Agenda item

Comments from members of the public included;

(summarised)

·       The development was well thought-out with intention and with an authentic heart to do right by the land and to be sensitively integrated with the surrounding landscape;

·       The development would be complementary to the main house and surrounding out buildings, made from locally sourced sustainable materials;

·       The development was designed to be highly energy efficient making good use of passive solar gain with large photovoltaic array which aligned with the corporate objectives and planning policy of Somerset west and Taunton Council to achieve carbon neutrality by 2030;

·       The application was a policy compliant exemplary development and a model for sustainable intergenerational family living with overwhelming support from the community;

·       Pitt Farm was a hub for the community and the new dwelling would allow for expanse on all the farm;

·       The development was sustainable due to a direct route to the development via a long and well used footpath through the fields. Cyclists would use Grants Lane which was less than 5 minute ride to Langley Cross where there were pavements and lights into Wiveliscombe;

·       This application would reduce phosphates load;

·       This was a low impact development that complements the existing buildings on the site. It respected heritage and merged into the surrounding landscape;

At this point in the meeting a 30-minute extension was proposed.

·       This was a sustainable development well imbedded in the community;

·       The development offered sufficiency on the site, carbon sequestration and genuine benefits for nature;

·       The tie would allow for the needs of the Farm, not sold off or used as a holiday let or an Airbnb;

·       The development complies with the NPPF as the Farm was not isolated and met local needs;

·       No objections were received for this application;

Comments from Members included;

(summarised)

·       This development would increase the well-being of the land and was a sustainable development;

·       No objections of substance from anyone, this reflected the value of what was being done on the site;

·       An exception should be made for this development because we need to interpret this application more along the lines of what is being done on the site;

·       There was already a dwelling for a rural worker on this site;

·       Concerns that we were going against our own Development Plan;

At this point in the meeting a further 30-minute extension was proposed.

·       The development was phosphate compliant;

·       There would be no increase in the reliant of private cars;

·       The community aspect for this development was immense;

Councillor Lithgow proposed, and Councillor Tully seconded a motion for the application to be REFUSED. The motion failed.

Councillor Habgood proposed, and Councillor Aldridge seconded a motion for the application to be APPROVED against Officer recommendation.

Reasons

That delegated authority be granted to Officers to approve the application, contrary to the Officers’ recommendation, on the grounds that:

1. This is an exceptional site with high community value;

2. The development will support the expansion of the current activities on the  site and lead to greater educational, community and experimental agricultural practices;

3.The development is sustainable;

4.The development will not increase transport needs;

5.The new building is well designed and is offset by demolition of other buildings on the farm;

6.There would be no harm caused to the listed building.

and subject to:

1.The proposed approval of the application being formally advertised as a departure from the Development Plan and any new, unresolvable issues raised being reported back to the Committee for consideration;

2.The wording of the planning conditions being delegated to Officers to determine;

3.The prior completion of a S106 Agreement to:

a. ensure that the ownership of the new dwelling is permanently tied to the ownership of the existing dwelling and farm for the duration of the use of the land in the form to be identified in sub-section ‘b’ below;

b. ensure the submission of a scheme to secure the long term operation and management of the farm (to include, but not be limited to, a program of educational benefits that will have demonstrable targets that can be measured);

c. secure the installation and maintenance of a biological package treatment plant for the purposes of phosphate mitigation;

d. on cessation of onsite activity as detailed in sub-section ‘b’, or failure to evidence the demonstrable benefits as required and agreed in that sub-section, the building shall be decommissioned and removed from site within 18-months, and land returned to its agricultural use;

The motion was carried.

At this point, Cllr Griffiths left the meeting and a 10 minute break was proposed.