Agenda item

The Committee considered

• The report of the Development Manager on two planning applications at Midsomer Pet Lodge, Paulto’ Hill, Paulton

• An Update Report by the Development Manager on Item 2, the Report being attached as Appendix 1 to these Minutes

• An oral statement by a Trustee for Greyhound Rescue West of England speaking on behalf of the applicants, the Speakers List being attached as Appendix 2 to these Minutes

RESOLVED that, in accordance with their delegated powers, the applications be determined as set out in the Decisions List as attached as Appendix 3 to these Minutes.

Item 1 Midsomer Pet Lodge, Paulto’ Hill, Paulton – Erection of replacement kennel building (Retrospective) – The Case Officer reported on this application and his recommendation to Permit with conditions. He stated that the wording of the recommended Condition 3 relating to land drainage assessment would need to be amended to ensure that the drainage works were carried out.

Members discussed the proposal. Councillor Liz Hardman considered that the proposal would not have a greater impact on the countryside or highway as there was no significant increase of the existing facilities provided. Also the facility existed prior to the residential dwelling on land adjoining the site and she felt that the amenities of the residents would not be significantly affected. The proposal, however, would benefit from some landscaping. She pointed out that the Parish Council supported the application. Councillor Hardman then moved the Recommendation to Permit with conditions which was seconded by Councillor Les Kew. Councillor Eleanor Jackson then read out a comment received from Councillor John Bull, one of the Ward Councillors, who supported the application.

Members debated the motion. Councillor Martin Veal referred to the “dazzling effect of the spotlight” to which an objector had referred and he enquired whether this could be mitigated. The Case Officer advised that a condition could be added accordingly. The mover and seconder of the motion agreed to this addition. Councillor Doug Nicol queried whether photovoltaic cells could be added to the roof for renewable energy purposes. The Case Officer responded that this was not part of the current application and could not be included without negotiation with the applicants.

The motion was then put to the vote. Voting: 11 in favour and 0 against with 1 abstention. Motion carried.

Item 2 Midsomer Pet Lodge, Paulto’ Hill, Paulton – Use of store/office/cattery building as a 2 bedroomed dwelling and office with alterations to existing external appearance – The Case Officer reported on this application and his recommendation to Refuse permission. The Update Report commented on further letters of support received.

The public speaker made her statement in support of the proposal. The Senior Legal Adviser commented on some of the issues raised in the statement as regards the legal status of the current Enforcement Notice on the property and the consequences if permission was granted for this proposal.

Councillor Liz Hardman opened the debate. She considered that this was a long established enterprise which was acceptable in a rural area. The adjoining house was originally part of the enterprise but the land had been divided some years ago. She commented that this was a useful facility located only a short distance from the community and felt that the kennels needed residential occupation on site for the welfare of the animals. The occupation of the dwelling could be tied to the business. She therefore considered that the recommendation should be overturned and accordingly moved that permission be granted. The motion was seconded by Councillor Neil Butters. Councillor Eleanor Jackson then read out the comments of Councillor John Bull, one of the Ward Councillors, who supported the application.

The Chair commented on some of the issues raised by Councillor Hardman. Councillors Les Kew and Bryan Organ asked questions about Council Tax payments and also the Enforcement Notice applying to the premises to which the Senior Legal Adviser responded. Members debated the motion. Some Members considered that there needed to be permanent residential occupation on the site for the wellbeing of the animals. The issue of the Enforcement Notice was discussed. The Case Officer responded that the Notice still applied to the property but no action had been taken to prosecute due to the personal circumstances of the then occupiers. The Senior Legal Adviser responded on the legal situation if permission was either granted or refused. Reference was made by some Members to applications for residential dwellings required in conjunction with agriculture. Some Members were not convinced that permanent residential occupation was required on the site. The Chair pointed out that there was always the possibility that the business could fail or the applicants could retire etc which would then provide a permanent residence on the site without an allied business use. The Team Leader – Development Management emphasised the planning history of the site with a number of appeals against refusal being dismissed. The need for a permanent residential use had not been proven. He advised that, if permission was granted, it would need to be delegated to the Officers for appropriate conditions to be added. Also Members should be clear about the reasons for granting planning permission. It was also clarified that any permission would be subject to a Section 106 Agreement tying the residence to the business. This was accepted by the mover and seconder. Councillor Liz Hardman confirmed the reasons for granting permission.

The amended motion was then put to the vote. Voting: 6 in favour and 6 against. As there was an equality of voting, the Chair decided to use his second and casting vote against the motion. The voting was therefore 6 in favour and 7 against. Motion lost.

It was therefore moved by Councillor Les Kew to accept the Officer recommendation to Refuse permission which was seconded by Councillor Eleanor Jackson. The motion was put to the vote. Voting: 6 in favour and 6 against. As there was an equality of voting, the Chair decided to use his second and casting vote in support. Voting: 7 in favour and 6 against. Motion carried.