building) including new door opening in external wall and associated internal alterations – Approved.

2010/2674/FUL - Change of use of Coach House to use as wedding receptions and other functions which involves internal alterations to building – Approved.

Summary of planning policies: Policy Context

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

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

CP1: Spatial Strategy CP2: Housing CP4: Sustaining Rural Communities DP1: Local Identity and Distinctiveness DP3: Heritage Conservation DP4: Mendip’s Landscapes DP5: Biodiversity and Ecological Networks DP6: Bat Protection DP7: Design and Amenity of New Development DP8: Environmental Protection DP9: Transport Impact of New Development DP10: Parking Standards

78 DP13: Accommodation for Rural Workers DP23: Managing Flood Risk

Material Considerations National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) Somerset County Council Standing Advice, 2015 Somerset County Council Parking Strategy, 2017

Consideration of Issues:

Principle The NPPF advises that the countryside should be safeguarded and that development should be focussed within towns and villages. The NPPF (at paragraph 55) 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 application site is located outside Development Limits. The applicants have attempted to demonstrate that there is a proven and essential functional need for the proposed dwelling, to support their rural-based wedding ceremony and events business, which is operated from Pennard House and associated buildings. The applicants currently reside at Pennard House, and by moving out of their current accommodation to the proposed dwelling, they state that it would be possible to improve and expand the existing facilities, supporting the viability of the business. The submitted information states that a new dwelling is required in close proximity to the business so that a manager can be located in close proximity to the operation, during the day and night, to cater for the needs of customers and to be on hand in case of emergencies.

Policy DP13 of the MDLP elaborates upon the requirements of Policy CP4. The policy states that proposals for temporary and permanent accommodation outside of defined Development Limits, which are necessary to support rural enterprises, will be supported where:

79 1. a) It can be demonstrated that: i) the dwelling and its proposed location are essential to support or sustain the functioning of the enterprise; ii) there is a need for permanent occupation which relates to a full-time worker or one who is primarily employed by the business; iii) all alternative accommodation options have been explored and no satisfactory alternative means of providing accommodation has been identified; iv) the size of the proposed dwelling is commensurate with the established functional requirement for the enterprise; v) the design and siting of the proposal does not conflict with the intentions of Development Policy 5, particularly in relation to Natura 2000 sites and Development Policy 4: Mendip’s Landscapes.

Policy DP13 also states that the Council will support proposals for permanent rural workers’ dwellings where:

2. i) the enterprise has been established on the unit for at least three years; ii) business accounts for the preceding 3 years indicate that at least one of those years has been profitable, and that the enterprise is currently financially sound and has clear prospects of remaining so; iii) The criteria in clause 1a) continue to be satisfied.

The submitted information indicates that parts 2. (i) and (ii) of Policy DP13 are satisfied. However, Parts 1. (i)-(v), and therefore 2. (iii) are not, for the following reasons.

The submitted information states that those managing the business need to reside in close proximity to it, in case of emergencies and to be on-hand to meet customer needs. It is also stated that, in order to improve and expand the business, the space within Pennard House, which is used as the applicants’ residence, needs to be freed up for business purposes. The proposed dwelling would also provide meeting space for managing the business.

The submitted information states that the applicants:

“have set up a successful wedding and events business, with marriage receptions and events being held in the grounds and converted 18th Century Coach House, and associated accommodation offered within the main house… There is also a focus on corporate retreats and private events…”

Planning permissions do exist for the use of two rooms within Pennard House for wedding ceremonies, along with space within the associated Coach House. However, officers are unaware of any planning permission that permits the use of Pennard House, as a whole, or its curtilage, for purposes that are akin to a hotel, with space given over for wedding and conference-related activities, and overnight accommodation. The expanded business that the applicants claim the proposed dwelling is needed for, does not have planning permission, and officers have not had sight of any application applying for such development.

80 The submitted information states that the business has “grown successfully over the past 4 years.” It appears then that the use could not be considered an established one, even if an application were to be submitted for a certificate of lawfulness. The submitted information implies that the whole of Pennard House would be used as a hotel and events facility. However, it is unclear at this time whether planning permission would be given for the hotel and events use being described, and therefore difficult to see how the proposed dwelling could be justified. Moreover, to grant approval for the proposed dwelling would seem to prejudice any decision the Council may wish to make in relation to such a business proposal in future, should a planning application ever be submitted.

In the absence of more detailed information concerning the nature of the associated business and the way in which Pennard House is being used, the case for the proposed dwelling remains unconvincing. Some questions that remain unanswered are:

- What proportion of Pennard House is currently used in association with the applicant’s business?

- What proportion of the building is currently being used as the applicant’s accommodation?

- How exactly would the use of Pennard House change if approval for the new dwelling is granted, and is there planning consent for this?

- Why does a member of staff need to be located within 125m of the business use as opposed to, for instance, within 5 or 10 miles of the site? The submitted information refers to emergencies – if there is a fire or medical emergency, would the facility’s customers be unable to call the emergency services themselves? Could other, less urgent matters, not be addressed by a member of staff living further away?

- If it is really the case that a member of staff needs to be on-hand, around the clock, to support the business, then why can essential staff accommodation not be provided within the existing building(s)? The submitted information states that customers prefer exclusive use of facilities, however, no evidence is provided to support this claim. Even if true, could more modest staff accommodation not be provided within existing, or new, buildings in the estate? How is the large family home being proposed justified? It is noted that the proposed dwelling would include four bedrooms, en-suite bathrooms, a walk-in wardrobe, a library, and large curtilage area, amongst other elements, and it is unclear how such accommodation could be essential to support the business.

- Could the family not be accommodated elsewhere, with truly essential accommodation provided on-site, or nearby, for staff only?

- The search for alternative accommodation appears to have been extremely limited. Reference is made to a 5-bedroom home being for sale in the local area, which is deemed to be too expensive. However, it is unclear whether the proposal would be more affordable and therefore viable, and the area of search seems very small. What alternative family homes are available within a 20-mile radius?

It is not possible to properly answer these questions based on the information submitted, and the case in favour of a rural workers dwelling is therefore considered

81 to be unclear and unconvincing. There are also concerns about the siting, design, and scale of the proposed dwelling, and its effects on the setting of listed structures and a conservation area. These matters are considered further on in this report.

In light of the above assessment, taking the requirements of Policy DP13 part 1. in turn: i) the dwelling and its proposed location are essential to support or sustain the functioning of the enterprise;

It has not been demonstrated that the dwelling or its location are essential to support or sustain the functioning of an enterprise. Inadequate information has been provided to justify this. ii) there is a need for permanent occupation which relates to a full-time worker or one who is primarily employed by the business;

The need for a full-time worker or one primarily employed by the business to be given a new permanent dwelling has not been demonstrated. Inadequate information has been provided to justify this. iii) all alternative accommodation options have been explored and no satisfactory alternative means of providing accommodation has been identified;

The submitted information lacks an adequate assessment of alternative options, either on-site or off-site, and the case for the proposal is therefore unconvincing. iv) the size of the proposed dwelling is commensurate with the established functional requirement for the enterprise;

The need for a large, new family home with extensive curtilage area to provide accommodation for a member of staff has not been adequately explained. Most families do not live within 125m of the workplace(s) of family members; what are the special circumstances to justify this here? v) the design and siting of the proposal does not conflict with the intentions of Development Policy 5, particularly in relation to Natura 2000 sites and Development Policy 4: Mendip’s Landscapes.

There are concerns about the proposal’s visual impact, and it is therefore considered that the proposal conflicts with the objectives of Policy DP4 of the MDLP.

In light of the foregoing, it is considered that the proposed new dwelling, located outside development limits, is not justified in this case. The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to Policies CP1, CP2, or CP4, and DP13 and to the guidance contained in the NPPF. The proposal is therefore considered to be unacceptable in principle.

Scale, Layout, Appearance, and Heritage Assets

Policy DP1 of the MDLP states that development proposals should contribute positively to local identity and distinctiveness; and be formulated with an appreciation of the built and natural context of their locality. Policy DP3 states that proposals will be supported which preserve and, where appropriate, enhance the significance and setting of the district’s heritage assets. Policy DP4 states that proposals that would individually or cumulatively degrade the quality of the local landscape will not be supported. Proposals should 82 demonstrate that their siting and design are compatible with the pattern of natural and man-made features of the Landscape Character Areas. Policy DP7 states that proposals should be of a scale, mass, form, and layout appropriate to the local context.

The Mendip Conservation Advisory Panel have objected to the proposal as they consider that it would be harmful to the historic estate of Pennard House and its buildings; harmful to the walled garden; harmful to the character of the East Pennard Conservation Area; and that it would have an incongruous design not in keeping with the character of the area.

The site is located within the East Pennard Conservation Area and forms part of the listed curtilage of Pennard House, where the walled enclosure is also deemed to be covered by the Grade II listing.

Paragraph 132 of the NPPF states, in relation to heritage assets, that:

"...Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification. Substantial harm to or loss of a grade II listed building, park or garden should be exceptional..."

The Council’s Conservation Officer has stated that:

“The walled garden would have been an important part of the estate, as the kitchen garden to provide for the house. The erection of a new dwelling within this walled garden would destroy the character of this part of the estate and, effectively, hive off part of this land with its own curtilage.

The immediate setting of the listed garden walls would be severely compromised by this development, thereby causing substantial harm to the significance of this part of the heritage asset. (NPPF para.129.), and overall "less than substantial harm" would be caused to Pennard House itself.

I do not believe there is any clear and convincing justification within this application to allow this harm, nor is there any public benefit to outweigh this harm. (NPPF para. 134.)

Considering the above, I strongly believe this application should be refused.”

It is concluded that the proposal would not preserve or enhance the settings of the East Pennard Conservation Area, the Grade II listed Pennard House, or the listed garden walls surrounding the site. It is considered that less than substantial harm would be caused to the significance of the setting of Pennard House and the Conservation Area, and that substantial harm would be caused to the setting of the listed wall. There are no public benefits apparent in this case to justify the identified harm. The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to Policy DP3 of the MDLP and the guidance contained in the NPPF.

The proposed dwelling and its curtilage would fill a substantial part of the historic garden space of the walled garden, and in doing so it is considered that it would be harmful not only to the listed estate, but also the character of the conservation area. The proposed dwelling would have a wide frontage, measuring around 32m in width. The proposed cladding materials would include timber, render, and glazing. The building would have a modern, boxy appearance. Given the siting, scale, and design of the proposal, it is considered that it would not be in keeping with the character of the area, and that it would have an incongruous effect on its historic setting. The proposal, with its extensive domestic curtilage, would also have an urbanising effect on, and diminish the open character of, the countryside.

It is considered that the proposal, in terms of its siting, scale, and design would result in unacceptable harm to heritage assets and the character of the area, contrary to Policies DP1, DP3, DP4, and DP7 of the MDLP, and the guidance contained in the NPPF.

Residential Amenities

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

The submitted information indicates that the existing nursery business, which is not run by the applicants, would continue in the eastern half of the site. It is possible that there could be conflict between these two land uses, which would share the same access. The nursery area would be accessed through the curtilage of the proposed dwelling. If planning permission were to be granted for the proposed rural workers dwelling, then a condition would be recommended to ensure that it is occupied only by those involved in the running of the business at Pennard House. According to the submitted information, the applicants have control of the land, and to the extent that the nursery business might affect the standard of accommodation to be provided, the applicants are aware of it and would be able to exercise control over the activities.

Given its siting, scale, and design, it is considered that the proposal would not result in significant harm to the amenities of neighbouring occupiers in terms of their outlook, privacy, access to light, or the general enjoyment of their home environments. It is considered that the proposal would provide an adequate standard of accommodation for the enjoyment of its future occupiers. In these respects, the proposal is considered to be in accordance with Policies DP7 and DP8 of the MDLP.

Access and Parking

The Highway Authority have raised no objections to the proposal. It is considered that the proposal would include an adequate amount of parking and manoeuvring space and that access into and out of the site, which is already employed by a nursey business and setback from the highway, would be sufficiently safe. It is recommended that a condition be imposed requiring the provision of the proposed parking and manoeuvring space prior to the dwelling being brought into use. Subject to the use of this condition, the proposal is considered to be in accordance with Policy DP9 of the MDLP.

Flooding and Drainage

The site is located within flood zone 1, which is defined as an area at low risk of flooding. The proposal would increase the rate of run-off from the site. A condition is therefore recommended requiring the approval of details for sustainable means of drainage. Subject to the use of this condition, the proposal is considered to be in accordance with Policy DP23 of the MDLP.

Environmental Impact Assessment

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

Conclusion On the basis of the above assessment the proposal is considered to be unacceptable,

84 having regard to Policies CP1, CP2, CP4, DP1, DP3, DP4, DP7, DP8, DP9, DP11, DP13, and DP23 of the MDLP, and all other material considerations.

Reason/s for Recommendation

1. The case made in favour of a new and permanent rural worker's dwelling, to support a rural enterprise, is not considered to be sufficiently convincing in this case. The proposal does not meet the requirements of Policy DP13 of the Mendip District Local Plan. It has not been demonstrated that the dwelling and its location are essential to support or sustain the functioning of an enterprise; that there is a need for permanent occupation relating to a full- time worker; that alternative accommodation options have been adequately explored; that the size or the proposed dwelling is commensurate with the established, functional requirement of the enterprise; or that the proposal would not conflict with the objectives of Policy DP4 of the Mendip District Local Plan.

2. It is concluded that the proposal would not preserve or enhance the settings of the East Pennard Conservation Area, the Grade II listed Pennard House, or the listed garden walls surrounding the site. It is considered that less than substantial harm would be caused to the significance of the setting of Pennard House and the Conservation Area, and that substantial harm would be caused to the setting of the listed wall. There are no public benefits apparent in this case to justify the identified harm. The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to Policy DP3 of the MDLP and the guidance contained in the NPPF.

3. Given the proposal's siting within the historic Walled Garden, its excessive scale, along with its modern, boxy form and appearance, it is considered that it would have an urbanising effect in the countryside, and be unacceptably harmful to the character of the area, contrary to Policies DP1, DP4, and DP7 of the Mendip District Local Plan.

List of Advices

1. 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.

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.

3. This decision is made having regard to the following submitted plans:

0078_L01 0078_L02 0078_L03 0078_L04 0078_L05 0078_L06

85 0078_GL01 0078_GL02 0078_GL11 0078_GL12 0078_GL13 0078_GL14 0078_GL15 0078_GL16 Design and Access Statement and Appendix Heritage and Planning Statement

86 Agenda Item No. DM09

Case Officer Mr Daniel Foster

Site The Cyder Barn Woodlands Road To Stockbridge Lane West Pennard Glastonbury BA6 8NH

Application Number 2017/2567/FUL

Date Received 25th September 2017

Applicant/ Alexandra Care Ltd Organisation

Application Type Full Application

Proposal Proposed siting of 3 mobile homes for staff use

Ward The Pennards And Ditcheat

Parish West Pennard Parish Council

Description of Site, Proposal and Constraints

The application site comprises land and buildings located off Woodlands Road to Stockbridge Lane in West Pennard. The site forms an L-shaped area of land, with a complex of buildings, in use as a residential care home, and associated parking area located at the southern end of the site, with open and undeveloped land located at the northern end of the site. The site’s south-western and north-western boundaries adjoin open countryside in the form of orchards; the south-eastern boundary lies adjacent to the public highway; whilst the north-eastern boundary adjoins a residential property. The built-up part of the site is located within development limits, whilst the remainder is located outside development limits.

The application seeks planning permission for the siting of 3 mobile homes for staff use. The mobile homes would be sited on land to the north of what is a car-parking area serving the care home. The mobile homes would be located outside development limits.

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

West Pennard Parish Council

Recommend approval.

County Highway Authority

The plan appears to show ample parking and manoeuvring for the proposed planning application, therefore there is no highway objection subject to the following condition being attached to any permissions granted

 The area allocated for parking on the submitted plan, Parking and Turning, shall be kept clear of obstruction at all times and shall not be used other than for the parking of vehicles in connection with the development hereby permitted.

Land contamination officer

Due to the former historic uses in the vicinity of a blacksmith and saw pit, it would be advised to keep a watching brief for potential hotspots of contamination and assess for visual/olfactory evidence of contamination during groundworks.

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

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

Representations

None received.

Relevant Planning History

101372/004 Approval - Change of use of private dwelling & barn to rest home for the elderly & privat e owners accommodation, 2.7.91

101372/008 change of use of agricultural land to form an extension to the car park and an amenity/orchard garden area in association with existing retirement home, approved 2000

101372/009 first floor extension to provide 2 additional bedrooms, approved 2001

101372/010 erection of conservatory, approved 2003

101372/011 Extensions to rear to form nine additional bedrooms and conservatory, approved June 2007

101372/013 Single storey extensions to rear to form 10 additional bedrooms and conservatory, approved 04.09.08

2009/1994 Formation of new vehicular access onto A361 (including stopping up existing), formation of new overspill car park, erection of summerhouse and associated hard and soft landscaping, approved 21.01.10

2013/1578 Erection of a first floor rear extension to provide five bedrooms, approved 2.12.13

Summary of all planning policies relevant to the proposal

Development Plan

Policies CP1 (Spatial Strategy), CP2 (Housing), DP1 (Local Identity and Distinctiveness), DP4 (Mendip’s Landscapes), DP5 (Biodiversity and Ecological Networks), DP7 (Design and Amenity), DP8 (Environmental Protection) DP9 (Transport Impact of New Development), DP10 (Parking Standards) and DP13 (Rural Workers Accommodation) of the Mendip District Local Plan Part 1 Strategy and Policies (adopted December 2014)

Material Considerations

 National Planning Policy Framework  National Planning Practice Guidance  Somerset County Council Standing Advice (June 2017)

88 Assessment of relevant issues

Principle

The Cyder Barn itself lies within the development limits of West Pennard, a Secondary Village in the Local Plan Part 1, but the three mobile homes proposed for staff accommodation would be located on land outside of the developments limits and in open countryside.

Policy 1 (CP1) of the Council’s Local Plan Part 1 strategy is to focus most new housing in larger, more sustainable settlements, both to protect the quality and character of the countryside and to limit development in locations which would encourage travel by private car. Policy CP1 goes onto state that any proposed development outside settlement limits will be strictly controlled and will only be permitted where it benefits economic activity or extends the range of facilities available to the local communities. It is also stated that development in the countryside may exceptionally be permitted in line with the provisions set out in Core Policy 4.

Whilst outside of the development limits, the proposed mobile homes would be relatively near to the village services and facilities, including the village pub, school (should the occupants have school aged children or other dependents), the village hall, and the bus routes along the A361. The occupiers of the mobile homes would however be dependent on private cars to some degree for access to shopping, health and leisure facilities, for example, which are found in larger settlements. However, it is considered, on balance, that subject to a planning condition to ensure the principal occupant was solely or mainly employed in the adjacent care home that the development would not be so unsustainable in transport terms that planning permission should be refused on this basis.

Policy CP4 states that rural settlements will be sustained by 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 as set out in Policy DP13.

Policy DP13 states that proposals for rural workers accommodation will be supported where it can be demonstrated that: i) the dwelling and its proposed location are essential to support or sustain the functioning of the enterprise; ii) there is a need for permanent occupation which relates to a full-time worker or one who is primarily employed by the business; iii) all alternative accommodation options have been explored and no satisfactory alternative means of providing accommodation has been identified; iv) the size of the proposed dwelling is commensurate with the established functional requirement for the enterprise; v) the design and siting of the proposal does not conflict with the intentions of Development Policy 5, particularly in relation to Natura 2000 sites and Development Policy 4: Mendip’s Landscapes.

No reference is made in the submission to the mobile homes being sited for a temporary period of time and, as such, Policy DP13 goes on to set out criteria relating to proposals for permanent dwellings. These are: i) the enterprise has been established on the unit for at least three years; ii) business accounts for the preceding 3 years indicate that at least one of those years has been profitable, and that the enterprise is currently financially sound and has clear prospects of remaining so; iii) The criteria in clause 1a) continue to be satisfied.

An assessment of the application against Policy DP13 is set out below.

89 Nature of the business and the essential need for a full-time worker to live on-site

The Cyder Barn is reported to be a 40-bed care home that accommodates residents with a range of needs, including mental and physical disabilities.

The applicant states that it is essential for its staff to be permanently present on-site to ensure the efficient operation of the care home and that the proposed mobile homes would ensure that the care home operates at maximum capacity and continues to deliver a caring, safe and reliable service. The applicant points out that the care home plays an important social role in supporting an aging population.

Whilst it is considered that the care home does probably require high-staff levels, no specific details have been provided of what the staffing requirements for the business are, nor how the care home currently operates, or details of any particular difficulties that arise from not currently having staff permanently resident on site. It is not unusual for care homes, and other similar care/health facilities, to have staff working on a rota basis throughout the day and night to meet the regulatory requirements (such as those set out by the Care Quality Commission) which seek to ensure that care providers deploy enough suitably qualified, competent, and experienced staff to meet the needs of the people using the service at all times. However, the application provides little justification as to why staff need to live on-site and why the needs of the business, and care facility, cannot be serviced on a pre-planned, rota basis using staff who not live at the site.

Undoubtedly, there will occasionally be medical emergencies at the facility, although no details of such incidents, including their nature and frequency, are provided. There is no explanation as to how employees residing in a mobile home alongside The Cyder Barn is necessary to address such incidents compared to if such members of staff lived off site. Again, it is unclear why the staffing needs of the care home cannot be addressed through a planned pattern of shifts involving staff who do not live at the site.

Finally, three separate mobile homes are proposed which would equate to at least three staff members being resident on-site. Again in the absence of any details of staffing levels or requirements, there is no justification that there is an essential need for any, or indeed three, full-time staff to be resident on-site.

Established, Profitable and financially sound

Policy DP13 of the adopted Local Plan is clear that proposals for permanent dwellings, such as this, will be supported where, amongst other matters: i) the enterprise has been established on the unit for at least three years; ii) business accounts for the preceding 3 years indicate that at least one of those years has been profitable, and that the enterprise is currently financially sound and has clear prospects of remaining so.

A care home has been operating here for some time as is evident from the planning history, however no business accounts have been provided as is required by the policy. The application says these can be provided on request but they have not been sought given the other deficiencies of the application set out elsewhere in this report. This matter represents just an additional element of the scheme that is not in accordance with the Development Plan policy.

The size of the proposed dwellings

The application relates to the siting of three mobile homes rather than the erection of buildings and, as such, the proposal relates to the use of the land rather than operational development to erect three new dwellings.

90 In these circumstances it would be possible to ensure that any ‘mobile home’ sited on the land falls within the definition of a caravan (including a twin-unit caravan) given in section 29(1) of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 and in Section 13 of the Caravan Sites Act 1968 i.e. capable of being moved from one place to another (whether by being towed, or by being transported on a motor vehicle or trailer).

Alternative accommodation options

The applicant says that the proposal is the most cost effective means of providing staff accommodation; that no suitable alternatives exist in the village; and that there is no suitable bus service. This statement is not evidenced in any particular way, for example, in respect of details of available properties in the local area, and further adds to the lack of justification for the development.

Impact on the character of the area

The three mobile homes would be sited towards the rear of the site beyond an area used for car-parking. Whilst the homes would not be particularly prominent, they would nonetheless be visible from the A361 because of the low height of the roadside hedgerow giving views across the adjacent orchard to the position where the units would be sited. In any event the NPPF states that the planning process should recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside. This development would have an urbanising effect on the otherwise rural character of the land at the edge of the village, which is not justified for the reasons set out above. It is therefore considered that the proposed dwellings would be visually harmful.

The proposal would involve the enlargement of the parking/turning area to serve the three new mobile homes. This would have a more limited urbanising effect given that it would be a ground-level feature, but nonetheless would represent further unjustified harm.

The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to Policies DP1 and DP4 of the MDLP.

Impact on amenity

The mobile homes are sited sufficiently far from any other neighbours (aside from the care home to which they are associated) such as to ensure that the development would not adversely affect neighbour’s amenity. The proposal is therefore considered to be in accordance with Policies DP7 and DP8 of the MDLP.

Impact on highway safety

The mobile homes would share the existing access that serves the care home with access onto the A361 within the 30 mph speed limit. The County Highway Authority do not object to the scheme and consequently there is no technical evidence to justify any harm in this respect. The proposal is considered to be in accordance with Policies DP9 and DP10 of the MDLP.

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.

Conclusion

The proposed development is considered to be unjustified with regard to the provision of residential development outside development limits. It is also considered that the proposal would cause harm to the rural character of the area. As such, the application is considered to be unacceptable, having regard to Policies CP1, CP4, DP1, DP4, DP5, DP7, DP8, DP9, DP10, and DP13 of the MDLP, and all other material considerations.

91 Reason/s for Recommendation

1. The proposed mobile homes would be located outside development limits, where development is strictly controlled. The applicant has failed to satisfactorily demonstrate that the three dwellings proposed are essential to support or sustain the functioning of an enterprise and that there is a need for permanent occupation which relates to three full- time workers (or those primarily employed by the business). Furthermore, the applicant has failed to demonstrate that all alternative accommodation options have been explored and that no satisfactory alternative means of providing accommodation have been identified. The applicant has also failed to provide business accounts for the preceding 3 years, which indicate that at least one of those years has been profitable, and that the enterprise is currently financially sound and has clear prospects of remaining so. As such, the application is contrary to Core Policies 1 and 4 and Development Policy 13 of the Mendip District Local Plan Part 1: Strategy and Policies (adopted December 2014).

2. The proposed mobile homes lie outside of development limits where development is strictly controlled. The proposed development would cause unjustified harm to the rural character of the area at the edge of the village by virtue of having a harmful urbanising effect. As such the application is contrary to Core Policy 1 and Development Policies 1, 4, 7 and 13 of the Mendip District Local Plan Part 1: Strategy and Policies (adopted December 2014) and the National Planning Policy Framework.

List of Advices

1. This decision relates to drawings 294 PP.01 and 02 and the drawing titled 294 Hasler (Parking and turning plan) and the document titled 'Use of land for siting of three residential mobile homes for staff accommodation at the Cyder Barn Care Home, West Pennard'.

3. 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.

92 Agenda Item No. DM10

Case Officer Mr Daniel Foster

Site Northover Manor House Beckery Glastonbury BA6 9NU

Application Number 2017/2220/FUL

Date Received 15th August 2017

Applicant/ Mr Parsons Organisation

Application Type Full Application

Proposal Proposed new whole life dwelling incorporating full disabled access

Ward Glastonbury St Benedicts

Parish Glastonbury Town Council

Description of Site, Proposal and Constraints

The application relates to land adjacent to Northover House, Northover, Glastonbury. The site lies within an Area of High Archaeological Potential, Northover House to the north- west of the application site is Grade II Listed and No. 3 Northover which lies to the north-east is also Grade II. The site lies within the sewage treatment ‘buffer zone’ and is also shown as being within Flood Zone 3. The application seeks planning permission for a ‘Proposed new whole life dwelling incorporating full disabled access’.

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

Glastonbury Town Council Recommend Approval. The Committee would like to draw attention to the NPPF Core Planning Principles (paragraph 159); "Proposals for care homes or similar specialist accommodation that meet an identified local need will be permitted in accordance with the Plan's overall spatial strategy. Exceptionally, permission for such accommodation outside development limits will be granted where there is clear justification having regard to the need for the facility and evidence of the unsuitability and/or unavailability of alternative sites within named settlements. All such development should be accessible and be proportionate in scale to the locality. " It also states that local planning authorities "should have a clear understanding of housing needs in their area' which covers the needs of different groups in the community. These groups include people with disabilities" (paragraph 159). As the proposed development is for a specific need the Committee is happy to support this. The understanding is the house will be built to stage 3 disability specification. Any further development should be restricted and the orchard should be protected. Landscaping and screening is important. Highway Authority (Somerset County Council)

Standing advice applies

93 Conservation Officer

This application seeks Planning Permission for a new detached dwelling including disabled access, and is a resubmission of that which was previously withdrawn under 2016/1365/FUL. The siting of the dwelling has changed; however, the design remains the same.

The site is within the curtilage of Northover Manor House, a Grade II listed building, and opposite no.3 Mill Lane, also Grade II.

Although the new dwelling is now proposed to be set back from the main road it would still be quite apparent due to the open and level nature of the land, and thus has the potential to harm the settings of the adjacent and opposite listed buildings. Now that the proposed dwelling is re-sited away from the main road, the setting of Northover Manor House could be significantly harmed depending on the scale, massing, design and materials of the new building; however, the setting of no.3 Mill Lane may be affected to a lesser extent than previously.

Considering the proposed design, the large expanse of roof is immediately apparent, dominating the building. Additionally this design does not appear to respond to any local vernacular. This proposal would appear quite prominent and anathema in this location, and the effect on the setting of Northover Manor House would cause harm to this designated heritage asset. Regarding design, the D&A states that, "It must be recognised that this is centred around [sic] the very specific needs of the disabled user of the building"; however, I would be confident that these needs could be met by any number of designs. Pre-application discussions would perhaps have been helpful in this regard.

Considering the above, I object to this proposal due to the "less than substantial harm" to the designated heritage asset of Northover Manor House caused by the effect on its setting by the new building in this location and of the proposed design.

County Archaeologist

The site lies in the Beckery Area of High Archaeological Potential. The orchard to the immediate southeast contains earthworks which may relate to a possible Saxon canal or mill site. Further similar remains may therefore be present within the application area. Topographically the application site is of great interest as it is located in an area which forms the boundary between former 'dry land' and the Somerset Levels.

For this reason I recommend that the developer be required to archaeologically investigate the heritage asset and provide a report on any discoveries made as indicated in the National Planning Policy Framework (Paragraph 141). This should be secured by the use of the following conditions attached to any permission granted.

Environmental Health Officer

I've reviewed this application on behalf of the Environmental Protection Team.

Having reviewed the application, the Environmental Protection team has no adverse comment to make in relation to this application.

Further to the 2016 withdrawn application, the application site is approx 25-30m further set back from the A39, with the garage & circulation space providing further buffering from road traffic noise with the bedroom orientated to the south.

To ensure a suitable internal environment is achieved, the Environmental Protection team would request the following conditions be applied.

94 Environment Agency

We have checked this with our flood officer who made the previous comments and can confirm that they still stand for this new application.

Previous comments

The Environment Agency has no objections to the proposed development but wishes to make the following comments:

We have considered whether the proposed development would be exposed to an unacceptable flood risk or would increase the risk or extent of flooding to other properties/uses. It has been concluded that there would be no material exacerbation of flood risk as a consequence of this development.

The site level is between 8 and 9.5 mAOD, and the 1 in 100 year flood level (including Climate change) is 6.08 m AOD. We therefore agree with the conclusion of the Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) that the site is at a low risk of flooding.

For the purpose of this FRA we can accept that the site can be considered as in Flood Zone 1.

Representations

None received

Relevant planning history

2016/1365/FUL New detached dwelling incorporating full disabled access, withdrawn July 2016

Summary of all planning policies relevant to the proposal

Development Plan

 Policies CP1 (Spatial Strategy), CP2 (Housing), DP1 (Local Identity and Distinctiveness), DP3 (Heritage Conservation), DP4 (Mendip’s Landscapes), DP5 (Biodiversity and Ecological Networks), DP7 (Design and Amenity), DP8 (Environmental Protection) DP9 (Transport Impact of New Development), DP10 (Parking Standards), DP14 (housing Mix) and DP23 (Flood Risk) of the Mendip District Local Plan Part 1 Strategy and Policies (adopted December 2014)  Policies WCS1 (waste prevention) and WCS2 (recycling and re-use) of the Somerset Waste Core Strategy (adopted February 2013)

Material Considerations

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

Policies contained in the Somerset and Exmoor National Park Joint Structure Plan (adopted April 2000), Regional Planning Guidance for the South West (RPG10) (Adopted 2001) and the emerging Regional Spatial Strategy for the South West (RSS) were formally revoked on 20th May 2013 except for the saved structure plan policy relating to the Bath/Bristol Green Belt which is not applicable here. 95 Assessment of relevant issues

Principle

The application site lies entirely outside of the development limits of Glastonbury where CP1 states that any proposed development will be strictly controlled and will only be permitted where it benefits economic activity or extends the range of facilities available to the local communities.

Core Policy 1 (CP1) of the Local Plan Part 1 say 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).

Core Policy 2 (CP2) states that the delivery of new housing will be secured from three sources (a) Infill, conversions and redevelopments within Development Limits defined on the Proposals Map, (b) Strategic Sites identified on the Key Diagrams for each town associated with Core Policies 6-10 and (c) other allocations of land for housing and, where appropriate, mixed use development, outside of Development Limits through the Site Allocations process. The scheme does not accord with the approach set out for the delivery of housing contained within CP2 (a), (b) or (c).

The proposal is to erect a detached three bedroom dwelling. Two of the bedrooms would be at ground floor and there would be lift access to the first floor where there is a bedroom annotated as ‘carer bedroom’. There is another large room at first floor annotated ‘store room’ which (save for the absence of any windows though they could be added subsequently) would potentially be a fourth bedroom.

The application is promoted by the applicant on the basis that it will meet the requirements of a disabled member of the family, allowing them to live near to their close family who reside in Northover Manor House. However, no details are given as to where the potential occupant currently lives or why their current home, other existing dwellings or sites (inside development limits), cannot be made suitable. Whilst there is every sympathy for the personal circumstances put forward these should nonetheless be considered in the context that planning permission runs with the land and is not personal to an individual. As such, the proposal is for a permanent dwelling, however once the applicant’s personal circumstance cease to exist, for example should they move elsewhere or sell the development site or should their relatives vacate Northover Manor, then the ‘justification’ would disappear but the dwelling would remain in perpetuity.

The applicant seeks to draw support from DP14 of the adopted Local Plan which includes provisions in respect of care homes or ‘similar specialist accommodation’ that meet an identified local need. Policy DP14 goes onto say;

Exceptionally, permission for such accommodation outside development limits will be granted where there is clear justification having regard to the need for the facility and evidence of the unsuitability and/or unavailability of alternative sites within named settlements. All such development should be accessible and be proportionate in scale to the locality. Any ancillary facilities provided as part of the development should complement locally available amenities and, where possible, be made available to the wider community.

Whilst the proposed development is designed to meet the applicant’s personal needs it is nonetheless essentially a private dwellinghouse falling within Use Class C3, it is not a care home (a use falling in Class C2) or similar accommodation. In any event, notwithstanding the Use Class of the development, the applicant has in any event failed to meet the tests set out in DP14 (as quoted above) insofar as it also requires that for sites outside of development limits it should be shown that there is clear justification having regard to the need for the facility and evidence of the unsuitability and/or unavailability of alternative sites within named settlements.

96 The Town Council have misquoted the NPPF in their response (the first quote they give is in fact part of a Local Plan policy). Furthermore, the applicant (and replicated again by the Town Council) only partially quote paragraph 159 of the NPPF and miss out the context in which it is written. Paragraph 159 actually says that Local planning authorities should have a clear understanding of housing needs in their area and that they should prepare a Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) to assess their full housing needs. Mendip has a SHMA which provides a starting point for developing future long term housing and planning policies through the established Development Plan process. It is not therefore considered that paragraph 159 provides a sound justification for the development proposed.

Planning law requires that a decision must be taken in accordance with the Development Plan unless there are material considerations that indicate otherwise. It is not considered that the proposals amounts to a care home, or similar accommodation, and irrespective the development would still remain contrary to DP14 of Local Plan as no evidence has been submitted to suggest that the development could not be accommodated within a settlement. The development is also contrary to CP1 and CP2.

The principle of the development is considered to be unacceptable.

Character and appearance of the area

The site lies outside of development limits and therefore in the countryside in Local Plan terms. The proposed dwelling straddles the position of a low wall (to be demolished) that separates two parcels of land that appear to have been part of a small orchard. The application lies at the edge of a much larger swath of agricultural land that lies to the south and which slopes down to the River Brue. It is considered that the site has a much stronger character relationship with the rural, un-developed landscape to the south than the built up character of Glastonbury, and the former Morlands site, to the north.

There are garages and outbuildings (and a mobile home) on land to the west of the application site which are to be retained (being outside of the application site).

Whilst emphasising the economic and social benefits of development, including new housing, the NPPF makes it clear that the planning system also has an environmental role. To achieve sustainable development, the economic, social and environmental roles of the planning system should not be undertaken in isolation, as they are mutually dependent. In defining the environmental role of the planning system, Paragraph 7 of the NPPF emphasises the need to protect and enhance the natural and built environment. The core planning principles set out in Paragraph 17 include the need to take account of the different roles and character of different areas, recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and to conserve and enhance the natural environment

The overall impression of the context is that the application site is part of the countryside at the edge, but outside, of the settlement and the proposed dwelling would be prominent on the rising land, particularly when viewed from the south along the A39. It might be argued that the proposal is for a single dwelling, however new development is restricted as a matter of principle, in the interests of the overall character and appearance of the countryside. This is necessary even where the encroachment might be argued to be modest in size because, without strict controls, it would be too easy for the countryside to be damaged by cumulative and incremental development which would, over time, change and detract from its appearance. The countryside deserves protection for its own sake and this development would have an adverse impact on the character of the area which warrants a reason for refusal.

Heritage - summary of the Development Plan and other material considerations

The NPPF deals with determining planning applications that affect heritage assets in paragraphs 128 to 135. Paragraph 132 sets out that when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight

97 should be given to the asset’s conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification.

Significance is defined in the NPPF as the value of a heritage asset to this and future generations because of its heritage interest. That interest may be archaeological, architectural, artistic or historic. Significance derives not only from a heritage asset’s physical presence, but also from its setting; the setting of a designated heritage asset is defined in the Framework as the surroundings in which a heritage asset is experienced.

Paragraph 132 of the NPPF states that substantial harm to or loss of a heritage asset should be exceptional. Paragraph 133 goes on to note that where a proposed development would lead to substantial harm to or total loss of significance of a designated heritage asset, consent should be refused unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm or loss is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh the harm or loss. The NPPG says that ‘substantial harm’ is a high test, so it may not arise in many cases. For example, in determining whether works to a listed building constitute substantial harm, an important consideration would be whether the adverse impact seriously affects a key element of its special architectural or historic interest.

Paragraph 134 says that where a proposed development will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, proposal, including securing its optimum viable use. Policy DP3 of the adopted Local Plan Part 1 takes a similar approach as the NPPF insofar as it requires proposals to justify any harm to a heritage asset and demonstrate the overriding public benefits which would outweigh the damage to that asset or its setting. DP3 says that the greater the harm to the significance of the heritage asset, the greater justification and public benefit that will be required before the application could gain support.

Heritage - summary of the legislative background (Listed buildings)

Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 sets out a general duty to have special regard to the desirability of preserving listed buildings or their settings. In respect of Listed Buildings the Court of Appeal judgment in the Barnwell Manor case found that Parliament’s intention in enacting the statutory duty was that decision- makers should give ‘considerable importance and weight’ to the desirability of preserving the setting of listed buildings when carrying out the balancing exercise. The statutory duty therefore requires more than a straightforward balancing exercise, where all matters have equal weight, as it is necessary to have ‘special regard’ (or give considerable weight) to the importance of the desirability of preserving the setting or any feature of the Listed Buildings in that overall assessment.

Heritage – impacts on significance

The Council’s Conservation Officer has considered the scheme in-light of the fact that two nearby buildings (Northover House and no.3 Northover) are Grade II Listed Buildings.

The Conservation Officer is particularly concerned about the impact of the development on the setting of Northover Manor House for the reasons set out in the Conservation Officer’s comments (see section on consultee comments). The Conservation Officer considers that the development would harm the setting of the Grade II Listed building.

Whilst in the terms of the NPPF the harm would be ‘less than substantial’ nonetheless there would still be harm and the limited public benefit associated with the provision of a single, open market dwelling would not outweigh that adverse impact, particularly when the statutory provisions of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 are factored into the balance.

98 Amenity

It is considered, given the layout and design of the proposed dwelling, including its fenestration, and the distance to the nearest neighbours that the development would not adversely affect the amenity of nearby neighbours.

The site lies within the sewage treatment buffer zone. The edge of the Glastonbury Sewage Treatment Works (STW), operated by Wessex Water, is circa 270 metres to the north of the closest point of the application site, this STW serves the populations of both Street and Glastonbury and is a large facility in this respect. Having considered the content of this current application the Council’s Environmental Health Officer does not object to the scheme.

It is considered that matters relating to providing adequate sound insulation could be dealt with by way of a planning condition in the event that planning permission is forthcoming.

Highways

The site lies within a 30 mph speed limit and there are restrictions on the direction which drivers can turn at the adjacent junction of the A39/Northover. Furthermore, Northover is a generally quiet road as the main A39 carries most of the traffic in the immediate area. Northover serves only as an access to a few properties and leads into part of the former Morlands site.

It is considered that the proposed access to the development would, in the context of Northover, would be adequate and provide suitable visibility and would not, as a consequence, be prejudicial to highway safety.

The proposed parking provision accords with the County Parking Strategy.

Flood Risk

The site is shown on the current maps as lying within Flood Zone 3, however the applicant has commissioned a hydrological consultant to produce a Flood Risk Assessment and the Environment Agency accept that in this instance the site can be considered to be within Flood Zone 1. As such a ‘sequential test’ is not necessary and the site is an appropriate location, in flood risk terms, for the development.

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.

Conclusion

It is recommended that planning permission be refused on the basis of the principle of the scheme being contrary to the Local Plan and would harm to the setting of the adjacent Listed Building and the character of the area.

99 Reason/s for Recommendation

1. The development does not accord with the objectives of Policies CP1 and CP2 of the Mendip District Local Plan Part I with regards to strictly controlling development outside the Development Limits and the approach to the delivery of housing. The proposal would cause harm to the character and appearance of the countryside by virtue of having an unjustified urbanising effect on the countryside's character here. As such, the development would be contrary to policies CP1, CP2, CP4, DP1 and DP4 of the adopted Mendip District Local Plan 2006 - 2029 and the National Planning Policy Framework.

2. The proposed development by virtue of the proposed design of the dwelling, including the large expanse of roof, would be a prominent development that does not respond to any local vernacular and would be out-of-keeping with the area. As such the development would give rise to less than substantial harm to the setting of the Grade II Listed building (Northover Manor House) and the public benefits of the development would not outweigh the less than substantial harm identified to the heritage asset. In balancing these impacts considerable weight is given to the duty to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the Listed Buildings set out in with Section 66(1) of the Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act. The proposal is considered to be contrary to DP3 (heritage) and DP7 (design and amenity) of the Mendip District Local Plan 2006-2029 (Part 1 Strategies and Policies - adopted 15th December 2014) and the National Planning Policy Framework, with particular regard to Chapter 12.

List of Advices

1. This decision relates to drawings S5664/100B, 101 and 102.

100 Agenda Item No. DM11

Case Officer Miss Lynsey Bradshaw

Site Village Hall Green Street Ston Easton Wells Radstock

Application Number 2017/2455/FUL

Date Received 8th September 2017

Applicant/ Mr Osborne Organisation Ston Easton Parish Council

Application Type Full Application

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

Ward Chewton Mendip And Ston Easton

Parish Ston Easton Parish Council

This application is referred to Planning Board as an employee in the Development Management Team has been involved in the application.

Description of Site and Proposal

The application relates to the recreation ground at Ston Easton. Such sites are safeguarded for sports and recreation use by the community.

The application seeks planning permission for the installation of new play equipment on existing play area.

Summary of Consultations and Representations

Ward Member

No response

Ston Easton Parish Council

Ston Easton Parish Council discussed the above application at their meeting and unanimously recommended approval.

SCC Highways

Standing Advice Applies

Sports England

It is understood that the proposal prejudices the use, or leads to the loss of use, of land being used as a playing field or has been used as a playing field in the last five years, as defined in The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 (Statutory Instrument 2015 No. 595). The consultation with Sport England is therefore a statutory requirement.

101 Sport England has considered the application in light of the National Planning Policy Framework (particularly Para 74) and Sport England's Playing Fields Policy, which is presented within its Planning Policy Statement titled 'A Sporting Future for the Playing Fields of England' (see link below): www.sportengland.org/playingfieldspolicy

Sport England's policy is to oppose the granting of planning permission for any development which would lead to the loss of, or prejudice the use of, all/part of a playing field, unless one or more of the five exceptions stated in its policy apply.

Having assessed the application for the installation of new play equipment on existing play area, we note that the playing pitch is not affected by the proposal. The NGBs of Sport (ECB, FA, LTA) raise no objection.

Therefore Sport England are satisfied that the proposed development meets the following Sport England Policy exception:

E3 - The proposed development affects only land incapable of forming, or forming part of, a playing pitch, and does not result in the loss of, or inability to make use of any playing pitch (including the maintenance of adequate safety margins), a reduction in the size of the playing area of any playing pitch or the loss of any other sporting/ancillary facility on the site.

This being the case, Sport England does not wish to raise an objection to this application.

Other Representations

No other representations have been made.

Relevant planning history

103786/000 - Private members club house. Approved with conditions15.09.1982.

103786/001 - Village Hall. Approved with conditions 29.01.1985.

103786/002 - Extension to hall. Approved 19.08.1986.

103786/003 - Continued use of premises for village club. Approved with conditions 15.09.1987.

103786/004 - Erection of a single storey extension to existing club house. Approved with conditions 09.08.1994.

103786/005 - Change of use to A3 use and erection of storm porch and verandah. Approved with conditions 02.12.2002.

Summary of all planning policies relevant to the proposal

102 Material Considerations

 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)  National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG)  Somerset County Council Highways Development Control Standing Advice (June 2017)

Development Plan

Mendip District Local Plan Part 1 Strategy and Policies (adopted December 2014)  CP1 (Spatial Strategy)  CP4 (Sustaining Rural Communities)  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)

Assessment of relevant issues

Principle of development

Development in the open countryside, outside development limits, is strictly controlled but may exceptionally be permitted in line with the provisions of Core Policy 4: Sustaining Rural Communities. Such applications are also subject to the further consideration of the design of the proposal, and its impact on the character and appearance of the area and heritage asset, highway safety, and neighbour amenity. In addition in this instance, the impact of the proposal on the open space and green infrastructure must also be considered.

Effect of the proposal upon the character and appearance of the area

The site is currently used for sports and recreation for the village, and includes the village hall building. The ‘play area’ is discreetly sited at the edge of the playing field, near to the existing village hall.

The proposal is for the installation of play equipment in an area of the site that was previously set aside for this use. The play equipment has a lightweight design, and is of a character that would be expected in such an area.

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

Impact to residential amenities

Given the existing use of the site, the proposed development is not considered to give rise to unacceptable harmful impacts on neighbour amenity over and above the existing situation.

103 Highways Impact

The site is accessed off of Green Street, which is a class 3 (classified) road. There are no proposed changes to the access for the site. Given the existing recreational use, it is not considered that the proposal would result in a significant increase in traffic movements that would be prejudicial to highway safety.

The proposed access for the site is therefore considered to be in accordance with DP9.

No information about the current number of parking spaces was submitted with the application. There are no proposed changes to the parking spaces. Given the existing recreational use, it is not considered that the proposal would result in a significant increase in the requirement for parking.

The proposed parking for the site is therefore considered to be in accordance with DP10.

Impact on Sports Facilities

As previously stated, the play equipment is discreetly sited. Sports England did not object to the proposal. Therefore the development is not considered to prejudice the existing sports facilities. In addition, the proposal would provide an enhancement to the community facilities for the village. The proposal is therefore considered to be in accordance with CP4 and DP16.

Environmental Impact Assessment

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

Conclusion

It is recommended that planning permission is approved with conditions for the reasons set out above.

Reason/s for Recommendation

1. Although the site is located outside the development limit where development is strictly controlled, the existing use of the site and small scale of the development are material considerations that weigh in favour of the grant of permission. The proposal, by reason of its design, scale and layout would be in keeping with its surroundings, and would safeguard the amenities of neighbouring residents and adjoining land users. 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), and DP16 (open space) of the Mendip District 104 Local Plan 2006-2029 (Part 1 Strategies and Policies - adopted 15th December 2014) National Planning Policy Framework Planning Practice Guidance The Countywide Parking Strategy (2013)

Conditions

2. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the location plan at a scale of 1:1250 and site plans at a scale of 1:200, and drawing numbers 001, 002, 003, 004, and 005 submitted for the application validated on 14th September 2017 only. Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interest of proper planning.

List of Advices

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 [email protected] 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.

4. In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework the Council has worked in a positive and pro-active way and has imposed planning conditions to enable the grant of planning permission. 105

106