Single-storey dwelling at Land At Mount Pleasant, Pilton, Shepton Mallet

What was proposed

The application proposed demolishing a stone coach house and building a single-storey dwelling.

“This application seeks planning permission for the demolition of an existing stone coach house and the erection of a single‑storey dwelling.”

“The proposal is for the demolition of an existing stone building and the erection of a single storey dwelling.”

Officer report

The site

The site is accessed from a shared driveway and lies within the Somerset Levels and Moors Ramsar Risk Area.

“Sutley House is located in the east of the village of Pilton. The site is accessed from a shared driveway (shared by legal agreement) off of Mount Pleasant.”

“The site is within the Somerset Levels and Moors Ramsar Risk Area, relating to elevated levels of phosphates within the internationally designated site.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval, finding limited harm that did not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the dwelling and small economic benefits.

“The proposal would result in a single additional dwelling where there is a shortfall. The proposal would also result in a small economic benefit to local shops and facilities. These benefits are considered minimal.”

“Therefore, the harm associated with the development is not considered to outweigh the benefits significantly and demonstrably.”

Officer report

Consultation and objections

The Parish Council and six local residents objected over overdevelopment, amenity, design, overlooking, overshadowing, materials and biodiversity.

“Pilton Parish Council: Overdevelopment of the site- the development negatively impacts neighbours on all sides, and the footprint of the new dwelling is significantly larger than the structure being replaced. The height of the proposed development overshadows adjacent properties. The new dwelling would overlook neighbours causing loss of privacy. The materials to be used increase the impact on the neighbours by using black timber cladding instead of natural stone.”

Officer report

Who spoke

Objectors challenged the building’s scale, materials, privacy and lighting; a neutral speaker raised access concerns; the agent supported approval.

Member debate

Members debated the scale, design, materials, fenestration, light spill, neighbouring amenity and how access could be protected during construction.

“Concerns over scale, design, and impact on neighbours, highlighting strong local feeling and the need to reflect community concerns more clearly. • Questions were raised about whether the proposal was appropriate for the constrained site, given proximity to neighbouring properties and potential cumulative impact on amenity.”

“Clarification was sought on existing vs proposed height. Officers confirmed the existing building was approximately 5m high and the proposed building 5.2m. • Members queried whether Pilton had a conservation area; Officers confirmed that it does, but the site lies outside it. • Members asked for comparison of floor area and were advised that the previous approved scheme was approximately 81 sqm and that this proposed scheme was 115 sqm.”

Minutes

The vote

A proposal for approval was defeated after the Chair used her casting vote, and a refusal proposal then passed by six votes to five with one abstention.

“After a full discussion a proposal was made by Councillor Alistair Hendry to approve the application with additional conditions relating to the Construction Management Plan and light-spill controls. This was seconded by Councillor Martin Lovell. There were 6 votes in favour and 6 votes against. The Chair then used her casting vote against approval.”

“On being put to the vote the proposal to refuse was carried with 6 votes in favour, 5 votes against and 1 abstention.”

Minutes

The decision

The application was refused because the dwelling was too large and harmful to nearby residential amenity, with inappropriate materials and fenestration.

“That planning application 2025/1953/FUL be REFUSED contrary to the Officer’s recommendation due to the size and scale of the proposed dwelling and the impact on the residential amenity of nearby properties, the inappropriate choice of materials which were not in keeping with the local vernacular and the inappropriate level of fenestration.”

Minutes