Agenda item

The following item will be considered in the morning session starting at 11am:

1.  22/03580/FUL Former Welton Bibby And Baron Factory, Station Road, Welton, Midsomer Norton

The Committee considered:

A report by the Head of Planning on various planning applications under the main applications list.

Oral statements by members of the public and representatives. A copy of the speakers’ list is attached as Appendix 1 to these minutes.

(1)  22/03580/FUL Former Welton Bibby And Baron Factory, Station Road, Welton, Midsomer Norton

The Case Officer introduced his report which considered the application for enabling works including demolition, groundworks, flood mitigation and formation of a 2m footpath.

He gave a verbal update to confirm:

1.  The report had been updated since the previous meeting:

1.  the application had been screened under the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations (EIA) 2017 and it was concluded that it did not represent EIA development.

2.  Condition 3 relating to highways improvements and Condition 6 relating to the rebuilding of brewery façade had now been removed as conditions and replacement obligations included as part of a Section 106 Agreement instead.

3.  Heritage policies had been clarified. 

2.  Petitions had been received in support of the application totalling 218 signatures, although one signature was accompanied by the comment ‘keep as it is please’.

He confirmed the officer recommendation that officers be delegated to permit subject to:

1.  A Section 106 Agreement to cover the following:

1.  Highways works including:

  a.  Widening of the Station Road carriageway.

  b.  Provision of a 2m footpath along west side of Station Road.

  c.  Widening of footpath to 1.8m along east side of Station Road

  d.  Provision of two pedestrian crossing points on Station Road.

2.  Submission and approval of programme relating to the demolition and rebuilding of the former brewery building façade.

2.  Suitable conditions.

The following public representations were received:

1.  Cllr Michael Moxham, Midsomer Norton Town Council, speaking in support of the application.

2.  Jane Lewis, local resident, objecting to the application.

3.  Nigel Whitehead, agent, speaking in support of the application.

Cllr Michael Auton was in attendance as local ward member and raised the following points:

1.  The current pavement was narrow, and it was difficult for pedestrians to navigate.  The proposal to widen the footpath would benefit pedestrians.

2.  The site had been vacant for a number of years and was in need of redevelopment.  Seagulls were nesting on the site and causing a public nuisance.

3.  He had received a lot of representations from local residents who wanted to see the site redeveloped.  He had not received any representations about retaining the brewery building. 

4.  He asked the Committee to support the application.

In response to Members’ questions, it was confirmed:

1.  There would not be an impact on Station Road if an additional bus service was introduced as the road was already used by large vehicles.  The proposed highway improvements would not solve all issues along the full stretch of the road and other works may be required when the site was further developed in the future. 

2.  The application did conflict with policy SSV4 which stated the brewery building should be retained, but officers considered that this was outweighed by pedestrian and highway benefits, improved connectivity to the High Street and the opening up of the views in the conservation area by the removal of the modern intrusive industrial buildings. As it was a departure to the Development Plan, the Secretary of State would need to be notified if the application was permitted.

3.  In terms of the brewery building, there were benefits that would arise from the demolition which couldn’t be delivered with the building remaining in situ.  One potential benefit was that the enabling works may encourage developer interest.

4.  The rebuilding of the brewery façade and the highway improvements would be included in the Section 106 Agreement and so action could be taken against the developer if these were not delivered.

5.  Only the buildings in phase 1 of the site would be demolished, updated ecology surveys had not completed on the other buildings.

Cllr Shaun Hughes opened the debate as local ward member.  He stated that he had been contacted by a lot of residents who were frustrated that the site had not been developed and while half of those were happy for the brewery building to be demolished to facilitate the development, the other half wanted the building to be retained as part of the regeneration of the site due to its historic significance.  He expressed concern that the Committee was being asked to permit the enabling works without the knowledge of how the site would be developed. 

Cllr Eleanor Jackson expressed similar concerns about granting consent for the partial demolition of the site. 

Cllr Hal MacFie stated that it was a difficult application, but he was concerned about the risk of long-term damage to the brewery building and commended officers for seeking to retain the façade.  He moved the officer recommendation to permit the application.  This was seconded by Cllr Paul Crossley who stated that the enabling works were necessary to start the process of redevelopment as well as address safety concerns around the existing footpath. 

Cllr Fiona Gourley commented that she would have preferred to see a proposal for the whole of the site.  Cllr Lucy Hodge concurred with this view and questioned some of the public benefits as there was no guarantee that the open views would be retained.  She stated she was unable to support the application.

Cllr Tim Warren stated that although the site needed redevelopment, he did not support the current application and would have preferred to see the whole site demolished and the brewery building rebuilt further back on the site as part of the redevelopment. 

Cllr Ian Halsall stated that the brewery building was not a listed building and the site had been derelict for many years and although the loss of an historic building was disappointing, he believed this was outweighed by the public benefits.  He reminded the Committee that it could only consider the application as submitted.

On voting for the motion to approve the officer recommendation to delegate to permit, it was NOT CARRIED (4 in favour, 5 against)

Cllr Shaun Hughes moved that the application be refused for the reason that it was contrary to policy SSV4, and this conflict with the development plan was not outweighed by the public benefits of the application.  This was seconded by Cllr Eleanor Jackson.

On being put to the vote the motion was CARRIED (5 in favour, 4 against)

RESOLVED  that the application be refused for the following reason:

1.  The application was contrary to policy SSV4 and this conflict with the development plan was not outweighed by the public benefits of the application.

[Cllr Alex Beaumont left the meeting at this point]