February 2015:

I have just been informed that Latona Leisure have submitted an Appeal against Mendip District Council’s refusal of permission for the development of the rest of the Bath Road Heights site for 8 new 4 and 5 bedroom detached homes (ref 2014/0981/FUL) on Bath Road at the northern edge of Frome.

I commented on the planning application at the time, that I considered it likely that most residents would be happy to see the site built out now (instead of leaving the site derelict), but that council policies needed to be complied with. I also asked for a new pedestrian crossing here across Bath Road so residents can walk into town or the College safely, which Latona agreed to in principle. See here for the previous article on this. Funding was also obtained late last year from Latona under an earlier wider outline planning application’s ‘Section 106 Agreement’ to promote tourism in Frome (to compensate for the demolition of the former Mendip Lodge Hotel).

Mendip District Council refused the planning application in August 2014 with four reasons for refusal:

1. risks to the large trees protected by Tree Preservation Order, and the area’s character and appearance. The Tree Officer had “major concerns” and doubted the TPO trees could be protected;
2. the mix and type of houses not meeting identified local needs;
3. the scale, mass and height of the dwellings not reflecting the character and appearance of the area;
4. the lack of adequate provision for public recreational open space and affordable housing.

The appeal, ref. APP/Q3305/W/14/3001194, will be heard by an Informal Hearing by the Planning Inspectorate. Latona have prepared a ‘Statement of Case’ to rebut these reasons, and they also propose revisions to the development layout in order to avoid impacts on the TPO trees, including by reducing the size of some of the houses. Mendip will prepare their statement before 11^th February.

I am preparing a statement for the Appeal, as one of the ward councillors, so if anyone has any comments or information please let me know before 9th February, to help me submit a response. You can also check the documents and submit a response yourself. I can provide the Appellant’s Statement of Case (although I await the appendices), as well as the notification from Mendip. Please see here for the previous plans which were refused.

For more details please contact me by email aomboyden@yahoo.co.uk or phone 07809 284817.

Councillor Adam Boyden, Frome College ward

Update 10 Feb 2015

The planning appeal hearing  is to be held in the Mendip District Council Chamber, Cannards Grave Road, Shepton Mallet, on Tuesday 31^st March 2015 starting at 10am. Official notification letters will be sent at the beginning of March giving full details to all interested parties.

The Planning Inspectorate’s webpage on this appeal is here.

My letter to the Planning Inspectorate, which I sent today by post, is copied below:

‘Planning Appeal reference APP/Q3305/W/14/3001194: Appeal Proposal: 8 new dwellings with associated roads, paths, gardens and drives

Appeal Location: Mendip Lodge Site, Bath Road, Frome, Somerset BA11 2HP: Appellant: Mr N Gray of Limply Stoke Hotel

I write as one of the ward councillors for the former Mendip Lodge Hotel site (Bath Road Heights), on Mendip District Council and Frome Town Council. I wish to comment on the appeal and planning application as follows:

I understand that residents of phase 1 development at the former Mendip Lodge Hotel site are generally very happy with the planning application in principal and would like the development built out as soon as possible. Currently the site is derelict and an eyesore with various materials on site, and detracts from the area.

I was concerned at the impact of the planning application on the major TPO protected trees on site, due to the proposed building within Root Protection Areas, and agreed with the concerns of the Mendip District Council Tree Officer at the time. The revisions to the proposals as set out in the appellant’s Statement of Case appear to overcome these objections by reducing the size of the dwellings. I would like to see the Tree Officer’s comments and hope that this issue can now be resolved through amendments to the plans.

Most importantly I remain concerned that the development gives rise to a need for a safe pedestrian crossing to be provided across Bath Road, including a suitable length of footpath, to enable pedestrian access between the site and the rest of Frome. I support MDC’s and Somerset Highways’ previous requirement, as enshrined in the Section 106 Agreement for the previous outline planning application, that a footpath and pedestrian crossing are secured by legal agreement and delivered prior to occupation. I am not concerned about the need for a new bus layby as the current bus stop adjacent to the site (within the highway) appears to be adequate. Currently there is no pedestrian crossing, and no pavement provided to the south of the site, which means that pedestrians walking from the site have to cross Bath Road unaided to get out of the site to go anywhere. The site is within a 30mph zone within Frome but close to the edge of town at the Cuckoo Lane/Gypsy Lane junction where the national speed limit of 60mph applies northwards to Oldford village. Vehicles tend to speed up travelling north approaching the 60mph zone leaving Frome. Vehicles travelling southwards from Oldford coming into Frome have been doing up to 60mph and are asked to slow down to 30, but may not all have done so by the time they reach the site, as there is no traffic calming. A bus stop enable passengers from elsewhere in Frome to get off at the site on the northbound carriageway, using services 234 and 267 amongst others. Pupils of Frome Community College use the bus service to get off the bus there, and are dropped off at the Mendip Lodge site entrance by parents travelling northbound. All have to cross Bath Road unaided to get to the College. I have alerted Frome Community College’s Principal Gavin Ball to this and I hope that he will respond separately. The appellant Latona Leisure has previously accepted the need to provide a pedestrian crossing as part of the development – Mr Nick Gray emailed me on 18 March 2014 and stated ‘As mentioned before should the council accept our revised scheme we will be happy to provide a pedestrian crossing.’ I was therefore concerned to read in the appellant’s Statement of Case that the need for a pedestrian crossing is being explained away, as para 6.88 states ‘It is the opinion of the Appellant that the request for a bus layby and crossing cannot be implemented at the site due to site constraints,…’ and further discussion focuses on the layby, without any explanation in relation to a crossing. I would therefore strongly request that a safe pedestrian crossing and suitable length of footpath be required to be provided as part of the development. I would be very concerned at public safety if the development proceeds without a safe crossing for pedestrians.

I was not concerned at the scale of development (given the scale has now potentially been reduced to avoid impacts on TPO trees), the character or types of dwellings proposed, as these appear to be consistent with the existing Phase 1 development of 6 dwellings, and the previous 3 dwellings built beforehand on the approach.

I was concerned at the apparent non-compliance with MDC’s emerging (now adopted) Local Plan policy on affordable housing as the development would appear to warrant a contribution to off-site delivery of affordable housing, rather than on site provision, given the small number of houses proposed. I hope that a satisfactory mechanism can be agreed.

I trust my comments can be taken into account at the Hearing. Yours faithfully, Adam Boyden, Mendip District and Frome Town Councillor (Frome College ward)’

Update 27 April 2015:

The Planning Inspector has refused permission for the submitted planning application 2014/0981/FUL, on three grounds – protection of trees, the housing mix, and a lack of affordable housing. The Inspector’s decision can be found here: Planning Inspectorate decision.

The applicants Latona had asked the Inspector to put aside application 2014/0981/FUL and instead consider amended plans (as an outline application with illustrative detail) which at least protected the TPO trees better, but the Inspector refused to do that. I argued that residents wanted the houses built as soon as possible (as the site is currently an eyesore), but that the large trees should be protected that we need a pedestrian crossing for Bath Road residents and College pupils to cross safely. I now hope that Latona can be persuaded to come back to Mendip with a fully revised planning application that fully protects the large TPO trees, has a housing mix more acceptable to Mendip planners, and a firm offer of affordable housing, on or off site, as that would surely be granted permission soon.

 

   7 Comments