The full planning application 2023/0864/FUL for the ‘Erection of 74 dwellings, 1 no. children with disabilities home, including means of access, drainage, landscaping and associated works’ at the fields off Packsaddle Way in Frome was refused by a majority of Somerset Council’s Planning Committee – East on Tuesday 7th January.

It was recommended for approval in the case officer’s report (see item 5 at Agenda for Planning Committee – East on Tuesday, 7th January, 2025, 2.00 pm – Modern Council). At the meeting, following a presentation by the case officer, we heard objections from 3 members of the People for Packsaddle group, their planning lawyer, CPRE Somerset, and Frome Town Council, and I then spoke to encourage the committee to refuse it, as I had become predetermined.

After much debate, the committee voted to refuse the application 6 – 3 (with 2 abstentions) (see reasons below). The applicants had recently threatened to appeal, so we will see what happens next. The local community, the People for Packsaddle group and all objectors can allow themselves a brief period of rejoicing as the ‘community fields’ are saved as an open space, for now.

For details of the planning application at Packsaddle Way, please see Packsaddle planning application submitted. 

The decision was:

RESOLVED

That planning application 2023/0867/FUL be REFUSED contrary to the Officer’s recommendation for the following reasons:

The site is located outside of the housing development limit and is therefore contrary to the settlement strategy, as outlined in Policies CP1 (Mendip Spatial Strategy), CP2 (Supporting the Provision of New Housing) and CP4 (Sustaining Rural Communities) of the Mendip District Local Plan Part I. As the Council cannot currently demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply, the presumption in favour of sustainable development applies, as outlined in the National Planning Policy Framework. Although the site is adjacent to the settlement of Frome, the harms of the proposal would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. Harms include the principle of the proposal and being contrary to Policy  DP1 (Local Identity and Distinctiveness), Policy DP4 (Mendip’s Landscapes) and Part 1 of Policy DP16 (Open Space and Green Infrastructure) of the Mendip District Local Plan Part I. As such, the proposal is not considered to constitute sustainable development and is contrary to Policies CP1, CP2, CP4, DP1, DP4 and Part 1 of DP16 of the Mendip District Local Plan Part I and the National Planning Policy Framework.

My statement of objection, which I read out at the meeting, was as follows:

“I have been a councillor for this area of Frome for over 13 years now so I know this site and the local community that use it. This site has been used frequently and extensively as a green and open space, for walking, dog walking and other informal recreation for over 50 years.

The local community have used both a signposted permissive path and a public right of way within the site, and evidence of public use is the network of informal pathways that criss cross the site. I have had to point out in recent emails that the officers’ report contains several incorrect statements on the status of the footpaths and the nature of public access, which is important. But if this is not clear, you can defer this application until it is.

I would note there are over 265 objections to the application, and not one supporter. Not one.

The local community has formed a very effective community group and they clearly care about the effect this development would have on a green space they love.

If this application is granted permission, we would lose something really quite special here.

This site is outside the Local Plan’s development limit for Frome and is not allocated for development. The recent limited update of the Local Plan did not include this site due to concerns about ‘viability, open space use, ecology, sewage treatment works proximity and potential for refusal’. 

This site is a green space included in the Council’s own Greenspace Supplementary Planning Document.

This site is listed as an Asset of Community Value under the Localism Act 2011 because there was sufficient evidence presented to Mendip District Council’s ACV Panel who agreed in 2023 that the current primary use of the land was ‘community activity and informal recreation’ which furthers the social well-being or social interests of the local community.

The site has not been in active agricultural use for years apart from a brief and disastrous period of grazing in 2023 when cows kept escaping from the site as it is not stockproof.

Natural England (letter 12^th October 2023) states ‘it would appear that the proposed development would result in a loss of accessible greenspace.’  It is well known that access to green space has physical and mental health benefits.

There is also compelling evidence that this site can be classed as open space in the planning system, and therefore protected under Local Plan policy DP16 Open Space and Green Infrastructure, and the National Planning Policy Framework in paragraph 104, as a legal opinion obtained by the People for Packsaddle group from Richard Moules KC of Landmark Chambers, states that it does not matter ‘whether the site is a formal or dedicated public space’, or is identified specifically in the Local Plan, as it is the clearly demonstrated use for the purpose of public recreation (as defined in section 336 (1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990) that matters.

Any permission is vulnerable on this issue as the local community group are likely to seek a Judicial Review on the basis of any misinterpretation of policy, and they may have a point.

The local community have identified many other concerns with the application, including ecological impact, the loss of historic stone walls, sustainability and energy use, density of housing, and the risks to trees.

The proposed disabled children’s respite home would be welcome anywhere, but there is no way to secure it, so you cannot give this much weight.

But the main reason you can refuse this development is that it will destroy an open space, accessible greenspace, identified green infrastructure, a green space, and an asset of community value, which is used by and valued very highly by the public.

The adverse impacts on this open green space of public value can clearly, significantly and demonstrably outweigh the limited benefits of the application. Our Local Plan and the NPPF and other guidance protects open spaces, green spaces and green infrastructure from development.

So I urge the committee to refuse the application for the following reason:

• The development is outside the development limit, has an adverse impact on an area of open space [Local Plan policy DP16 and NPPF para 104] and green space of public value which has significant use by the community, and an adverse impact on the character of the area [Local Plan Policy DP1].

Thank you, Adam Boyden”

   Leave a comment