To consider a report of the Head of Planning and Economic Regeneration regarding this application deferred from the previous meeting to enable a site visit by the Planning Working Group to take place.
The Committee had before it a * report of the Head of Planning Economy and Regeneration which had been deferred from the previous meeting so that a site visit could take place by the Planning Working Group.
The Area Team Leader outlined the contents of the report highlighting by way of presentation the site location plan, the proposed block plan, the existing structures on the site that had planning permission, the structures on the site which did not benefit from planning permission and the structures which were proposed as part of the application. Members viewed photographs from various aspects of the site and from the one of the footpaths at Killerton looking back across the valley to the site in question.
Consideration as given to:
· The concerns of the objector with regard to the siting of a traveller site outside the settlement limit
· What did and did not have the benefit of planning permission
· The personal circumstances of the family
· The details of the personal permission and the wording of any consent
· Whether there would be an increase of traffic on the private lane
· The provision of the bore hole and that it should be required within a specified time
· The landscaping of the site
· The definition of dependents
RESOLVED that planning permission be granted subject to:
a) conditions as recommended by the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration;
b) the rewording of Condition 3 to state that the site shall not be occupied by persons other than Miss Adele Perrot and her dependents, Mr Peter Perrot and Mrs Sue Perrot and Miss Nina Perrot and her dependents and Mr Nick Van der Kolt;
c) an additional condition (7) to state that “No composted matter from either of the two composting toilets on site shall be spread on any land within 50 metres of the bore hole. REASON: to protect the amenity of the health of the occupants of the site by preventing pollution of the
proposed water course in accordance with Policy DM2 and DM7 (LP3);
d) delegated authority be given to the officer to word additional conditions with regard to:
· To restrict any commercial use of the site other than for horticultural use.
· The requirement for the bore hole within a specified period of time.
· The retention of the green perimeter.
(Proposed by Cllr P J Heal and seconded by Cllr Mrs H Bainbridge)
(i) Cllr Mrs F J Colthorpe declared a personal interest as the objector was known to her;
(ii) Mr Custance –Baker spoke in objection to the application;
(iii) Mr Ruston (Agent) spoke;
(iv) Cllr Mrs J Roach spoke as Ward Member;
(v) The following late information was reported:
Location of proposed borehole
The location of the proposed bore hole is shown on one of the plans that form part of the presentation. There is currently no bore hole on site. The applicants have received a quotation for the drilling of a borehole. The company that have provided the quotation have stated that the borehole will be drilled up to 60 metres in depth and that having looked at the geological survey maps of the area plus local knowledge of the area that there are no problems anticipated with the drilling of a borehole on the land. A yield of up to 20 cubic metres of water per 24 hours has been estimated.
During discussions Environmental Health have commented that approximately 1 cubic metre of water equates to one persons requirement per day. There are proposed to be 8 people resident on the site at any one time, the estimated yield from the borehole of 20 cubic metres per 24 hours is therefore considered to be capable of providing adequate water supply. As a small supply, it is understood that the water source would need to be risk assessed and he water quality checked every 5 years.
Location of compost toilets
Following the Planning Working Group site visit, it is can be confirmed that there are currently two compost toilets on the site. Both are shown on the plan included as part of the presentation.
Both compost toilets are more than 50 metres from the proposed location of the borehole. During discussions Environmental Health have commented that a compost toilet should be 50 metres from a borehole. Depending on the method of provision of the borehole the compost toilet could be closer than 50 metres from the borehole.
Representation from the National Trust
An email representation has been received from the National Trust, it states:
Application No: 16/01830/FULL - Oak Meadow, Silverton
Proposed siting of 1 mobile home, 2 motor homes and a compost w.c.
I am concerned about the way you have presented this case in your report to the Planning Committee, and I am asking on behalf of the National Trust that the following representation is reported to the Committee.
Neither the Committee Report nor the application submission are able to demonstrate that impact on the setting of heritage assets has been correctly assessed in accordance with national and local policy. Setting is not identified in the report under 5.0 as a material consideration.
The consideration to the impact on the setting of heritage assets is made under a section titled ‘visual impact’ (para 5.7) and the report considers the development in accordance with Policy DM27 “with regards to visual impact”. However, case law has established that it is incorrect to take too narrow interpretation of setting – by equating it with visual impact. The Planning Court recently, in the relation to the following case near Kedlestone Hall, determined Whilst "a physical or visual connection between a heritage asset and its setting will often exist, it is not essential or determinative". [ https://cornerstonebarristers.com/news/planning-court-endorses-broad-approach-setting/ ].
The report identifies some harm to the setting of heritage assets, but it fails to adequately quantify that harm. It suggests under 5.7 that there will not be a ‘significant’ impact but it fails to equate this with “substantial” or “less than substantial” harm, or indicate whether the appropriate NPPF test has been applied (which presumably would be the one under para 134). It is unclear from the report if it has been considered in what way the setting of Killerton contributes to its significance in order to correctly apply that test, as the report fails to establish the relationship of the site to the heritage asset.
I unfortunately cannot make the Planning Committee on 6th September, but please confirm by return of email that you will be communicating these comments to the Planning Committee.
Local Planning Authority response to the representation from the National Trust
The setting of Killerton Estate, which is a heritage asset has been considered in the assessment of the planning application and was considered as part of the assessment of previous applications on this site.
The provision of two additional pitches on the site and the composting toilet are not considered to have a significant impact on the setting of Killerton as stated in the report. It is considered that the proposed use of the site (a majority of which has now occurred) results in ‘less than substantial harm’ to the setting of the heritage asset that is the Killerton Estate. A balanced judgement has been made regarding the significance of the heritage asset and the scale of harm or loss to the heritage asset. The NPPF states 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. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within itssetting. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification. Substantial harm to or loss of a grade II listed building, park or garden should be exceptional. Substantial harm to or loss of designated heritage assets of the highest significance, notably scheduled monuments, protected wreck sites, battlefields, grade I and II* listed buildings, grade I and II* registered parks and gardens, and World Heritage Sites, should be wholly exceptional. (para 132).
The local planning authority have visited the application site and assessed the visual relationship between the site and Killerton Estate. Killerton estate is a grade II* registered park and garden. The relationship between the site and Killerton estate has also been assessed from the public footpath between Killerton and Hayne Lane, and from the public footpath that runs north east- south west close to the north western boundary of Killerton Estate. It has been concluded that the proposed additional uses of the application site will result in ‘less substantial harm’ to the setting of Killerton Estate.
Any less than substantial harm to the setting of Killerton Estate is considered to be outweighed by the provision of two further pitches within the site that would provide additional housing within the district in a location that is considered to be acceptable for the provision of traveller accommodation and the proposal is therefore considered to pass the test regarding harm to heritage assets as set out in paragraph 134 NPPF.
(vi) *Report previously circulated, copy attached to minutes.