Agenda item

Proposal: Erection of a mixed use shed building to house historic tractors and business storage. Change of use from agricultural land to commercial use. Replacement of some sheds, and the erection of an open-fronted car port for mixed use of B8 (Storage or Distribution) and domestic storage.

The Planning Officer presented the proposal as detailed in the agenda report. He noted a number of representations had been received raising objections on several grounds including visual amenity, highway safety and flood risk. Several restrictive conditions for use of the buildings was proposed but it was difficult to condition traffic movements relating to the proposal.

Mr J Fraser, spokesperson for Huish Episcopi Parish Council, commented that had concerns about the large scale of the proposal. They noted the application said no selling of tractors or cars but they queried how this would be controlled?

Members were then addressed by Mrs M Hoare, Ms M Walls, Ms S Jacksties, Ms K Haslam, Mr K Peto, Mr G Carpenter, Mr C Miller, Mr R Pearce and Mr A Tilley on behalf of Ms M Pittard in objection to the proposal. Comments raised by the objectors included:

·         The field between the site and the Rose and Crown is a licensed events field. The scale and position of the proposed buildings will be out of scale and dominating.

·         The buildings will be industrial in scale, ugly and a blot on the landscape.

·         Concerns about highway safety. Traffic has increased generally over the years at the location and further vehicles may cause a problem.

·         Proposal will adversely affect the landscape setting and will harm the setting of the grade 2 listed Rose and Crown - a local heritage asset.

·         Flash flooding occurred in the locality in November 2008 and there have been very near similar situations several times since. Concerned about drainage relating to the proposal will make a bad situation worse.

·         Fear that the proposal in future years might become a commercial site

·         Reference to websites detailing the current use of the property as selling of second hand furniture and domestic appliances.

·         The building of an existing shed, groundworks and repositioning of the entrance were already contrary to existing conditions. Disappointed no enforcement actions has been taken.

·         It is important that the local landscape character is retained.

·         Officer report seems to make no reference to the development area.

·         There’s no economical justification for the proposal and it will be harmful to the setting of the Rose and Crown and the event field.

·         Not proven that the increased run-off from the proposal can be contained within the site.

·         Few of the statutory consultees appear to have visited the site.

·         The associated cleaning, painting and lubricants associated with the number of vehicles does not seem to require any control. Fell there will be pollution and health & safety implications associated with the proposal.

·         The Rose and Crown is a landmark pub with a national reputation. It needs to be protected including the events field.

Mr N Beddoe, agent, provided a background to the application and noted that previously classic vehicles had been kept towards the front of the property. He reassured members that the applicant did not trade in vehicles and the vehicles were a private collection. He noted the site was in a built up area and the design of the buildings had been considered with minimal roof heights and vehicles would be more out of site to the rear of the property.

Ward member, Councillor Clare Aparicio Paul, commented her main concern was the visual impact upon the adjacent events field. She also had concerns regarding drainage and access, in particular the size of the vehicles trying to negotiate to and from the site.

During the ensuing debate members did not support the proposal and raised a number of points including:

·         Once vehicles are in the proposed buildings it won’t be possible to see what’s going on – vehicles could be broken up and parts sold.

·         Surprised the Highway Authority have not raised any concerns about visibility

·         Delivery of vehicles will be difficult.

·         The Rose and Crown is unique as a pub and should be treasured.

·         Scale and size of proposal is over development.

·         There will be a visual impact.

·         The events field is used all through the summer.

·         There are several reasons on which to refuse the application.

·         If selling online, there might also be additional traffic from buyers picking up their purchases in person.

·         The business element of the proposal would be better placed on a trading estate.

·         Access from the proposal onto the shared access with the pub does not have good visibility.

·         Enforcement action should be taken if application is refused.

In response to comments made the Area Lead clarified this was a mixed use application and most of the buildings were for domestic use. He highlighted the building to be used for commercial online related sales. He acknowledged if the applicant was breaking and selling vehicle parts there would be different issues.

It was proposed to refuse the application on the grounds of visual impact, highway safety, scale and impact on the listed building.

The Area Lead clarified there were two reasons for refusal and suggested wording based on concerns raised by members during discussion, these being:

·         The proposal by reason of the size, design and position of the buildings beyond the settlement boundary, would be detrimental to the visual amenities of the locality and the setting and viability of the grade 2 listed public house. As such the proposal is contrary to policies EQ2, EQ3 and EP15 of the South Somerset Local Plan 2006-2028 and the policies contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.

·         It has not been demonstrated that the additional traffic likely to be generated by the proposed use can be safely accommodated by the existing access arrangements. As such the proposal is contrary to policy TA of the South Somerset Local Plan 2006-2028 and the policies contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.

The Area Lead also explained that there was an existing use on the site for online sales, and noted that if members were minded to refuse  the application and wished to see enforcement action taken, then a further resolution should be made to commence such action. He clarified that enforcement action would be for the cessation of non-domestic/agricultural activities.

The proposal to refuse the application, contrary to the officer recommendation, for the reasons as detailed by the Area Lead, was put the vote and carried unanimously.

It was then also proposed to that enforcement action be taken regarding unauthorised non-residential use of the site, as detailed by the Area Lead. On being put to the vote, this was also passed unanimously.

(Voting: Unanimous in favour)

(Voting: Unanimous in favour)