Agenda item

Proposal:  Erection of a modular building for use as an ancillary sales office for the approved mobile home park extension

The Case Officer presented the application as detailed in the agenda and with the aid of a powerpoint showed the site and proposed plans. She explained the Highways Authority had raised no objection and that no objections had been received from neighbours.   However, Yeovil Without Parish Council had recommended refusal for both the location and as the site is not designated for this purpose or use.

She referred to the key considerations being the impact on visual and residential amenity, highway safety and loss of amenity land.  She acknowledged concerns regarding the location of the proposed structure but felt the building would take up only a small fraction of the open space and therefore not considered harmful to visual amenity. 

She said the imposition of a condition to restrict the permission for a temporary period of five years and restrict opening times to be acceptable and therefore after considering all of the responses and advice, as outlined in the agenda report, her proposal was to approve the application as set out in the agenda report.

In response to members’ questions, she confirmed that:

·         The amenity land is within the ownership of the applicant.

·         The location of the access and emergency access of the site.

·         The applicant could erect a temporary structure for the temporary use for the implementation for the proposal.

A representative of the applicant addressed the committee and spoke in support of the application.  He explained this was a temporary small structure to accommodate the sales office and that the applicant was happy to remove the structure after the five year period.  He said the proposed building is sited in the best location because other areas of the site suffered with drainage issues.  

Ward member, Councillor Graham Oakes noted the previous application had already been approved and questioned the reason to change the plans.  He said the building would take up 14% of the amenity space and did not believe the structure was a requirement for the site and that logically the best option was to make use of the first mobile home.  He believed the proposal was contrary to policy EQ2 and therefore would not support the application on grounds of visual amenity.

Ward member, Councillor Mike Lock voiced his concern regarding the application, he believed Yeovil Marsh already has a massive infrastructure problem along with drainage issues and this proposal will only exacerbate these matters. He would not support the application.  

During member’s discussion, comments were raised including the following:

·         Questioned the need for the additional temporary sales office when the obvious choice would be to use the first mobile home once positioned on site.

·         This area already has poor infrastructure with no street lighting or footpaths and poor drainage system.  This proposal will only exacerbate these issues.

·         Proposal is already within the development land and given the temporary nature of it’s temporary use consider it acceptable.

Following a short discussion, it was then proposed and subsequently seconded to refuse the application, as the proposal does not comply with policy EQ2 and the effect on visual amenity.  For clarification to member’s the Specialist – Development Management then read out the following reason for refusal:

‘The proposal is considered to adversely impact on the visual amenity contrary to Policy EQ2’.

It was then proposed and subsequently seconded to refuse the application for the reason read out by the Specialist, Development Management.  On being put to the vote this was lost by 5 votes in favour, 9 against, 0 abstentions.

Following a short discussion, it was then proposed and seconded to approve the application as per the officer’s recommendation as set out in the agenda report.  On being put to the vote this was carried by 9 votes in favour, 4 against and 1 abstention.

RESOLVED:

That application 19/02184/FUL be approved for the following reasons:

01.       The proposal, by reason of its size, scale and location, respects the character of the area and causes no demonstrable harm to residential amenity in accordance with the aims and objectives of Policies EQ2, TA5 and TA6 of the South Somerset Local Plan (2006-28) and the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework 2019.

SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING:

01.       The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

            Reason: To accord with the provisions of section 91(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

02.       The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans reference:

            1022-0005-01 - Site Plan for Temporary New Office Building

            1022-0006-01 - Site Location Plan

            1022-0009-03 - Sales Office Floor Plans and Elevations

            and the external surfaces of the development shall be of materials as indicated in the application form and no other materials shall be used without the prior written consent of the local planning authority.

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

03.       The temporary sales office hereby permitted shall be removed and the land restored to its former condition (grassed amenity land) on or before five years from the date of this permission.

            Reason:  In the interests of visual amenity to accord with Policy EQ2 of the South Somerset Local Plan 2006-2028.

04.       The temporary sales office hereby permitted shall only be operated between the following hours:  08.00 - 19.00 on Monday to Fridays, 08.00 - 18.00 on Saturdays and 10.00 - 16.00 on Sundays and Bank holidays, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the District Planning Authority.

            Reason: In the interests of residential amenity to accord with policy EQ2 of the South Somerset Local Plan 2006-2028.

(voting: 9 in favour, 4 against, 1 abstention)