Planning Board

DATE: 21st December 2016 NOTES:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Planning Board Report 21st December 2016 Page 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Planning Board - 21st December 2016

Item Page Application Ward/Site Automatically Case Number Raised for Officer Discussion? Y/N DM01 3 2016/1817/FUL Trees Farm, Rudge Lane, Y Mr Carlton Standerwick, Frome, Langford Somerset, BA11 2PT Beckington And Selwood

DM02 14 2016/1441/FUL Land At Leigh Street, Leigh N Mr Carlton On Mendip, Radstock, Langford Somerset, BA3 5QP Coleford And Holcombe

DM03 18 2016/2291/OTA Rectory Farm, Cheese Hill, N Mr Carlton Marston Bigot, BA11 5DA Langford Postlebury

DM04 22 2016/2335/FUL Higher Edgarley House , N Mrs Kelly Ashwell Lane, Glastonbury, Pritchard BA6 8BG Glastonbury St Edmonds

DM05 31 2016/2336/LBC Higher Edgarley House , N Mrs Kelly Ashwell Lane, Glastonbury, Pritchard BA6 8BG Glastonbury St Edmonds

DM06 36 2016/1936/VRC Batcombe Lodge, Lodge N Mr Conrad Farm Lane To Haygrove Rodzaj Lane, Wanstrow, BA4 6BZ Postlebury

DM07 40 2016/1478/OTA 160 Main Street, Walton, N Mr Daniel Street, Somerset, BA16 9QU Foster Moor

DM08 51 2016/2436/FUL Spring Water Farm, Anchor Y Mr Carlton Road, Coleford, BA3 5PG Langford Coleford And Holcombe

Planning Board Report 21st December 2016 Page 2

Agenda Item No. DM01

Case Officer Mr Carlton Langford

Site Trees Farm Rudge Lane Standerwick Frome Somerset

Application Number 2016/1817/FUL

Date Received 14th July 2016

Applicant/ Mr Mark Sutherland Organisation Dairy Home Team

Application Type Full Application

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

Ward Beckington And Selwood

Parish Beckington Parish Council

This application has been brought before the Planning Board after having been deferred by the Board on the 19th October 2016.

The application was deferred at Planning Board in October as Members felt that the proposed development raised many highway safety issues and concerns which were not adequately addressed and asked that officer sought further clarity from not only the Somerset County Council Highway Surveyor but also the Wiltshire Highway Authority having regard for the site’s close proximity to Wiltshire highway network.

The key issues raised at Planning Board requiring further consideration were –

 No mention was made of a recently approved scheme in Wiltshire for 90 holiday homes at Brokerswood which had the potential to increase traffic on the surrounding highway network.  Rudge Lane has road signs at each end stating that the road is unsuitable for HGV traffic and the proposed development is suggesting HGV deliveries.  No mention was made in the applicant’s Transport Assessment that there had been 6 fatalities on the road serving the application site.

Both Somerset County Council and Wiltshire Council were consulted on the application and were also asked to consider the above issues raised at the Planning Board. The applicant’s agent was also asked to investigate the issues raised above and asked to provide any additional information/clarity which they might feel necessary.

Wiltshire Highway Authority response

Thank you for your note.

Planning Board Report 21st December 2016 Page 3

I have looked at the IMA’s Transport Statement accompanying the application – it seems to me to be a fair and credible assessment of likely impacts – I have no concern that the proposed development would have a material impact on Wiltshire’s roads.

I note the concern that a recent approval relating to Brokerswood Country Park has not been taken into consideration by IMA.

The Brokerswood application was for the replacement of caravan pitches with a broadly similar number of holiday lodges – crucially, the application results in the cessation of the substantial day visitor use.

The overall impact is a significant reduction in traffic accessing the site via the local network.

I have attached a copy of the Western Area Planning committee report for 10th August – the Brokerswood application is at Item 6a – a table summarising ‘before and after’ traffic flows is on page 37.

Somerset County Council

Thanks for the additional information. The Highway Authority does not wish to change its position, therefore my highway comments of the 5th September 2016 still apply.

Original Response –

I refer to the above-mentioned planning application received on 10th August 2016 and have the following observations on the highway and transportation aspects of this proposal:-

The site access lies Rudge Lane a rural road that is unclassified and subject to the national speed limit. There appear to be no recorded highway accidents within the vicinity of the existing site access.

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

The submission included a transport statement written by IMA Transport Planning (July 2016), this also included a Measures only Travel Plan (MOTP). The submitted Transport Statement has been reviewed and appears to be a is comprehensive document and it is felt that the methodology used to determine trip generation is deemed acceptable. A speed survey was undertaken and the ATC (automatic traffic Counter) location and its findings are also deemed to be acceptable. It is evident that the 85th percentile of vehicle speeds (35mph) is much lower than the roads maximum speed limit and this is probably due to both the roads horizontal alignment and its width which does fluctuate along its length as was noted on a visit to the site. As a consequence the visibility splays as shown on the submitted plan IMA-16-105 Dwg002 (90m in either direction) is acceptable. The traffic generated by the proposal would appear to be minimal and predominately inter peak and therefore Highway Authority agree with the Transport Statement in that the development will not have a detrimental impact on the local highway network. The proposal is to have 12no parking spaces for the vans and also 12no parking spaces for the staff. The location of these spaces and the associated turning areas as shown on submitted plan IMA-16-105 dwg No 003 Rev B is again acceptable. The MOTP should be a separate document and be reviewed during the life of the development, all staff should be made aware of it and alternative modes of transport should be continually encouraged. There should be facilties for cycle parking

Therefore, in conclusion there is no highway objection to the proposal subject to the following conditions being attached to any permissions granted.

Planning Board Report 21st December 2016 Page 4

 The area allocated for parking and turning on the submitted plan IMA-16-105 Dwg No 003 RevB shall be kept clear of obstruction at all times and shall not be used other than for parking and turning of vehicles in connection with the development hereby permitted.

 Prior to first occupation or first use of the development hereby permitted, 2no spaces for bicycles and parking for a motorcycle shall be laid out, constructed and drained in accordance with a detailed plan to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

I trust this is of assistance if you require further clarification then please do not hesitate in contacting me

Applicant

The applicant’s transport consultant provided an update to their original report and addressed the issues raised by Planning Board and concluded –

1. The highway authorities have accepted that the Brokerswood Country Park planning consent 16/00587/FUL would remove far more traffic from local roads than the Trees Farm change of use will add.

2. The highway authorities have made no adverse comment regarding the use of this site by HGVs, as it is clear that the change of use has potential to reduce HGV and heavy machinery movements associated with the agricultural use of the site.

3. There is no evidence to support the claim of 6 fatal accidents on the road serving the site, analysis of detailed records in accordance with government guidance shows no evidence of highway safety issue inherent in the roads used to access the site.

4. All of the above points have been accepted by the highway professionals at Wiltshire and Somerset Councils. It is therefore concluded that there can be no reasonable grounds for refusal on the basis of highway safety.

Officer summary of updated position

Having regard for the above responses, it is clear that both Somerset County Highway Authority and Wiltshire Highway Authority have no concerns over the impact of the proposed development on the surrounding highway network.

It transpires that despite there being planning permission in neighbouring Wiltshire for a large scale holiday let use at Brokerwood, the new use of the site for holiday lodges opposed the original use for camping/caravans and day visitors actually results in an overall ‘significant’ reduction in traffic on the local highway network and not an increase as initially thought.

It is clear that there are signs on Rudge Lane saying ‘Unsuitable for HGV’. However, it would seem that these signs were erected without clear explanation from the Highway Authority and are most likely intended as a means of deterring through-use by HGVs and are advisory and have no relevance to premises that require HGV access.

The claims that there have been 6 fatalities on the road serving the application site are unfounded. Whilst there was an accident on the road leading to the site in 1999, records show 6 injuries in a fatal collision, one of which being fatal and not 6. Records also show another fatal accident between a cyclist and a jogger but this was nowhere near to the application site and again dating back 20 years.

Planning Board Report 21st December 2016 Page 5

Government guidance on Transport Assessment states that analysis of injury accident records on the public highway should be carried out:

‘… in the vicinity of the site access for the most recent three-year period, or five-year period if the proposed site has been identified as within a high accident area’

In accordance with this guidance, the applicant’s original Transport Assessment concludes –

The Personal Injury Collision (PIC) history on Rudge Lane between the site and the A36 shows 1 recorded injury accident at the A36 junction in 5 years and none at all on Rudge Lane itself.

It is recommended that the proposed development be approved for the reasons set out in the case officer’s report below and having regard for the additional information provided above where it has been concluded that the residual cumulative impact of the proposed development on highway safety will not be so severe as to warrant refusal.

The remainder of the text below is a copy of the officer report as set out to Planning Board in October 2016.

Description of Site, Proposal and Constraints

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

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

Summary of parish comments, representations and consultee comments

Parish Council

Recommend refusal for the following reasons –

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

County highway Surveyor

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

Environmental Protection

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

Land Contamination

Planning Board Report 21st December 2016 Page 6

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

Planning Enforcement No comments

Conservation Officer

No objections.

Ward Cllr

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

Other Representations

5 letters of representation have been received objecting to the development on the following grounds –

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

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

Relevant planning history

No relevant planning history.

Assessment of relevant issues

Principle

Core Policy 4 of the Local Plan support proposals for development of the rural economy where it enables the establishment (as proposed) of a business in a manner and of a scale which is appropriate to the location and constraints upon it, or involve the conversion of existing buildings for an economic use as considered under Policy DP22 of the LP.

The proposed scheme utilises existing buildings by siting four stand alone units within the building to include dry storage, offices (2) and a cold storage unit. Outside the buildings within the existing courtyards, the proposal will include the siting of 3 additional temporary structures (containers) to provide further office accommodation, staff toilets and dry storage. The proposal also includes the parking of delivery vehicles and staff parking to the rear of

Planning Board Report 21st December 2016 Page 7 the site on an existing hardstanding area. The character and layout of the existing complex will not change significantly from its current agricultural use and appearance.

The scale of the operation proposed is relatively small with 10 staff employed on site and 10 staff delivering the dairy products. It is expected that all staff are likely to drive to work but will be encouraged to use other forms of transport and car share. All staff vehicle and delivery vehicles can be accommodated on site avoiding on street parking. HGV deliveries are expected to be minimal with only 1 delivery per day but there will be a slight increase in traffic movements to and from the site, although this is not considered to be significantly more than the existing agricultural use of the site might generate. It is considered this minor increase in traffic is unlikely to have a significant or severe impact on highway safety and a reduction in the use of larger vehicles such as large agricultural vehicles and HGV’s is likely to offset any potential increase of traffic movements and also any nuisance associate with the additional traffic movements.

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

Design and appearance

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

Setting of a listed building

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

Neighbouring amenity

There will be no significant amenity issues associated with the proposed dairy distribution business over or above those operation associated with the existing use of the site as an unfettered agricultural holding. However, there will be some late night activities on site and whilst these are unlikely to raise any additional adverse amenity issues with immediate neighbours, any late night deliveries by HGV vehicles would and therefore, it is recommended that the hours for deliveries by HGV’s be restricted at night, i.e. no HGV movements on site between 18:00 hours and 08:00 hours.

Highway Safety

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

The County Council Highway Surveyor concludes - The submission included a transport statement written by IMA Transport Planning (July 2016), this also included a Measures only Travel Plan (MOTP). The submitted Transport Statement has been reviewed and appears to be a comprehensive document and it is felt that the methodology used to determine trip generation is deemed acceptable. A speed survey was undertaken and the ATC (automatic traffic counter) location and its findings are also deemed to be acceptable. It is evident that the 85th percentile of vehicle speeds (35mph) is much lower than the roads maximum speed limit and this is probably due to both the roads horizontal alignment and its width which does fluctuate along its length as was noted on a visit to the site. As a consequence the visibility splays as shown on the submitted plan IMA-16-105 Dwg002 (90m in either direction) is acceptable.

Planning Board Report 21st December 2016 Page 8

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

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

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

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

Land Contamination

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

Wildlife issues

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

Other issues raised in representations

Highway safety, increased road traffic on the surrounding narrow lanes especially between the A36 and Rudge. As previously discussed, the proposed development will not generate significantly more traffic movements than the existing use could and any increase will be offset by a reduction in the number of HGV type vehicles because of the change of use.

Traffic noise from development on nearby residents. Limiting delivery times for HGV vehicles will ensure any possible disturbance is kept to a minimum especially at night. The majority of the traffic activity will be in the morning with 16 movements over a 3 hour period between 06:00 hr and 09:00 hr and in the afternoon with about 20 movements at peak time. There will be a few additional movements in the evening ending at 22:00 hours.

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

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

No plan to discard waste. There is ample space on site to provide a bin store area and there is ample on-site turning for waste collection lorries arrive and leave the site safely after collections.

Planning Board Report 21st December 2016 Page 9

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

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

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

As requested by the MP David Warburton and the Local Ward Cllr, the cumulative impact of all development in the area has been taken into consideration in determining this application and the Transport Statement clearly sets out the existing traffic volumes in the area along Rudge Lane and it is clear from this report that not only are these volumes relatively minor but there has only been 1 recorded traffic accident on this road in the last 5 years. Each application is assessed on its own merits and in this case it is considered that the proposed development in terms of traffic generation will raise no significant or severe highway safety issues or amenity issues for existing residents over or above those which already exist under the current use of the site as an agricultural holding.

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

Conclusion It is recommended that planning permission be granted.

Reason/s for Recommendation

Planning Board Report 21st December 2016 Page 10

1. The proposal accords with the Council's settlement strategy for the location of new business development. The proposal, by reason of its design, scale and layout would be in keeping with its surroundings. The setting of adjoining Listed Building would not be harmed. The proposal, by reason of its design, scale and layout, would safeguard the amenities of neighbouring residents and adjoining land users. The means of access and parking arrangements meet the required safety standards and will ensure the free flow of traffic on the highway. All practical measures for the conservation of energy have been included in the design, layout and siting of the proposal. The proposal has been tested against the following Development Plan policies. In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, and subject to the conditions below, the proposal is acceptable:- CP3 (principle of development), DP1 (local identity), DP3 (heritage), DP7 (design and amenity), DP9 (transport), DP10 (parking), DP22 (reuse of rural buildings) of the Mendip District Local Plan 2006-2029 (Part 1 Strategies and Policies - adopted 15th December 2014) National Planning Policy Framework Planning Practice Guidance The Countywide Parking Strategy (2013)

Planning Board Report 21st December 2016 Page 11

Conditions

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

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

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

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

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

6. The development hereby approved shall be operated in accordance with the Travel Plan Statement attached to the Transport Statement by IMA Transport Planning Dated July 2016. Reason: in the interests of sustainable development.

7. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no further plant or machinery shall be erected or installed for the approved development without the granting of express planning permission from the local planning authority. Reason: To safeguard the amenities of adjoining occupiers.

List of Advices

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

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

Planning Board Report 21st December 2016 Page 12

adhere to the approved details will render the development unauthorised and vulnerable to enforcement action.

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

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

Planning Board Report 21st December 2016 Page 13

Agenda Item No. DM02

Case Officer Mr Carlton Langford

Site Land At Leigh Street Leigh On Mendip Radstock Somerset BA3 5QP

Application Number 2016/1441/FUL

Date Received 7th June 2016

Applicant/ Mark Moss Organisation

Application Type Full Application

Proposal Two new dwellings

Ward Coleford And Holcombe

Parish Leigh On Mendip Parish Council

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

Description of Site, Proposal and Constraints

The application relates to land at Leigh Street on the outskirts of Leigh-on-Mendip and currently supports a range of derelict temporary structures. The applicant claims that the site had up until 2006 supported a dwellinghouse but the Council has no lawful evidence to support this claim.

The application seeks planning permission to clear the site of all the derelict structures and to erect two detached 3 bedroom dwellinghouse with gardens and off-street parking each served by its own access.

The applicant has attempted to amend the scheme to take into consideration initial highway safety and design concerns.

The Local Planning Authority has also amended the recommendation taking into consideration recent public transport changes benefiting Leigh upon Mendip. The village now has a daily bus service which is a material consideration in assessing the sustainability of the village. It is therefore considered that the development must be reassessed having regard for these changes.

Summary of parish comments, representations and consultee comments

Parish Council

Recommend approval with a caveat that the materials accord with the village design statement and that shower room windows be obscure glazed to avoid overlooking. The Parish also note that there seems to be a considerable change in level between the road and the site/parking areas.

Highway Authority

Planning Board Report 21st December 2016 Page 14

Standing advice – Note that any drainage be sited at least 5m from the building and highway.

Land Contamination

No observations

The Coal Authority

The site is not within a high risk area, applicant to follow the Coal Authority Standing Advice for development in a Coal Consultation Zone.

County Archaeologist

No objections.

Other Representations

One letter of representation received raising no objection in principle but raise the following issues –  The access drives to each plot will be very steep with the finished floor and site levels being in excess of a metre above road level.  The finished site level above the road is not in keeping with the street scene/visually intrusive.  Visibility at the access points of each dwelling is limited.  The proposed materials are not in keeping with the village.

Relevant planning history

No relevant planning history.

Summary of all planning policies relevant to the proposal

CP1 and CP2 (principle of development), DP1 (local identity), DP7 (design and amenity), DP9 (transport), DP10 (parking) and DP11 (Affordable Housing) 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 Countywide Highway Standing Advice (2013)

Assessment of relevant issues

Principle

Leigh-on-Mendip is an isolated settlement within the district where development is strictly controlled. However, the village has recently benefited from a bus service which is a material consideration in assessing the suitability of the settlement to sustain further development, although this does not change the status of the Local Plan where Leigh upon Mendip still remains an isolated settlement where all development should be strictly controlled, it is considered in this particular case with the site previously having been within the village development limits (within the previous Local Plan) and the proposed development is for a modest infill scheme for 2 small dwellings, the Local Planning Authority can reassess the sustainability of the scheme as a whole.

Planning Board Report 21st December 2016 Page 15

It is therefore considered that in this particular case the proposed development will maintain the vitality of the community with the end users possibly supporting the local school, other services and facilities and having the choice to use the new bus service.

Whilst the applicant has intimated that the development might be affordable, no evidence which satisfies Policy DP11 (affordable housing) of the Local Plan has been provided.

The applicant continues to claim that the site has a residential use although there is no evidence to support these claims. It was made clear to the applicant in pre-application discussions that the lawful use of the site for residential use would need to be first established by way of a lawful development certificate. No such certificate was ever applied for and the Council has no evidence to suggest that the lawful use of the site is anything other than agricultural.

Notwithstanding the above, the proposed development is likely to maintain the vitality of the village and as such, is acceptable in principle subject to the usual planning controls of design, amenity and highway safety.

Design and appearance

The site is very narrow and the design for the units follows the narrow nature of the plots resulting in 2 very narrow units with parking and gardens to either side of the units. The dwelling will be of a natural stone construction with tile roofs. The front elevations will be mostly blank in their appearance with the rear elevation supporting most of the fenestration. The plots are also elevated above the road level.

The applicant has attempted to amend the design of the properties to take into consideration case officer concerns over the alien appearance of the dwellings within the street scene.

However despite the changes the general design and appearance of the units with the exception of the use of natural stone on the elevation and tiles on the roof remain poor. The units are sited in the region of a metre above road level and having largely blank elevations fronting the street appearing alien within the street scene. As such, the proposed scheme continues to fail to contribute positively to the maintenance and enhancement of local identity or distinctiveness especially within the local street scene.

Neighbouring amenity

The siting and orientation of the units raise no adverse amenity issues of overlooking or overshadowing.

Highway Safety and Parking

The amended plans show adequate parking to serve each of the units and there will be sufficient on-site turning to allow vehicles to arrive and leave the site in forward gear. Amended plans now clearly show the necessary visibility splays (2.4m x 40m) and access gradients less than 1:10. As such, the proposed development demonstrates a safe means of access and egress from the site in the interests of highway safety and suff8icient off-street parking is provided.

Other issues

Issues raised under representation regarding an appropriate choice of roof tile could be overcome through condition and the issue raised regarding possible overlooking from shower room window, are unfounded as there is sufficient distance between the existing and proposed dwellings not to raise issues. A condition could however be imposed to obscure the bathroom window which is not unreasonable.

Planning Board Report 21st December 2016 Page 16

With regard to possible drainage issues highlighted by the County Highway Surveyor, this is not itself a reason for refusal provided the applicant ensures that there is no discharge of surface water onto the highway.

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

Conclusion It is considered that whilst the applicant has addressed the highway safety concerns initially raised by the local planning authority, concerns relating to the design and appearance of the scheme remain. As such, the proposed development remains unacceptable as submitted and planning permission is recommended for refusal for the reason set out below.

Reason/s for Recommendation

1. The proposed dwellings for reasons of their elevated position above the road, poor and incongruous design (uncharacteristic narrow building with largely blank characterless elevations fronting the street) will have a significantly harmful impact on the character of the street scene failing to contribute positively to the maintenance and enhancement of local identity or distinctiveness of the area contrary to Policies DP1 and DP7 of the Mendip District Local Plan 2006 - 2029 and those within the National Planning Policy Framework.

List of Advices

1. 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.

2. This decision relates to drawings A216/02/01, 02, 11b, 12b, 13a, 14b, 15 (Parking and Access only), 16a and 17a.

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

Planning Board Report 21st December 2016 Page 17

Agenda Item No. DM03

Case Officer Mr Carlton Langford

Site Rectory Farm Cheese Hill Marston Bigot BA11 5DA

Application Number 2016/2291/OTA

Date Received 6th September 2016

Applicant/ Mr S Salvidge Organisation

Application Type Outline - All Matters Reserved

Proposal Outline application for an agricultural workers dwelling with all matters reserved.

Ward Postlebury

Parish Trudoxhill Parish Council

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

Description of Site, Proposal and Constraints

The application relates to land at Rectory Farm Marston Bigot. The site comprises agricultural land, a livestock building and 2 hay barns situated adjacent to Rectory Farm a Grade II Listed building now a dwellinghouse. The land and buildings are in separate ownership from Rectory Farm and are currently farmed by the applicant who is a tenant farmer at Moat Farm, Marston Bigot.

The application seeks outline planning permission for the erection of an agricultural workers dwelling with all matters reserved.

Summary of parish comments, representations and consultee comments

Parish Council

Approve the application

County Surveyor

Standing Advice

Environmental Protection No objections subject to the occupation being tied

Conservation Officer

No objections subject to the building being a modest size built of traditional materials.

Other Representations

None received.

Planning Board Report 21st December 2016 Page 18

Relevant planning history

None

Summary of all planning policies relevant to the proposal

CP1 and CP4 (Settlement strategy), DP1 (Local Identity and Distinctiveness), DP3 (Heritage Conservation), DP7 (Design and Amenity of New Development), DP9 (transport), DP10 (parking) and DP13 (Accommodation for rural workers) (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)

Assessment of relevant issues

Principle

The application site is situated within the 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. 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.

These aims are consistent with the NPPF which is quite clear at Paragraph 55 that new isolated houses in the countryside should be avoided unless there are special circumstances. The first example of a ‘special circumstance’ given at paragraph 55 is of particular note in this case, it refers to dwellings where there is:

‘the essential need for a rural worker to live permanently at or near their place of work in the countryside’.

The Local Plan policy DP13 also relates to accommodation for rural workers and says the 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.

Policy DP13 goes onto set out criteria for where proposals for permanent dwellings will be supported, it says:

i) the enterprise has been established on the unit for at least three years;

Planning Board Report 21st December 2016 Page 19

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 applicant has brought the application forward on the basis that there is an essential functional need for the new dwelling to support the established agricultural holding which is primarily located 1.4 miles from the application site at Moat Farm which is currently supported by 2 agricultural dwellings.

The proposed dwelling will be sited on agricultural land adjacent to a modest calving shed and 2 hay barns and adjacent to what is now a dwellinghouse in separate ownership, Rectory Farm. The proposed dwelling is required in association with the operation of a calving and calf rearing unit, transferring in in-calf heifers/cows from Moat Farm and then back to Moat Farm after calving. There will be between 50 and 60 animals at the Rectory Farm unit at any one time with heifers/cows with usually 1 calf for 6 to 8 weeks. It is considered by the applicant that time and losses are incurred as a result of travelling to and from Moat farm in order to maintain welfare standards at their site at Rectory Farm and this is why there is an essential need for the accommodation.

It is considered that the calving operation is being carried out quite successfully at present as the distance between the main farm and the calving shed is only 1.4 miles and the need for an additional dwelling to support the operation is not essential but at the very best will be more convenient. As such, with the functional need of the holding already served by 2 existing dwelling, there is no essential functional need for the proposed dwelling at Rectory Farm.

Design and appearance

The design and appearance of the dwelling is for subsequent approval under served matters. It is considered that despite the siting of the development being in close proximity to The Rectory, a Grade II Listed Building, the heritage asset will not be harmed subject to the scheme being of a modest size and built using modest materials.

However, with there being no justification for the proposed new dwelling, in this isolated location, the proposed dwelling amounts to an unacceptable encroachment into the countryside having a harmful impact on the rural character of the area.

Neighbouring amenity

There are unlikely to be any significant neighbouring amenity issues associated with the use of the dwelling and through design on a subsequent reserved matters application, issues of overlooking and overshadowing can be avoided.

Highway safety

The proposed dwelling will utilise the existing access which serves the current farm buildings on site and is considered acceptable in terms of highway safety.

Through an application for reserved matters, suitable parking which conforms with the Somerset County Council Parking Strategy will be required and there are no reasons why this can’t be achieved on the site.

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

Planning Board Report 21st December 2016 Page 20

Conclusion It is recommended that planning permission be refused.

The site is located outside the development limits of any settlement, in an isolated location, where development is strictly controlled and only permitted in very exceptional circumstances. The proposal is considered to be unacceptable in principle on the grounds that a permanent dwelling is not essential to the functional needs of the enterprise in question. The functional requirements of the enterprise are adequately served by two existing dwellinghouses at Moat Farm and there is no demonstrated essential need for an additional dwelling to serve the holding. As such, the development is unjustified and will fail to protect or preserve the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside. The development is therefore contrary to the provisions of saved Policies CP1, 2 and 4 and DP13 of the Mendip District Local Plan (adopted 2014) in addition to Paragraphs 55 and 17 of the NPPF.

Reason/s for Recommendation

1. The site is located outside the development limits of any settlement, in an isolated location, where development is strictly controlled and only permitted in very exceptional circumstances. The proposal is considered to be unacceptable in principle on the grounds that a permanent dwelling is not essential to the functional needs of the enterprise in question. As such the development is unjustified and will fail to protect and preserve the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside. The development is therefore contrary to the provisions of saved Policies CP1, 2 and 4 and DP13 of the Mendip District Local Plan (adopted 2014) in addition to Paragraphs 55 and 17 of the NPPF.

List of Advices

1. 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.

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.

Planning Board Report 21st December 2016 Page 21

Agenda Item No. DM04

Case Officer Mrs Kelly Pritchard

Site Higher Edgarley House Ashwell Lane Glastonbury BA6 8BG

Application Number 2016/2335/FUL

Date Received 14th September 2016

Applicant/ Mr J Field Organisation

Application Type Full Application

Proposal Change of use and adaptation of existing buildings to form a holiday let and single dwelling with associated curtilage and parking.

Ward Glastonbury St Edmonds

Parish Glastonbury Town Council

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

Description of site, proposal and constraints

The application relates to Higher Edgarley House, Ashwell Lane, Glastonbury. The application refers to two curtilage listed buildings that are within the grounds of a grade II listed building known as Higher Edgarley House.

The application seeks planning permission for the change of use and adaptation of existing buildings to form a holiday let (plot 1) and single dwelling (plot 2) with associated curtilage and parking.

The site is located outside the settlement limits.

Summary of parish comments, representations and consultee comments

Glastonbury Parish Council

Recommend Approval. Highways

I have reviewed the above application and have no highway objection to the proposal. Whilst I would have preferred the scheme to have utilised the Ashwell lane access I feel that the modest traffic movement associated by the development will not have a detrimental impact on the highway if the existing A361 Edgarley Rd access is utilised. The provision for 2no parking spaces per dwelling is acceptable as long as it is in accordance with Somerset County Councils parking strategy, unfortunately the submission does not seem to show how many bedrooms each of the dwellings will have. When you have that information then the recommended condition can be attached to any permissions granted. Therefore in conclusion there is no highway objection to the above proposal subject to the following conditions being attached to any permissions granted.

Planning Board Report 21st December 2016 Page 22

The area allocated for parking and turning on the submitted plan, drawing number *******, shall be kept clear of obstruction and shall not be used other than for parking and turning of vehicles in connection with the development hereby permitted.

Conservation Officer

The application seeks to convert two outbuildings within the curtilage of a listed building into residential accommodation and a holiday let. The alterations should preserve the special architectural and historic interest of the listed building. There were a number of criticisms made within the original consultation and these concerns remain. Plot 2 would have originally illustrated local building materials and techniques, although it has been subject to numerous changes over time, many potentially unauthorised. It does not significantly detract from the character of the listed building in its current form and is still readable as an ancillary barn. There is detailed guidance from Historic England on how to achieve a sensitive conversion. Primarily alien features should be avoided as should anything domestic in character. Dormer windows would almost never be used on barns. They are far too prominent and an alien feature. Openings should be small and minimal – light was always reduced in barns. The extended windows underneath the dormers are completely out of keeping. Rooflights are also not recommended and the three used on Plot 2 (as well as 2 dormers) suggests the intended light levels are too high. Farm buildings are often characterised by long unbroken roof profiles. Glazed doors are obviously not characteristic of agricultural buildings and should be limited with traditional timber openings more reasonable. Where a glazed door is a necessity it should be recessed to create shadow lines. All this advice has been ignored leading to a building that is very difficult to read as a barn and more a confused domestic building with features completely alien to the site. The barn should still read as a simple functional structure. These alterations are particularly damaging because of the close proximity of Plot 2 to the original building. The proposed design for the barn on plot 2 is almost unreadable as an ancillary agricultural building. While conversion will sometimes involve alterations that are not ideal, the scale of the changes shows no attempt to consider the character and is in complete contravention of Historic England guidance on the conversion of agricultural buildings.

The proposal for Plot 1 is effectively a modern building built in the curtilage of the listed building. It does not reference the location at all. It instead only considers the basic shape of the modern unauthorised building which already detracts from the character of the listed building. Historic maps show substantial changes, including between 2005 and 2009 when no planning applications were received. There clearly was a small building on that location historically however, since 1930 and likely since 1950 (the year of listing) it has altered beyond recognition. To formalise it and add a level of permanence would detract further from the character of the heritage asset. Just like Plot 2, the landscaping with patios and gardens suggests that this is for 2 residential buildings just outside a farmhouse which significantly confuses the layout. Farm buildings will not feature these elements and it eliminates the openness that is typical of farm buildings. Plot 1 particularly would be very conspicuous within the landscape because of its alien design, materials and features. It will be prominent in views both to and from the listed farmhouse – views which previously remained largely unspoilt.

In conclusion the alterations caused harm to the character of the listed building, most notably on its setting which contributes to the character of the listed building. This is particularly severe because of the importance of the landscape towards the character of the heritage asset, as well as the proximity of Plot 2 to the original building. The proposed development would interfere with the readability of the building and site and its incongruous, alien features also would degrade the architectural interest of the listed building itself.

Even allowing for habitable accommodation there has been no attempt to minimise conflict with heritage principles, as demonstrated by features such as the clearly inappropriate

Planning Board Report 21st December 2016 Page 23 dormer windows. For all the above reasons harm will be caused to the significance of the heritage asset which is not outweighed by the public benefits and is therefore contrary to the NPPF and Policy DP3 of the Local Plan.

County Ecologist

I have reviewed the 'Extended Phase 1 Habitat and Daytime Bat Survey' report carried out by Sedgehill Ecology Services in May 2016. I have the following comments / recommendations for conditions:

The survey found that the buildings had potential to provide for roosting bats. The external survey of the barns noted potential access points in a broken gable ridge, gaps between roof tiles and stone walling, gaps between barge boards, gaps between tin wall and gaps around door frames. The internal inspection of the barns found 3-4 older bat droppings along with some butterfly wings, possible feeding remains, in one building Butterfly wings were also found another room of the same building. Neither the droppings of the butterfly wings were identified to species. The report recommends that a new roost is provided to replace the potential of that lost. However, the plans provided with the application do not show where this would be installed -

 A 2F Schwegler bat box, to accommodate any discovered bat(s), will be hung on a suitable tree on or adjacent to the site at a minimum height of 4 metres as directed by a licensed bat ecologist and maintained thereafter  A plan of a replacement bat roost, as recommended by 'Extended Phase 1 Habitat and Daytime Bat Survey' report carried out by Sedgehill Ecology Services in May 2016, showing how it will be incorporated into the design of the development will be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to work commencing on site.  Before commencing any work on site demolition/construction operatives should be inducted by a licensed bat ecologist to make them aware of the possible presence of bats, their legal protection and of working practices to avoid harming bats.  Demolition work shall only take place between October and March, unless supervised by a licenced bat ecologist, in fine weather when overnight temperatures are or are forecast of be over 8°C  No artificial lighting associated with the development will illuminate features used by bats or installed bat roosts. A lighting scheme showing how this would be achieved should be submitted to the Local Planning Authority before work on site commences for approval.

Reason: Bats and their roosts are afforded protection under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 which includes making it illegal to cause kill or injure bats and destroy, damage or disturb roosts and from intentional or reckless disturbance to individual bats under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). To replace the roosting potential of the existing structures. Bat species are adversely affected by the introduction of artificial lighting on roost sites and potentially on structures such as hedgerows used as commuting routes

The survey report identifies that swallows have nested within one of the barns.

 No work shall be carried out in the bird nesting season, which is approximately between March and August. If not possible a survey for nesting birds shall be carried out immediately prior to commencement of the works by a suitably qualified ecologist. Any nesting birds discovered will be buffered by an exclusion zone determined by the ecologist which will remain in force until the chicks have fledged

Planning Board Report 21st December 2016 Page 24

Reason: The ecological report states that there is evidence of nesting birds on site both on buildings and within trees. Nesting birds are afforded protection under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). Although this is a legal obligation the law does not specify a time period - some species can breed outside the time frame given.

 Provision should be made for nesting swallows. A scheme showing how this will be implemented should be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to work commencing on site.

Reason: To ensure the development contributes to the Government's target of no net biodiversity loss as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework. Swallow numbers have been in decline in England and has been across Europe since the 1970s.

 Any features such as rubble piles which potentially afford resting places for reptiles will be dismantled by hand under the supervision of a suitably qualified ecologist between April and October and any individuals found translocated to an appropriate location prior to works commencing on site.  Any vegetation in the construction area should initially be reduced to a height of 10 centimetres above ground level, brashings and cuttings removed and the remainder left for a minimum period of 48 hours of fine warm weather before clearing to minimise the risk of harming/killing any reptiles that may be present and to encourage their movement onto adjoining land. This work may only be undertaken during the period between April and October.

Reason: Reptile species are afforded protection from intentional and reckless killing or injury under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). Outside the period from April to October these species are likely to in torpor or hibernation when disturbance is likely to pose a risk to survival.

Representations

None received.

Relevant planning history

103918/001 – Approval – Internal alterations and enlargement of windows in rear elevation. Demolition and rebuiding of south west corner wall. Jan 1992 103918/002 – Approval – Installation of central heating system and flue. Oct 1992 103918/003 – Approval - Conversion into 3 units of holiday accommodation. Jul 02 103918/004 – Refusal - Conversion into 3 units of holiday accommodation. Jul 02 103918/005 – Approval Conversion of barn into 3 units of holiday accommodation. Aug 03 2011/0656 – Approval - Proposed photo-voltaic cell array. Jun 11 2012/1609 – Approval - Erection of an agricultural building. Feb 13 2013/1331 – Withdrawn - Change of use of land to accommodate caravan and tent pitches. Jan 14 2013/1814 –Appeal Dismissed- Residential development and access. Aug 14 2016/1604 & 1605 Full and listed building applications for the change of use and adaptation of existing buildings to form two new dwellings with associated curtilage and parking. Withdrawn Aug 2016

Summary of relevant planning policies

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

Planning Board Report 21st December 2016 Page 25

Development Plan  Policies CP1 (Spatial Strategy), CP2 (Supporting the Provision of New Housing), CP3 (Supporting Business Development and Growth), CP4 (Sustaining Rural Communities), DP1 (Local Identity and Distinctiveness), DP3 (Heritage Conservation), DP4 (Mendip’s Landscapes), DP5 (Biodiversity and Ecological Networks), DP7 (Design and Amenity), DP8 (Environmental Protection) DP9 (Transport Impact of New Development), DP10 (Parking Standards) and DP22, of the Mendip District Local Plan Part 1 Strategy and Policies (adopted December 2014)

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

Assessment of relevant issues

Principle

Although the site is located outside the settlement limits where development is strictly controlled there is provision within the Local Plan, under Policy DP22, for the conversion of redundant or disused rural buildings in the countryside to residential and non-residential use. This policy prescribes certain planning criteria which the development must comply in order to make the development acceptable, including that where the development involves the conversion to a residential use, the development should lead to an enhancement to the immediate setting.

Impacts on the Heritage Asset

Paragraph 132 of the NPPF sets out that when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. It also says that where a development proposal 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.

Section 66 of the Act 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 listed buildings and their setting when carrying out the balancing exercise. The statutory duty therefore requires more than a straightforward balancing exercise, where all matters have equal weight, as it is necessary to have ‘special regard’ (or give considerable weight) to the importance of the desirability of preserving the setting or any feature of the Listed Buildings in that overall assessment.

This application involves a group of buildings, a listed farmhouse and the agricultural buildings associated with the house in an agricultural setting.

Higher Edgarley House’s character is not limited to the building itself. The agricultural setting and the buildings within the curtilage form an important part of the building’s special historic and architectural interest.

The house and its environs are an example of historic farming methods. The layout of Higher Edgarley Farm has remained essentially unchanged and it is relatively easy to read as a farm house with subordinate outbuildings that served functional purposes. Therefore, part of the building’s significance is that is evidential of past human activity.

Planning Board Report 21st December 2016 Page 26

The farmhouse also is relatively isolated from other habitable buildings, typical of historic farms, and it also has beautiful views over the landscape, towards the Tor. Due to its isolation, it also is a prominent feature within the landscape.

Plot 1

It is proposed to change the use and alter and extend this building to provide a two bed holiday let.

Policy DP22 of Mendip’s Local Plan makes provision for the reuse or conversion of a building in the countryside (outside the defined development limits) for non-residential uses. Amongst other things the policy states that the building should be of permanent and substantially sound construction and its proposed re-use and adaption should be in a manner which would not require major or complete reconstruction. However, equally there is support for well-designed new buildings which would be used for business within both the NPPF and Policies CP3 and CP4 of Mendip’s Local.

Plot 1 barn is located at the top of the drive to the south west of the listed farmhouse and is a curtilage listed building. It consists of three main sections a workshop building, a shed to the rear and an open fronted building to the north eastern (NE) side. The buildings to the rear and NE are little more than corrugated structures with very little stone walling. To provide accommodation in this building these two elements would need be completely rebuilt. The structural survey submitted with the application recognises that the roof over all of barn at plot 1 would need replacing and there have been no trial pits dug to confirm the presence of foundations or their suitability to accommodate the development proposed or the increase in overall height which is also proposed.

It is recognised that the barn at plot 1 is not locally distinctive or traditional however it is clearly identifiable as an agricultural building in a largely rural context. The alterations proposed would result in a building which would look significantly more alien and domestic in its environment would be harmful to the setting of the main heritage asset (the farm house) by diluting the agricultural character of the site. The main section shown as a workshop on the existing drawings is utilitarian in design with its side sliding door and part construction in breeze blocks. However, for the reasons set out in the conservation officer’s comments the design proposed is considered domestic and out of character with the other significant traditional buildings on the site.

In accordance with paragraph 134 of the NPPF having special regard to the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets, the development would not bring about the public benefits required to outweigh the harm caused to the heritage assets. Plot 2 It is proposed to convert, alter and extend plot 2 to provide a two bed dwelling.

The test in Policy DP22 of Mendip’s Local Plan for the conversion of a redundant or disused rural building to residential use is slightly different to the test for conversion to a non- residential use. Amongst other things the policy states that the building should be of permanent and substantially sound construction and its proposed re-use and adaption should be in a manner which would not require major or complete reconstruction. However, it also says that residential use will be given favourable consideration where it would lead to an enhancement to the immediate setting.

The barn at plot 2 is more characteristic of a traditional rural barn. It is located east of Plot 1 and much closer to the principal listed building, Higher Edgarley House. The proposal involves raising the ridge height to provide another floor, and the insertion of roof lights, and

Planning Board Report 21st December 2016 Page 27 dormers which all add to a domestic appearance which does not respect the character of the barn.

As with plot 1, no trial pits have been dug so it is unclear whether the raising of the roof can be achieve without reconstruction and raising the roof itself is a major intervention into the building’s current form and fabric.

It is considered that the development would result in major adaptation and re-construction, its design as detailed within the conservation officer’s comments would be out of keeping with the rural character of the area and other buildings on the site and would not lead to enhancement. It would also harm the setting of the adjacent listed house. The development would not bring about public benefits that outweigh the harm caused to the heritage asset.

The site is within the Glastonbury Tor Special Landscape Feature which is a valued landscape being near the foot of the Tor. Although the design of this proposal would be detrimental to the listed buildings on the site for the reasons stated, the buildings are seen as a group and will therefore not harm the wider landscape feature.

Impact on Amenity Having considered the levels and the relationship of Plot 1 with Plot 2 it is considered that there would be no adverse amenity issues between the two plots. However, Plot 2 is extremely close to Higher Edgarley House and the holiday accommodation which is attached to the house and is immediately south east of Plot 2. There are windows in the north west of the holiday accommodation and windows proposed in the south east of Plot 2 which will look directly onto each other and at the time of the officer’s site visit cars were parked in the area between the two buildings and the movement of people associated with the development will have an impact. It is considered that these factors cumulatively will result in a poor living environment for the occupiers of plot 2. In an attempt to overcome these amenity issues the applicant has suggested a Section 106 Agreement which would prohibit the sale of any of the development separately from all the existing buildings and structures on the land thereby tying the land and buildings to one owner. However, the proposed agreement would tie ownership not occupation of the development, a separate dwelling is being sought not ancillary accommodation to the main house and as such the applicant could rent any of these buildings separately from each other resulting in an unsatisfactory level of amenity. The Section 106 agreement proposed would not satisfy the concerns about amenity.

Impact on Ecology The county ecologist has no objection to the scheme subject to suitable conditions concerning mitigation measures to preserve wildlife such as bat boxes etc. As such the development is considered to be acceptable in ecological terms.

Impact on Highway Safety There is adequate parking provision on site and the highway authority are satisfied that the existing access can be utilised without detriment to highway safety.

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

Conclusion/Recommendation

Planning Board Report 21st December 2016 Page 28

Refusal is recommended.

Reason/s for Recommendation

1. The development (Plot 1) by reason of its design and siting would be a domestic alien feature in this agricultural landscape. The development proposed would also have a detrimental impact on the setting of the adjacent listed buildings (Higher Edgarley House and its curtilage barn). This would cause 'less than substantial' harm to the significance of the designated heritage assets which would not be outweighed by any associated public benefit. The proposal therefore fails to accord with the provisions of Policy CP1, CP2, CP4, DP3 and DP22 of the Mendip District Local Plan 2006 - 2029 (Part 1 Strategy and Policies) and the National Planning Policy Framework.

2. The development (Plot 2) by reason of its design, siting and scale results in an overly domestic appearance which would erode the rural character of the building. The extent of re-building is neither a conversion nor the re-use of a redundant or disused rural building that would lead to an enhancement to the immediate setting. The development proposed would also have a detrimental impact on the character of the curtilage listed barn and the setting of the adjacent listed building (Higher Edgarley House). This would cause 'less than substantial' harm to the significance of the designated heritage assets which would not be outweighed by any associated public benefit. The proposal therefore fails to accord with the provisions of Policy CP1, CP2, CP4, DP3 and DP22 of the Mendip District Local Plan 2006 - 2029 (Part 1 Strategy and Policies) and the National Planning Policy Framework.

3. The proposed development (Plot 2), by virtue of its siting close to the holiday accommodation which is to the south east with windows that face Plot 2 would result in overlooking and loss of privacy to the occupiers of the proposed dwelling. Also the parking of cars and general movements associated with the holiday accommodation directly outside and in close proximity to the proposed dwelling would result in detriment to the amenity of the occupiers of the dwelling. As such it is contrary to policy DP7 of the Mendip District Local Plan: Part 1 Strategies and Policies 2006- 2029 adopted December 2014 and advice contained within the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

List of Advices

1. This decision relates to drawing numbers S5463/100C, S5463/101D, S5463/102C, S5463/001B received 14.09.16.

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

Planning Board Report 21st December 2016 Page 29

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.

Planning Board Report 21st December 2016 Page 30

Agenda Item No. DM05

Case Officer Mrs Kelly Pritchard

Site Higher Edgarley House Ashwell Lane Glastonbury BA6 8BG

Application Number 2016/2336/LBC

Date Received 14th September 2016

Applicant/ Mr J Field Organisation

Application Type Listed Building Consent

Proposal Change of use and adaptation of existing buildings to form a holiday let and single dwelling with associated curtilage and parking.

Ward Glastonbury St Edmonds

Parish Glastonbury Town Council

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

Description of site, proposal and constraints: The application relates to Higher Edgarley House, Ashwell Lane, Glastonbury. The application refers to two curtilage listed buildings that are within the grounds of a grade II listed building known as Higher Edgarley House.

The application seeks listed building consent for the change of use and adaptation of existing buildings to form a holiday let (plot 1) and single dwelling (plot 2) with associated curtilage and parking.

The site is located outside the settlement limits.

Summary of parish comments, representations and consultee comments

Glastonbury Parish Council

Recommend Approval.

Conservation Officer

The application seeks to convert two outbuildings within the curtilage of a listed building into residential accommodation and a holiday let. The alterations should preserve the special architectural and historic interest of the listed building. There were a number of criticisms made within the original consultation and these concerns remain. Plot 2 would have originally illustrated local building materials and techniques, although it has been subject to numerous changes over time, many potentially unauthorised. It does not significantly detract from the character of the listed building in its current form and is still readable as an ancillary barn. There is detailed guidance from Historic England on how to achieve a sensitive conversion. Primarily alien features should be avoided as should anything domestic in character. Dormer windows would almost never be used on barns. They are far too prominent and an alien feature. Openings should be small and minimal – light was always reduced in barns. The extended windows underneath the dormers are

Planning Board Report 21st December 2016 Page 31 completely out of keeping. Rooflights are also not recommended and the three used on Plot 2 (as well as 2 dormers) suggests the intended light levels are too high. Farm buildings are often characterised by long unbroken roof profiles. Glazed doors are obviously not characteristic of agricultural buildings and should be limited with traditional timber openings more reasonable. Where a glazed door is a necessity it should be recessed to create shadow lines. All this advice has been ignored leading to a building that is very difficult to read as a barn and more a confused domestic building with features completely alien to the site. The barn should still read as a simple functional structure. These alterations are particularly damaging because of the close proximity of Plot 2 to the original building. The proposed design for the barn on plot 2 is almost unreadable as an ancillary agricultural building. While conversion will sometimes involve alterations that are not ideal, the scale of the changes shows no attempt to consider the character and is in complete contravention of Historic England guidance on the conversion of agricultural buildings.

The proposal for Plot 1 is effectively a modern building built in the curtilage of the listed building. It does not reference the location at all. It instead only considers the basic shape of the modern unauthorised building which already detracts from the character of the listed building. Historic maps show substantial changes, including between 2005 and 2009 when no planning applications were received. There clearly was a small building on that location historically however, since 1930 and likely since 1950 (the year of listing) it has altered beyond recognition. To formalise it and add a level of permanence would detract further from the character of the heritage asset. Just like Plot 2, the landscaping with patios and gardens suggests that this is for 2 residential buildings just outside a farmhouse which significantly confuses the layout. Farm buildings will not feature these elements and it eliminates the openness that is typical of farm buildings. Plot 1 particularly would be very conspicuous within the landscape because of its alien design, materials and features. It will be prominent in views both to and from the listed farmhouse – views which previously remained largely unspoilt.

In conclusion the alterations caused harm to the character of the listed building, most notably on its setting which contributes to the character of the listed building. This is particularly severe because of the importance of the landscape towards the character of the heritage asset, as well as the proximity of Plot 2 to the original building. The proposed development would interfere with the readability of the building and site and its incongruous, alien features also would degrade the architectural interest of the listed building itself.

Even allowing for habitable accommodation there has been no attempt to minimise conflict with heritage principles, as demonstrated by features such as the clearly inappropriate dormer windows. For all the above reasons harm will be caused to the significance of the heritage asset which is not outweighed by the public benefits and is therefore contrary to the NPPF and Policy DP3 of the Local Plan.

Representations

None received.

Relevant planning history

103918/001 – Approval – Internal alterations and enlargement of windows in rear elevation. Demolition and rebuiding of south west corner wall. Jan 1992 103918/002 – Approval – Installation of central heating system and flue. Oct 1992 103918/003 – Approval - Conversion into 3 units of holiday accommodation. Jul 02 103918/004 – Refusal - Conversion into 3 units of holiday accommodation. Jul 02 103918/005 – Approval Conversion of barn into 3 units of holiday accommodation. Aug 03 2011/0656 – Approval - Proposed photo-voltaic cell array. Jun 11 2012/1609 – Approval - Erection of an agricultural building. Feb 13

Planning Board Report 21st December 2016 Page 32

2013/1331 – Withdrawn - Change of use of land to accommodate caravan and tent pitches. Jan 14 2013/1814 –Appeal Dismissed- Residential development and access. Aug 14 2016/1604 & 1605 Full and listed building applications for the change of use and adaptation of existing buildings to form two new dwellings with associated curtilage and parking. Withdrawn Aug 2016

Summary of relevant planning policies

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

Development Plan  Policies CP1 (Spatial Strategy), CP2 (Supporting the Provision of New Housing), CP3 (Supporting Business Development and Growth), CP4 (Sustaining Rural Communities), DP1 (Local Identity and Distinctiveness), DP3 (Heritage Conservation), DP4 (Mendip’s Landscapes), DP5 (Biodiversity and Ecological Networks), DP7 (Design and Amenity), DP8 (Environmental Protection) DP9 (Transport Impact of New Development), DP10 (Parking Standards) and DP22, of the Mendip District Local Plan Part 1 Strategy and Policies (adopted December 2014)

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

Assessment of relevant issues

Impacts on the Heritage Asset

Paragraph 132 of the NPPF sets out that when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. It also says that where a development proposal 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.

Section 66 of the Act 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 listed buildings and their setting when carrying out the balancing exercise. The statutory duty therefore requires more than a straightforward balancing exercise, where all matters have equal weight, as it is necessary to have ‘special regard’ (or give considerable weight) to the importance of the desirability of preserving the setting or any feature of the Listed Buildings in that overall assessment.

This application involves a group of buildings, a listed farmhouse and the agricultural buildings associated with the house in an agricultural setting.

Higher Edgarley House’s character is not limited to the building itself. The setting and the buildings within the curtilage form an important part of the building’s special historic and architectural interest.

The house and its environs are an example of historic farming methods. The layout of Higher Edgarley Farm has remained essentially unchanged and it is relatively easy to read as a

Planning Board Report 21st December 2016 Page 33 farm house with subordinate outbuildings that served functional purposes. Therefore, part of the building’s significance is that is evidential of past human activity.

The farmhouse also is relatively isolated from other habitable buildings, typical of historic farms, and it also has beautiful views over the landscape, towards the Tor. Due to its isolation, it also is a prominent feature within the landscape.

Plot 1

It is proposed to change the use and alter and extend this building to provide a two bed holiday let. The alterations to plot 1 are not considered acceptable for the reasons set out in the conservation officer’s comments and will result in harm to the setting of the adjacent listed buildings. However, the setting is considered under the planning application which is running concurrently with this application.

Plot 2 It is proposed to convert, alter and extend plot 2 to provide a two bed dwelling.

The barn at plot 2 is more characteristic of a traditional rural barn. It is located east of Plot 1 and much closer to the principal listed building Higher Edgarley House. The proposal involves raising the ridge height to provide another floor, and the insertion of roof lights, and dormers which all add to a domestic appearance which does not respect the character of the barn.

It is considered that the development would result in major adaptation and re-construction, its design as detailed within the conservation officer’s comments would be out of keeping with the rural character of the area and other buildings on the site.

In accordance with paragraph 134 of the NPPF having special regard to the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets, the development would not bring about the public benefits required to outweigh the harm caused to the heritage assets.

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

Conclusion/Recommendation Refusal is recommended.

Reason/s for Recommendation

1. The works to (Plot 2) by reason of its design, and scale results in an overly domestic appearance which would erode the rural character of the of the curtilage Listed Building as such the works result in less than substantial harm to the curtilage listed barn. This harm would not be outweighed by any associated public benefit. The proposal therefore fails to accord with the provisions of Policy DP3 of the Mendip District Local Plan 2006 - 2029 (Part 1 Strategy and Policies) and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Planning Board Report 21st December 2016 Page 34

List of Advices

1. This decision relates to drawing numbers S5463/100C, S5463/101D, S5463/102C, S5463/001B received 14.09.16.

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

Planning Board Report 21st December 2016 Page 35

Agenda Item No. DM06

Case Officer Mr Conrad Rodzaj

Site Batcombe Lodge Lodge Farm Lane To Haygrove Lane Wanstrow BA4 6BZ

Application Number 2016/1936/VRC

Date Received 22nd July 2016

Applicant/ Penelope Makins Organisation

Application Type Variation or Removal of Conditions

Proposal Application for the removal of condition 2 ("the proposed barn conversion hereby approved shall not be sold off or leased separately from the main farmhouse") from planning permission 067016/002.

Ward Postlebury

Parish Batcombe Parish Council

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

Description of site, proposal and constraints

The application relates to a converted barn at Batcombe Lodge on Haygrove Lane near Wanstrow.

Batcombe Lodge is a Grade II listed building. The site is located outside of any development limits.

The application seeks Application for the removal of condition 2 from planning permission 067016/002 which was granted for the ‘Conversion of barn to residential use with the provision of new first floor structure over the whole area’. The planning permission was granted in August 1988.

Condition 2 currently reads:

‘The proposed barn conversion hereby approved shall not be sold off or leased separately from the main farmhouse. In the interests of residential amenity’

Summary of parish comments, representations and consultee comments

Parish Council

Recommend Refusal of Permission

The Council notes that the barn conversion is an outbuilding in the curtilage of Batcombe Lodge which is a listed building, and so feels that the barn conversion should not be sold separately from the main building. The Council understands that permission for the barn

Planning Board Report 21st December 2016 Page 36 conversion would only have been granted on the condition that it not be occupied separately from Batcombe Lodge.

Ward Member

Feels the condition should be retain and application should be referred to planning board.

Highways

Standing Advice Applies

The red line of the application site does not extend to the public highway.

Representations

One letter of objection has been received stating that the original conditions must be adhered too.

Relevant planning history

067016/002 Conversion of Barn to residential use with the provision of new first floor structure over the whole area as amended by letter dated 11th July 1988 and plans received 14th July 1988. Approved with conditions.

067016/008 Change of Use – Conversion to form artist’s stained glass studio as amended by DWG NO 9703/31 received 28/07/97. Approved with Conditions.

Summary of all planning policies relevant to the proposal

Core Policy 1, Core Policy 2, Core Policy 4, DP1, DP7, DP9, DP10, DP22 of Mendip District Local Plan 2006 – 2029.

The Somerset County Council Countywide Parking Strategy, 2012 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2012. Planning Practice Guidance

Assessment of relevant issues

The online Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) says that following the decision of a local planning authority to grant planning permission subject to conditions, a developer may consider making an application to the local planning authority under section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The PPG goes onto say that in deciding an application under section 73, the local planning authority must only consider the disputed condition/s that are the subject of the application – it is not a complete re-consideration of the application. A local planning authority decision to refuse an application under section 73 can be appealed to the Secretary of State, who will also only consider the condition/s in question.

Principle

Application seeks the removal of condition 2 ("the proposed barn conversion hereby approved shall not be sold off or leased separately from the main farmhouse") from planning permission 067016/002. The reason given for the condition is in the interests of residential amenity.

The condition relates to the ownership of the building this should normally only be controlled by a Section 106 legal agreement and should not normally be controlled via a planning condition.

Planning Board Report 21st December 2016 Page 37

In any event the condition is considered unnecessary, the online Planning Practice Guidance says that a condition must not be imposed unless there is a definite planning reason for it, i.e. it is needed to make the development acceptable in planning terms. The layout of barn in relation to Batcombe Lodge is relatively separate and it is considered habitable independently without creating an adverse impact on residential amenity. Therefore the reason for the condition (which is given as ‘In the interests of residential amenity’’) is considered unjustified and in fact the entirely independent occupation of the barn conversion would not result in an unacceptable living environment for any residents.

The application proposes no external changes and therefore the proposal is considered not to impact on the setting of the listed building Batcombe Lodge.

The site includes a shared access with Mendip Lodge and the parking and access arrangements are considered acceptable.

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.

Recommendation

Approve with Conditions.

Reason/s for Recommendation

1. The proposal accords with the Council's settlement strategy for the location of new development. The proposal, by reason of its design, scale and layout would be in keeping with its surroundings. The proposal, by reason of its design, scale and layout, would safeguard the amenities of neighbouring residents and adjoining land users. The means of access and parking arrangements meet the required safety standards and will ensure the free flow of traffic on the highway. All practical measures for the conservation of energy have been included in the design, layout and siting of the proposal. The proposal has been tested against the following Development Plan policies. In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, and subject to the conditions below, the proposal is acceptable:- CP1 and CP2 (principle of development), DP1 (local identity), DP7 (design and amenity), DP9 (transport), DP10 (parking), DP11 (affordable housing) and DP14 (mix and type of housing), of the Mendip District Local Plan 2006-2029 (Part 1 Strategies and Policies - adopted 15th December 2014) National Planning Policy Framework Planning Practice Guidance The Countywide Parking Strategy (2013)

Planning Board Report 21st December 2016 Page 38

Conditions

1. 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 or the insertion of windows or openings including rooflights to the dwelling hereby approved shall be carried out without the granting of express planning permission from the Local Planning Authority. Reason: in the interests of the character and appearance of the area and the living conditions of neighbouring properties.

List of Advices

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

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

Planning Board Report 21st December 2016 Page 39

Agenda Item No. DM07

Case Officer Mr Daniel Foster

Site 160 Main Street Walton Street Somerset BA16 9QU

Application Number 2016/1478/OTA

Date Received 7th June 2016

Applicant/ Mr M Webb Organisation

Application Type Outline - All Matters Reserved

Proposal Application for Outline Planning Permission with all matters reserved for a proposed residential development and associated works plus the partial demolition of the public house and reconfiguration of the building (amended description, additional plans and marketing information received 19th August 2016).

Ward Moor

Parish Walton Parish Council

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

Description of Site, Proposal and Constraints The application relates to ‘The Walton Gateway’ Public House (PH), 160 Main Street, Walton (formerly known as the Pike and Musket). The application site measures 0.39 ha.

The application site lies within an Area of High Archaeological Potential.

The application seeks outline planning permission with all matters reserved for a proposed residential development and associated works, plus the partial demolition of the public house and reconfiguration of the building.

Given the application includes, alongside the outline proposals for residential development, some specific details about the re-modelling of the public house (i.e. detailed elevations and floor plans) following the demolition of the rear wing the submission is in effect a ‘hybrid’ application.

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

Walton Parish Council This is to confirm that Walton Parish Council agreed to recommend approval of this application- subject to the comments previously made regarding the site - that is: 1. It is viewed as a compromise 2. It facilitates improvements to the Whitley/A39 junction 3. Dwellings to be of a style in keeping with the OLDER dwellings at that end of the village 4. Size of dwellings to be in keeping with the recent independent Walton Housing Needs Survey

Planning Board Report 21st December 2016 Page 40

County Highway Authority This application is for the partial demolition of the Public House together with a small residential development of 6 no dwellings. A previous planning application (2016-0291) was made for a residential development of 10 dwellings. The Highway Authority had the following observations on the highway and transportation aspects of that proposal. "The replacement of the public house with a small residential development is unlikely to result in a significant increase in the total traffic generated from the site although it will change the times of that traffic generation. This is considered not to result in a severe impact on the adjoining highway. The access itself has acceptable visibility although further thought needs to be given to the protection of the visibility splays as those shown on the submitted plans currently result in a small "blind spot" to the west of the site access. There is sufficient land within the control of the applicant and the highway to provide the necessary splays but some very slight amendment to the position of the dwellings may be necessary. This point is covered by a recommended condition." There is little to add to these comments other than the site lies within a 30mph speed limit and visibility splays in either direction should be 2.4m x 43m to the nearside edge of the carriageway. Parking for both the dwellings and the public house shall be in accordance with Somerset County Councils Parking strategy. The internal road layout will result in the laying out of a private street, and as such under Sections 219 to 225 of the Highways Act 1980, will be subject to the Advance Payments Code (APC). Therefore, in conclusion the Highway Authority raises no objection the application subject to conditions

County Archaeologist

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.

Environmental Health Officer We have considered the additional documents submitted by the applicant published 19th August 2016 and discussed the proposal with colleagues within Community Health Services Unfortunately there are a number of difficulties and uncertainties with this proposal (as amended) not least because the application is outline with all matters reserved and it follows that a compatible situation between residential and pub use is difficult to guarantee due to people noise associated with any outdoor use and leaving the premises. The application does in our opinion, create new sensitivities which do not exist in relation to current nearby residential use. Based on the illustrative layout, and if the Local Planning Authority are minded to approve the application then we would ask for the following conditions / agreements inter-alia:  Controls on demolition / construction hours and emissions  Screening of the pub beer garden and/or constrained use  Restrictions on hours of use of pub  Upgrading of existing kitchen odour extraction arrangements (they do not meet current DEFRA guidance)  Restrictions on indoor live music entertainment (this would then be at odds with the current enjoyment afforded by the Premises License)  Outside lighting scheme  Screening of certain plot garden areas with acoustic fencing probable likely height 2.1M

Planning Board Report 21st December 2016 Page 41

 Sound insulation scheme for dwellings to protect indoor amenity

Experience of seeking agreement on the requirements of some of these issues suggest that it would not be straightforward even within the authority since the visual appearance and EP amenity impacts are likely to be at odds with one another. High acoustic screening around gardens / beer garden and the guidance on kitchen extraction extending 1m beyond the roof ridge are several examples of potential conflicts.

Representations

Two letters received raising the following points (summarised):

 In principle this is a much improved plan but still fails to address or mention the need for alterations to the access to Whitley Lane for the not inconsiderable volume heavy transport which has to access Main Street. SCC Highways must use this development opportunity to introduce traffic calming to this high speed access point to the village. This would mitigate many objections to the application.  Presently the 'pub' suffers from a good line of site exit which unfortunately is positively dangerous due to the tacit acceptance of the high speed traffic travelling in excess of the limit. If the line of site is reduced then there is an increased risk and danger of collision not attractive to buyers with families. Likewise the entrance line of site is good and with signage for passing trade but the access speeds for 'split second decision' choices are too high.  Unclear from the outline what form the business of the pub is to take. With sensible parking for only ten patrons will we to see cars parked along the verge opposite as in the past when there have been wedding receptions or parties in the pub. Or are they making it impossible to park and therefore deter future patrons. According to the application the previous business failed and for a number of clear reasons. As a regular user and business owner who had a booking for 60 people turned down for June of this year would it not be best to have some supporting plan to reassure the residents that the business is not born only to be converted into residential property at some future date.  In a Blue lias environment the design should reflect the rural and farmhouse styles for which Walton can be noted.

 Ask for clarification on a a couple of queries regarding my farm land that surrounds the above proposed development - I have a right of access to my land from a gateway within the car park. Could the council or developer confirm the arrangements that will be made to ensure that this access is maintained?  During heavy rainfall my land becomes flooded by the severe run off from the large area of land above it. i.e. the pub car park. I would again like some reassurance that the council and indeed the developer will put in place an appropriate drainage system to ensure that this issue will be rectified.

Relevant planning history

There have been various planning permissions for extensions and alterations to the PH dating back to 1974 (planning base reference 059254), however the most recent consent was granted in 2012 for an extension to form a new entrance (2012/0461). The most recent and relevant decision was as follows:

2015/0415/OTA Demolition of public house and the construction of residential development and associated works, refused April 2015

Planning Board Report 21st December 2016 Page 42

2016/0291/OTA Proposed Residential Development and associated works, refused April 2016 for the following reasons and subject of a current (un-determined) appeal:

1. The applicant has failed to satisfactorily demonstrate that the proposed loss of the public house, a community facility, should be permitted on the basis that the current use would perpetuate existing amenity, highway or other environmental problems; nor has it adequately been demonstrated that there is no likelihood of a viable community use or that alternative suitable provision is being made. As such the re-development of the public house site, as proposed, would result in the unnecessary loss of a valued facility and service, which would reduce the community's ability to meet its day-to-day needs. The proposed development therefore fails to accord with Policy DP17 of the Mendip District Local Plan (adopted December 2014) and the objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework, with particular regards to paragraphs 28 and 70.

2. In the absence of suitable planning obligations secured under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended, the proposal does not make adequate provision for public recreational open space or affordable housing, necessary in accordance with Policies DP11, DP16 and DP19 of the Mendip District Local Plan (adopted December 2014).

Summary of all planning policies relevant to the proposal

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

Development Plan  Policies CP1 (Spatial Strategy), CP2 (Housing), CP4 (Sustaining Rural Communities), DP1 (Local Identity and Distinctiveness), DP4 (Mendip’s Landscapes), DP5 (Biodiversity and Ecological Networks), DP6 (Bat Protection), DP7 (Design and Amenity), DP8 (Environmental Protection) DP9 (Transport Impact of New Development), DP10 (Parking Standards), DP11 (Affordable Housing), DP14 (Housing Mix and Type), DP17 (Safeguarding Community Facilities) of the Mendip District Local Plan Part 1 Strategy and Policies (adopted December 2014)

Material Considerations  National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)  Planning Practice Guidance (PPG)

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.

Assessment of relevant issues

The current application is a re-submission of an earlier scheme, LPA ref. 2016/0291/OTA, which was refused in April 2016 for the two reasons set out in the planning history above. The key issue in the assessment of this current application is whether the previous reasons for refusal have been addressed having regards to any material changes in circumstances.

Policy - general

Planning Board Report 21st December 2016 Page 43

The Walton Gateway operates as a public house and as such is a local facility subject to the provisions of Policy DP17 of the Local Plan (adopted 2014). Policy DP17 states that;

Development proposals that would result in the loss of sites or premises currently or last used for local facilities and services will not be permitted unless:

1. Suitable alternative provision is being made in the locality and will be available before development or change of use can commence; or 2. The maintenance of the existing use would perpetuate existing amenity, highway or other environmental problems; or 3. If the service or facility is of a commercial nature (including pubs and neighbourhood shops), and there is no likelihood of a viable community use.

It is considered that the adopted Local Plan policy is consistent with paragraph 70 of the NPPF which states, inter alia, that planning decisions should; ‘guard against the unnecessary loss of valued facilities and services, particularly where this would reduce the community’s ability to meet its day-to-day needs’.

Furthermore, paragraph 28 of the NPPF states that planning policies should support economic growth in rural areas in order to create jobs and prosperity by taking a positive approach to sustainable new development. It goes onto say that to promote a strong rural economy, local and neighbourhood plans should promote the retention and development of local services and community facilities in villages.

The impact on the viability of the public house

The application is made in outline with all matters reserved but the layout drawing submitted with the application indicates the retention of the Public House, albeit some parts of the PH are shown to be demolished including a large, two storey wing that contains a restaurant/function room area and letting rooms over.

The submitted drawings and Design and Access Statement further indicates six new dwellings proposed on what is currently the car-park and garden areas serving the PH. The area currently occupied by the two storey wing of the PH is shown to be re-used as a new pub car-park.

Whilst the applicant is not now proposing to demolish the PH in its entirety (as with previous applications) the proposed development would result in the loss of part of the building and site which clearly forms part of the planning unit of the PH – namely the pub car-park, garden and two storey wing which are ancillary elements of the overall PH operation.

As a result one of the key questions is whether the proposed development would materially increase the likelihood of the total loss of the Public House in the future, or in other words would the reduced parking provision and outside garden space, demolition of part of the PH itself and potential conflict between the PH and new residential units result in a decline in the viability of the remaining PH (accepting the PH is currently shut) to such an extent that it could expedite the overall loss of the community facility.

This is important as if the existing facility (public house) is lost in its entirety it is unlikely to be regained by the village and consequently great care should be exercised in permitting the proposed re-development of part the site which could, in due course, undermine a sustainable future of the PH. It is therefore considered reasonable to ensure that the appeal of the PH to potential purchasers/tenants is maximised and that granting planning permission for residential development for part of the site would not result in the potential loss of a local facility that plays (or could play) a role in sustaining the economic and social life in the village.

Planning Board Report 21st December 2016 Page 44

The residential development of the site, as indicated, would significantly reduce the size of the existing car-park. There are very few opportunities to park vehicles on the surrounding highway networks given the restrictions on the busy A39 and the narrow and constricted nature of the roads and lanes leading off of the A39. As such on-site parking is a valuable and desirable facility for the public house to possess. A parking area (subject of reserved matters approval) is shown on the layout plan submitted but it would be significantly reduced from its current size and as such would not accommodate large parties of people arriving by car, the significant reduction in parking facilities is considered to be a negative factor.

The beer garden that serves the current PH is large and sufficiently far from the A39 to provide a pleasant place to sit out in the warmer, summer months with an attractive rural outlook, it is considered that the garden is a positive asset to the PH. The re-development of part of the site would again considerably reduce the size of the garden and the layout plan submitted indicates that only the areas immediately to the north and east of the PH would be retained. Again, the loss of a significant proportion of the beer garden would likely be negative factor on the long term viability of the PH.

The Council’s Environmental Health Officer is also concerned about the potential for conflict between occupiers of the new dwellings and the retained PH, for example through the coming and goings of cars and patrons and people in high-spirits in and around the PH with raised voices. Whether or not the activities within the PH could be controlled by an amended Premises Licence is not a planning matter. It would also be unreasonable to impose conditions on the hours and nature of the PH business as this would relate to a separate use, which would in due course be in separate ownership from the dwellings, and which could undermine the viability of a PH business.

In pulling these points together the proposed development would result in the loss of sites or premises currently or last used for local facilities, both directly through the partial demolition of the PH but also through the more in-direct impacts set out above. It is considered that this would amount to an unacceptable negative impact on the likelihood of a viable community use continuing within the PH.

The next key question that arises is whether there is further justification for the scheme, having regard to the three tests set out within Policy DP17, which would support of the current application. The three tests in DP17 are as follows:

1. Suitable alternative provision is being made in the locality and will be available before development or change of use can commence;

No alternative provision is being made as direct result of the development proposed, there is however another public house in Walton – The Royal Oak – which is sited at the eastern end of the village about 850 metres away from the application site. However, the Royal Oak is a far smaller, more ‘traditional’ establishment seemingly providing a more intimate atmosphere centred on the bar and the skittle alley, though the applicant advises that it has now started to serve food. Access to the Royal Oak is not quite as convenient as The Walton Gateway, its car park for example being on the opposite side of the busy A39.

The Walton Gateway provided different, larger facilities, including accommodation and a good sized pub garden away from the A39, and has a different character to The Royal Oak. The PH site at the Walton Gateway, notwithstanding the closure of the business operating there could cater for the different demands from the community.

It is considered, pulling all of these points together, that the presence of The Royal Oak does not amount to suitable alternative provision on its own and therefore the requirements of DP17 (1) are not met.

Planning Board Report 21st December 2016 Page 45

2. The maintenance of the existing use would perpetuate existing amenity, highway or other environmental problems;

There is no evidence that the existing pub operations result in any significant problems that would warrant its loss, no technical consultees, nor residents adjacent to the public house, have supported its loss in respect of remedying a perceived or actual amenity, highway or other environmental problems.

3. If the service or facility is of a commercial nature (including pubs and neighbourhood shops), and there is no likelihood of a viable community use.

The details submitted in relation to the marketing of the premises are similar to those provided previously for application 2016/0291/OTA with some updated material in relation to the anticipated income of the PH following its proposed remodelling.

The application submission advises that the applicant bought the premises from a national PH chain in February 2012 and prior to that the applicant advises there had been many tenants over a short period of time, it is said to have been run at a loss and the owner had no interest in investing into the business.

The PH has shut since the previous application was determined but last employed four full- time staff and the owner owns other similar premises elsewhere in the south-west. The current owner is reported to have spent £225,000 in the form of various upgrades, including a new entrance, fitting out & new furniture, decoration, re-wiring/plumbing.

It is understood, and fully acknowledged, that nationally that the state of the economy, shifts in drinking habits and smoking legislation have all had a significant influence on the operation of public houses. However that is not to say that all public houses, including those in villages and other rural locations, are unviable as but instead that these are challenging times.

The process that the Local Planning Authority, consistent with many appeal decisions, has long considered truly demonstrates whether there is no likelihood of a viable community use is for premises, such as this, to be placed on the open market. It is considered that only by actively marketing the premises at a fair and reasonable price based on current market conditions and trends in the industry, and for sustained period, can it truly said that there is no likelihood of a viable community use continuing.

Some accounts for the business have been provided providing a small ‘snapshot’ of the businesses trading, they do show a net losses occurring. The marketing particulars for the Walton Gateway say its annual turnover is £270,000 and increasing (net VAT). Notwithstanding the very limited evidence available regarding the efforts made to increase trade it is considered that there is some distinction to be made between the success of the last ‘business model’ operating from the site and the assessment as to whether, as a land- use, there is no likelihood of a viable community use; in essence it is not considered that the success or failure of the current business operating from the public house necessarily amounts to the same test as demonstrating that there is no likelihood of a viable community use for the site.

The marketing of the premises for sale has taken place for a year (since the end of March 2015) and the business/property has been available on a freehold basis only.

The details submitted show the premises have been marketed for £750,000 (it is taken from elsewhere in the marketing particulars, which themselves have two contradictory figures quoted in the text, that this figure is without VAT and as such if VAT is payable then the gross figure is £900,000) until 22nd October 2015. The price was reduced in October 2015 to

Planning Board Report 21st December 2016 Page 46 the current marketing figure of £695,000 (or a gross asking price of £834,000, again if VAT is payable).

Five PHs are cited by the marketing agent as being ‘comparable evidence’ in respect of justifying the price sought for the Walton Gateway. Of these examples two PHs are said to have sold/are under offer for more than £1 million and the remaining three PHs were sold/came under offer with prices ranging from £600,000 to £795,000. Each of the five examples is however accompanied by only the very briefest of description of the premises/business, and in only one instance are the turnover or profit figures given, as such it is difficult to draw substantive conclusions about their ‘comparable’ nature.

The submission refers to the business being advertised on two websites. It is possible to search for other Public Houses for sale in Somerset (and elsewhere) on these websites, including based on their price and turnover. It would appear that there are very few public houses currently for sale in Somerset for £695,000 or over, the price currently sought for the Walton Gateway (or indeed fewer still with a price of £750,000 or more, the price sought for the first 7 months of marketing). In refining the search further it is possible to find a number of pubs for sale in Somerset that from their full descriptions are of arguably comparable size and facilities to the Walton Gateway, and which in a number of cases also have a greater turnover, but which are for freehold sale at a notably lower price. For example, The Mason Arms, Williton is advertised with a freehold price of £595,000 and has a reported annual net profit of nearing £99,000 and ‘The Culbone’ on Exmoor is advertised for sale at £525,000 and marketed with an annual turnover of circa £335,000.

Whilst it must be borne in mind that each premises/business will be unique in some way from one another it does bring into considerable question whether the price sought, for a business that has made a loss in recent years, is justified and reasonable. It is likely that if the price sought for a business is too great, as the evidence would arguable suggest here, then this would have a negative impact with regards to finding a potential purchaser. It is considered that these points significantly detract from the weight that can be afforded to the marketing evidence.

Whilst the Walton Gateway is located at the western end of the village (population 943, in 377 households – in accordance with the MDC Rural Settlement Role & Function Paper 2012) it is within walking distance of a significant majority of the residents living in the village. Whilst the patronage from the residents of Walton alone might not sustain a viable business, the PH is also in a readily visible position on the side of the A39 on the approach to nearby Street/Glastonbury (with their significant tourist draw with attractions such as Clarks Village, Glastonbury Tor and Abbey) with what can only be assumed to be significant potential for casual passing–trade on a busy road that links this part of Mendip District with the M5 motorway. The public house is served by a well-formed car-park area to accommodate off- road parking of patron’s vehicles.

Walton is identified as a ‘secondary’ village in the Local Plan with some housing growth expected. This type of expansion is likely to increase the need for local facilities and The Walton Gateway may play an important role in the day-to-day life of the village. It is considered that the public house should, in general terms, be considered as a key facility within the village, its unnecessary loss would be detrimental to social well-being of the area but also detrimental in an economic sense.

It might be argued that should planning permission be refused the pub would simply remain shut for business anyway; however very limited weight should be afforded this argument as to grant planning permission for this reason would encourage other property owners to pursue vacancy/closure as a way of achieving development that might otherwise be unacceptable. The prospect of a sale may be exacerbated by its closure but, like any other loss incurred, this can be considered part of the risks inherent in and arising from participating in a business venture.

Planning Board Report 21st December 2016 Page 47

In pulling all of these points together whilst there is sympathy for the applicant’s current predicament the proposed demolition of part of the PH, and the potential wholesale loss subsequently as a result of the conflict with the proposed residential development would be at the expense of the wider community interests. The evidence submitted particularly with regards to the justification for the price (s) sought for the premises is not considered to be compelling and as such it is considered that the evidence does not support a departure from the policy aims set out in Policy DP17 and the NPPF.

Character of the area

The Walton Gateway effectively forms the western end of the village of Walton proper; beyond this further to the west the built development is sporadic and peters out into the open countryside. Walton itself forms a linear settlement spread some considerable distance along the north and south sides of the A39, there are however frequent examples of in-depth development – both cul-de-sacs and other minor roads leading away from the main road.

The layout provided, having regard to the outline nature of the application, shows the majority of the PH site being developed comprising the existing car-park and garden.

The development of the site in a form similar to that shown on the proposed layout drawing would result in a new urban edge at the western fringe of the village; the site would be significantly more built up that its present form. It is considered however that this, in itself, would not necessarily be harmful given its position in relation to the remainder of the village. It is considered that subject to suitable design at reserved matters stage, appropriate landscaping at the edge of the site and the use of the good quality materials the development would, on balance, not appear out-of-keeping with the variety and character found within Walton.

Amenity

The application is made in outline with all matters reserved for subsequent approval and in this context, and bearing in mind the existing layout and arrangement of the buildings on- site, it is not considered that the proposed development, subject to the reserved matters submission, would adversely affect the amenity of neighbours over and above the existing arrangements.

The Council’s Environmental Health Officer advises that there are concerns about the relationship between the proposed residential development and the operation of the Public House, both through noise issues but also odour emanating from the kitchen on the north- side of the pub. The controls that would be required in respect of noise would significantly curtail the operation of the pub and are unlikely to be viable or reasonable for an on-going business. There are no details of the odour controls for the kitchen extraction and what the impact of these arrangements would be on the amenity of residents.

It is considered that the potential amenity conflict between the uses warrants a reason for refusal.

Highway Safety

The site is currently served by a wide, well-formed vehicular entrance directly onto the A39. The County Highway Authority has been consulted on the proposal and advises that they have no objections.

Concerns have been raised that the scheme should make provision to improve the junction of Whitley Lane and the A39, however notwithstanding the outline nature of the application there is no detailed evidence that the development, in and of itself, would have any material

Planning Board Report 21st December 2016 Page 48 impact on the use of this junction – as currently indicated all of the traffic from the development would emerge directly onto the A39 as it currently does for the PH (i.e no additional traffic via Whitley Lane). Should that principle change at reserved matters stage when ‘access’ is considered in detail then the Highway Authority/LPA would need to be satisfied that the scheme is acceptable in that respect.

Affordable housing and developer contributions

The Government’s guidance on small scale and self-build development is set out in the national Planning Practice Guidance (from the 19th May 2016). This policy guidance follows Court of Appeal judgment on Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government v West Berkshire District Council and Reading Borough Council which gave legal effect to the policy set out in the Written Ministerial Statement of 28 November 2014 and should be taken into account.

The guidance says there are specific circumstances where contributions for affordable housing and tariff style planning obligations (section 106 planning obligations) should not be sought from small scale and self-build development, in particular contributions should not be sought for developments of 10 units or less, and which have a maximum combined gross floor space of no more than 1000 m².

The development indicated would be less than ten units but the schedule of accommodation given on the site layout drawing would be just over 1000 m² of floor space (1048 m²). However, given the application is made in outline with all matters reserved for subsequent approval and the threshold is exceeded in the indicative details by only a small amount, it is considered that a suitable scale and mix of dwellings could be achieved at reserved matters stage and in the absence of a S106 this should be secured by condition as appropriate.

Other issues

Neither of the proceeding applications have been refused planning permission in respect of the impact of the scheme on surface water flooding, as such it is considered that a suitable planning condition could be imposed to secure a suitable drainage scheme for the site.

A right of access across the land is a private, civil matter which would need to be resolved by the relevant parties separately outside of the planning system.

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

Conclusion It is recommended that planning permission be refused as the adverse social impacts of the loss of the public house outweigh the benefits of the provision of new homes in this location. The development would also likely lead to unacceptable amenity conflict between the proposed residential units and the retained Public House.

Reason/s for Recommendation

Planning Board Report 21st December 2016 Page 49

1. The applicant has failed to satisfactorily demonstrate that the proposed development, by virtue of the reduction in car-parking provision, the loss of part of the beer garden, the demolition of part of the public house itself and the controls that would be necessary to avoid potential amenity conflicts between the operations of the public house and new residential dwellings, would not have an adverse effect on the Public House continuing to operate as a viable local facility in the future. As such the development, as proposed, would potentially result in the unnecessary loss of a local facility and service, which would reduce the community's ability to meet its day-to-day needs. The proposed development therefore fails to accord with Policy DP17 of the Mendip District Local Plan (adopted December 2014) and the objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework, with particular regards to paragraphs 28 and 70.

2. The applicant has failed to satisfactorily demonstrate that the proposed housing development by virtue of its layout and proximity to the retained public house would not give rise to conflict between the operations of the public house and the new residential dwellings with regards to noise, disturbance and odour from the operation of the public house. As such the proposed development would give rise to an unsatisfactory living environment to future occupiers of the proposed dwellings. The proposed development therefore fails to accord with Policy DP7 and DP8 of the Mendip District Local Plan (adopted December 2014).

List of Advices

1. This decision relates to drawings S5299/002A, 102C, 001c and 101A.

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

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

Planning Board Report 21st December 2016 Page 50

Agenda Item No. DM08

Case Officer Mr Carlton Langford

Site Spring Water Farm Anchor Road Coleford BA3 5PG

Application Number 2016/2436/FUL

Date Received 19th September 2016

Applicant/ Mr Aaron Foot Organisation

Application Type Full Application

Proposal The erection of two agricultural buildings and temporary (3 years) permission for the siting of agricultural workers accommodation. Re- submission 2016/1488/FUL.

Ward Coleford And Holcombe

Parish Coleford Parish Council

This application has been brought before the Planning Board as the agent for the application is an elected Member.

Description of Site, Proposal and Constraints

The application relates to Spring Water Farm a small agricultural holding situated on land to the north of Coleford.

The application seeks planning permission for the erection of two agricultural buildings and temporary (3 years) permission for the siting of agricultural workers accommodation (mobile home).

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

Parish Council

Recommend approval

Environmental Protection

No objections

County Surveyor

No comments.

Other Representations

None received.

Relevant planning history

No relevant planning history other than historic prior approval applications for agricultural buildings on the site now implemented.

Planning Board Report 21st December 2016 Page 51

Assessment of relevant issues

Principle

The proposed development is twofold, firstly the agricultural buildings and secondly, the temporary agricultural workers accommodation for a temporary 3 year period.

Having regard for the proposed agricultural buildings, they are considered necessary for the purposes of agricultural and are of a scale commensurate to the size of the holding and therefore acceptable in principle subject to the usual planning controls of design, amenity and highway safety and any other constraints upon the site.

Having regard for the temporary permission for the temporary agricultural workers dwelling, there seems to be from the evidence submitted, a functional need for at least 1 full time worker on the site in the interest of animal husbandry and the everyday working of the land. However, there remains no conclusive evidence that this new agricultural holding has been established on a sound financial basis and as such, only temporary permission can be given at this time which will allow the applicant sufficient time (3 years) to accumulate accounts to demonstrate that the holding is in fact founded on a sound financial basis and when we can determine whether permanent accommodation is essential. As such, the proposal for temporary accommodation is acceptable in principle subject to the usual planning controls of design, amenity and highway safety.

A standard occupancy condition will need to be imposed as the accommodation is only acceptable in principle as an agricultural workers dwelling.

Design and appearance

The proposed agricultural buildings are of a standard agricultural design and appearance, well related to the existing building on site and well screened from the surrounding area having no significant impact on the rural character of the area.

The proposed temporary accommodation will take the form of a mobile home (static caravan) which is an appropriate choice for temporary accommodation and which will have the least impact on the land and can be easily removed from site when the permission elapses (3 years).

Neighbouring amenity

The site has no immediate neighbours which would be adversely affected by the siting or appearance of the agricultural buildings or from their use for agricultural purposes including livestock use.

The proposed temporary dwelling raises no amenity issues.

Highway safety

The proposed developments will utilise an existing vehicle access which is considered sufficient in terms of highway safety, allowing suitable visibility in both directions and allowing 2 vehicles to utilise the access at the same time i.e. one vehicle leaving and one arriving at the same time.

There is sufficient parking and turning on the site.

Public Right of way

Planning Board Report 21st December 2016 Page 52

There is a public right of way at the site but this will not be obstructed by the proposed development.

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

Conclusion It is recommended that planning permission be granted.

Reason/s for Recommendation

1. The proposal accords with the Council's settlement strategy for the location of new agricultural development. The site is located outside the development limit where development is strictly controlled. However, it has been demonstrated that the dwelling is essential to support the functioning of the enterprise and meets the other criteria set out in DP13 of the Mendip District Local Plan for temporary accommodation. The proposal, by reason of its design, scale and layout will be in keeping with its surroundings and the wider 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 has been tested against the following Development Plan policies. In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, and subject to the conditions below, the proposal is acceptable:- CP4 (Settlement strategy), DP1 (Local Identity and Distinctiveness), DP7 (Design and Amenity of New Development), 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)

Planning Board Report 21st December 2016 Page 53

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 temporary agricultural workers dwelling hereby permitted shall be for a limited period being the period of three years from the date of this decision. At the end of this period the use hereby permitted shall cease, all structures, materials and equipment brought on to, or erected on the land, or works undertaken to it in connection with the temporary agricultural workers use, shall be removed, and the land restored to its condition before the development took place. Reason: Permission has only been granted on a temporary basis to meet an identified need for the accommodation proposed, in a location where isolated new residential accommodation would not otherwise normally be permitted.

3. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with Planning Statement, Agricultural Appraisal and Drawing Numbers AF/PLN/001B, 002A, 003B, 004A, 005A and 006. Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interest of proper planning.

4. The occupation of the temporary workers dwelling shall be limited to a person solely or mainly working, or last working, in the locality in agriculture or in forestry, 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, in a location where isolated new dwellings would not otherwise be permitted, and to ensure an adequate availability of dwellings to meet agricultural or forestry needs in the locality.

5. The vehicular access hereby approved shall be permanently retained in accordance with the approved plans. Reason: To ensure that the access is maintained in the interests of highway safety.

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 imposed planning conditions to enable the grant of planning permission.

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

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

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

Planning Board Report 21st December 2016 Page 54