As a local councillor I pride myself on a level of
consistency when representing the local community. My words and actions may not
always find universal favour, but I hope that I am respected for my ability to
be objective and fair. In the day job as a hotel and restaurant inspector it is
imperative to be objective; personal preference does not come into it. Rather,
it is the ability to stand back and look at the evidence and make a judgement
on that basis.
It is a sad reflection of our modern-day society that the
only time that local residents show an interest in the business of their local
council is when they are dissatisfied; and boy can they kick up a fuss. Rightly
so, as it is their taxpayers’ money that funds both elected members, and the
officers who take decisions.
When it comes to local planning, it can be almost impossible
for those living and working in the communities most likely to be affected to
be objective. Although not as simple as it once was, an elected member of a
ward can ‘call in’ a decision by the planning officer, for consideration by
elected area members at their monthly meeting, although nowadays the Chair of
the Area Committee veto this. However, should it go to committee, and the recommendation
is to overturn the officer’s decision, the backstop position is for referral to
the Regulation Committee, comprised of elected members from across the
district, and which effectively acts as judge and jury. With me so far?
Whilst the threat of planning appeal decisions and the lack
of a 5-year land supply hangs over our heads like some ghostly spectre, there
is an increasing level of frustration and discontent at the inconsistency of
decisions being made.
This has recently been the case in Ashill, one of the
villages I represent. Recently, approval was refused for an application for
just three properties, despite it gaining universal support across the
community. The reasons given were the unsustainability of the village, and the
proposed development’s ‘negative impact on the local environmental amenity’. So
far so good, except that a few months prior to this decision, a much larger
development was given approval. Apparently, the benefits of having an
additional 25 properties in the heart of the village, without any proven local
need, far outweighs any adverse impact. Should we ignore then SSDC’s
Environmental Strategy, being compiled in haste, in favour of the additional
car journeys this will necessitate? Walking along the A358 to get to Ilminster
indicates a death wish.
A key reason for approval was the apparent sustainability of
the village. There is admittedly a primary school, but no shop, doctor, or any
other amenity, a bus that runs just 5 times per week, a pub which is closed and
has been up for sale for some time, and a church.
Ah yes, the church. Built in the 10th century, and according
to the National Planning Policy Framework, we must have ‘special regard for
preserving the setting, which is the essential part’ of this ancient historic
Grade 2* listed building’s character.
Hence, collective astonishment earlier this month as those
present witnessed the approval of a further 10 properties, in a field adjacent
to the Church of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
SSDC’s own website states, ‘The historic environment is an
essential part of South Somerset's rich cultural heritage; contributing to the
sense of identity and quality of life in the district, the local economy and
the well-being of our residents and visitors. Whether in the form of individual
buildings, archaeological sites, historic market towns or landscapes, the
conservation of this heritage and sustaining it for the benefit of future
generations is an important aspect of the role we play on behalf of the
community. The components of the historic environment are known as 'Heritage
Assets'. These are buildings, monuments, sites, areas or landscapes identified
as having a degree of significance meriting consideration in planning
decisions.’
In the face of this extraordinary decision should we be
fearful for the future of our ancient heritage sites? We should be afraid, very
afraid.