IS THIS TOLLING THE DEATH KNELL OF OUR ANCIENT CHURCHES?

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.