Agenda item

The erection of 1 No. dwelling with associated parking.

The Area Lead (West) presented the application as detailed in the agenda report. He noted that it was believed the site had been occupied until the 1960s, and post residential use it had been used for hay storage. He explained that the site was not considered to be an old or redundant building, but was more of a ruin. Reference was also made to old an old appeal decision for the site, and whilst the local support was acknowledged it was not considered to be sufficient to recommend approval of the proposal.

Ms S Beaufoy, representative for South Petherton Parish Council, noted there was much local support in South Petherton and Shepton Beauchamp for the proposal. She noted the applicants and family used to live at the site until the late 1950’s.

Mrs S Bishop, representative for Shepton Beauchamp Parish Council, read comments from a neighbour which made reference to previous refusals due to highways and turning space. She noted it was not felt visibility was a problem and any issues could be overcome. The proposal would not detract from the night sky as there much more light from the nearby Branstons site.

Mr D Woan, supporter, considered the proposal to be reconstruction of a previous dwelling, and if additional land was required for turning space that it was within the applicant’s ownership.. He noted there were no local objections to the proposal, and it would not impact upon anyone. The deterioration of the existing dwelling was unfortunate, and if the proposal were to refuse it would continue to be an eyesore.

Agent, Ms J Fryer, commented she understood the need to preserve the countryside but this was not virgin ground. There had previously been a dwelling on the land that was occupied by the applicant’s ancestors. The aspiration was to rebuild the dwelling exactly how it was. The turning area had not originally been sought but the applicants were willing to provide if necessary. The proposal had local connections and support.

Ward member, Councillor Adam Dance, commented he had requested the application came to Committee due to the level of local support. He noted members often heard from objectors not supporters, and that a building had been at the site for many years. He proposed approval of the application.

Ward member, Councillor Crispin Raikes, noted much of the landscape impact would be minimised by re-using tone on stone on site. he felt there were exceptional circumstances and many positive comments from local people and parish councils. He considered the local support should weigh heavily.

During discussion by members, mixed opinions were raised and comments included:

·         If building restored it would fit with the setting.

·         Previous appeal decision should be noted.

·         If approved Permitted Development Rights should be removed.

·         Can utilities and drainage be adequately provided?

·         A building has been there for about 300 years, so isn’t the principle of planning there?

·         This will be a total reconstruction not a renovation.

·         Buildings of local stone are wanted locally whether a local person or not.

·         Has at some stage been a house, and then a store – and people are able to convert barns.

·         Decision should be deferred for a report from a structural engineer to see if existing structure could be retained.

In response to comments made the Area Leads (North/East and West) clarified:

·         The parking and turning details of this proposal.

·         Details about utilities and drainage would be covered by condition in a reserved matters application if this outline application were to be approved.

·         The red line for this application could not be changed and would be subject to a new application.

·         The view of the LPA was that building had been abandoned, and did not believe the building could be renovated.

Initially it was proposed to approve the application, contrary to the officer recommendation, on the grounds of history of the site, and that the building could be brought back into use. However on being put to the vote the proposal was not supported with 4 votes in favour of approving the application, 7 against and 1 abstention.

It was subsequently proposed to refuse the application, as per the officer recommendation, and on being put to the vote, was carried 7 in favour, 4 against with 1 abstention.

(Voting: 7 in favour, 4 against, 1 abstention