Up to 40 homes at Land At Prestleigh Road, Evercreech, Shepton Mallet

Earlier committee decision

The application was previously refused because of agricultural land loss and insufficient information about noise and odour from a nearby pig farm.

“That planning application 2024/0406/OUT be REFUSED contrary to the Officer’s recommendation for the following reasons: The proposed development would result in the loss of agricultural land, which is a finite resource. The proposed development is close to a pig farm on Watery Lane.”

“Officers are of the view that, as the reason Members resolved to refuse permission was in part due to considering they had insufficient information regarding residential amenity for future occupiers, this additional material should be presented to Members prior to any decision on the application being made / issued.”

Officer report

Officers advised approval

Officers considered the small loss of Grade 3 agricultural land outweighed by housing benefits and found the odour evidence acceptable for future residents.

“Officers understand that Agricultural Land is a finite resource, however the subject site is Grade 3 land and extends to less than 2 ha. In light of the need to deliver new homes in the most sustainable locations, the loss of this small – not significant within the Government’s longstanding definition – area of Agricultural Land is considered by Officers to be outweighed by the benefits of the development that would accrue.”

“The report concludes that: “Combining the results of the assessment together with the lack of odour complaint history and the results of the odour observation site visits, the effect of odour from the Water Lane farm on the proposed development site as a whole is considered to be negligible (excluding the small section of the north west corner where the C98, 1-hour 3ouE/m3 odour benchmark criteria is predicted to encroach in to the site).”

Officer report

Environmental health response

Environmental Health considered most of the site suitable for homes, with the affected area reserved for open space, and raised no objection on odour grounds.

“I have reviewed the detailed odour assessment and the odour developable area plan. The detailed odour assessment has assessed the odour impact using dispersion modelling, which has taken into account, meteorological conditions based on data for the previous five years and topography..”

“Based on the results of the dispersion modelling the report notes that the majority of the site is suitable for the proposed development, with the exception of a small part of the north east area of the site. The odour developable area plan indicates that this part of the site is designated for public open space etc, there are no dwelling which fall under his area.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The planning officer presented the application, while the applicant’s representative addressed the updated modelling, agricultural land loss and sustainability benefits.

Members’ concerns

Members questioned the reliability of odour modelling, noise assessment, road and pedestrian safety, and risks to the existing agricultural business.

“Speaking on behalf of the applicant, [name withheld] commented that the: • Updated odour modelling meets accepted thresholds • Loss of agricultural land is modest • Proposal offers sustainability gains In the discussion which followed a number of comments were made including the following: • Strong concern about odour modelling reliability due to absence of pigs at the time • Risks to the existing agricultural business • Lack of noise assessment • Road and pedestrian safety…”

Minutes

The committee vote

Councillors voted 11 for refusal, none against and 2 abstentions.

“Votes – 11 for, 0 against, 2 abstentions.”

Minutes

The application was refused

The committee refused permission because agricultural land and the nearby pig farm could be harmed, residential amenity was not demonstrated, and harms outweighed benefits.

“RESOLVED That planning application 2024/0406/OUT be REFUSED contrary to the Officer’s recommendation for the same reasons as previously given, these being that the proposed development would result in the loss of agricultural land (with its attendant economic benefits), which is a finite resource. The proposed development is close to a pig farm on Watery Lane.”

Minutes