32 dwellings at Land At Sub Road, Butleigh, Glastonbury

What was proposed

The application sought reserved matters for up to 32 dwellings, including layout, scale, appearance, landscaping and access.

“The Officer’s Report stated this application sought approval for reserved matters for up to 32 dwellings, including details of layout, scale, appearance, landscaping and access. The application was originally presented at Planning Committee – East on November 5, 2024. The Officer Recommendation was for approval subject to a number of conditions and the completion of a S106 legal agreement to secure Phosphate Mitigation.”

Minutes

Why officers updated their recommendation

A Supreme Court ruling meant phosphate mitigation could no longer be secured, so officers recommended approval with an added energy condition instead.

“Members were reminded that the Committee had previously resolved to approve the application, subject to a Section 106 agreement and conditions. An update was provided explaining that a recent Supreme Court judgement meant that phosphate mitigation could no longer lawfully be secured for this application due to the timing of the original outline consent.”

“The Officer recommendation was therefore updated to approval without the previously proposed phosphate mitigation obligation but with the addition of a condition (9) regarding details of energy conservation and efficiency measures.”

Minutes

Objections

Three speakers objected over rural character, loss of buffer land, access arrangements and division in the community.

“There were three speakers in objection to the proposal which included the following concerns:”

“Rural character and precedent. • Loss of environmental buffer land. • Access arrangements and footpath connectivity. • Community division arising from unresolved access issues.”

Minutes

Who spoke

Objectors raised access and character concerns, and the applicant's agent set out the site's planning history and affordable housing.

What members debated

Members discussed the unresolved footpath link beyond the site, phosphate mitigation, parking and a retaining wall for boundary properties.

“Public Concerns: • One Member requested that fears and issues raised by public speakers be addressed. The Chair noted disappointment that the opportunity was used to criticize members, emphasizing that the committee was not influenced by developers. • The Member addressed the concerns of one of the public speakers regarding a 2m drop at the end of her garden. Planning Officers confirmed that hoarding would remain during construction but that no development had commenced yet.”

“Since November 2024, discussions have continued but the connection beyond the site remains unresolved. • There was a query raised whether a condition could be added that if, post approval, the Parish Council were not successful in resolving the access arrangements, a waiver be added requiring resolution post-approval. The Lead Officer confirmed that this was not legally possible as the Inspector’s decision only required the link to the site boundary.”

Minutes

The decision

The application was approved in accordance with the officer's updated recommendation.

“That planning application 2022/2489/REM be APPROVED in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation.”

Minutes