Meeting documents

The minutes of the meeting held on 18^th July 2018, copies of which had been circulated, were taken as read, and having been approved were signed as a correct record of the proceedings.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Marcus Barrett, Amanda Broom, Jenny Kenton, Paul Maxwell, Sue Osborne and Angie Singleton. 

In accordance with the Council's current Code of Conduct (as amended 26 February 2015), which includes all the provisions relating to Disclosable Pecuniary Interests (DPI), personal and prejudicial interests, Members are asked to declare any DPI and also any personal interests (and whether or not such personal interests are also "prejudicial") in relation to any matter on the agenda for this meeting.

Members are reminded that they need to declare the fact that they are also a member of a County, Town or Parish Council as a Personal Interest.  Where you are also a member of Somerset County Council and/or a Town or Parish Council within South Somerset you must declare a prejudicial interest in any business on the agenda where there is a financial benefit or gain or advantage to Somerset County Council and/or a Town or Parish Council which would be at the cost or to the financial disadvantage of South Somerset District Council. 

Planning Applications Referred to the Regulation Committee

The following members of this Committee are also members of the Council's Regulation Committee:

Councillors Mike Best, Angie Singleton and Martin Wale.

Where planning applications are referred by this Committee to the Regulation Committee for determination, Members of the Regulation Committee can participate and vote on these items at the Area Committee and at Regulation Committee.  In these cases the Council's decision-making process is not complete until the application is determined by the Regulation Committee.  Members of the Regulation Committee retain an open mind and will not finalise their position until the Regulation Committee.  They will also consider the matter at Regulation Committee as Members of that Committee and not as representatives of the Area Committee.

There were no declarations of interest made. 

Councillors are requested to note that the next Area West Committee meeting is scheduled to be held on Wednesday 19^th September at 5.30pm in the Guildhall, Chard.

Members noted that the next meeting of the Area West Committee would be held on Wednesday 19^th September 2018 at 5.30pm at The Guildhall, Chard.

This is a chance to ask questions, make comments and raise matters of concern.

Parish/Town Councils may also wish to use this opportunity to ask for the District Council’s support on any matter of particular concern to their Parish/Town.

Anyone wishing to raise matters in relation to items on the agenda may do so at the time the item is considered.

A resident of Chard asked why the Lidl planning application at Tapstone Lane in Chard had not been determined by the Area West Committee.  He said that serious concerns had been raised by the public on the effect of traffic in East Street and the effect of the development on the viability of the town centre and they had been denied their opportunity to express their views at a Committee meeting.

Councillor Dave Bulmer said he had fully considered the officer’s report and the consultee responses and as he agreed with the officers’ recommendation to approve, he had agreed that permission be granted under the Scheme of Delegation.  The Highway Authority had raised concerns with the application initially but the applicant had negotiated to address them and the application was agreed with 23 planning conditions attached to it. 

Councillor Ric Pallister noted that 90% of planning applications were determined by officers without referral to a committee and the permission had now been granted but he agreed to look into the resident’s concerns.

The Chairman advised that this would be her last meeting as the Chairman of the Area West Committee as she would shortly assume the role of Leader of Council and she thanked her fellow Councillors on the Committee for their support and assistance during her Chairmanship. 

Councillor Ric Pallister read out a statement on behalf of Councillor Amanda Broom updating the Committee on the proposed future of the Cresta swimming pool in Chard.  He reported that over 100 members of the public had attended a public meeting the previous week to offer their support. Three options for the future of the pool had been considered and it was unanimously decided to find enough volunteers, explore fund raising avenues and keep the pool open from 4th September.

Councillor Pallister said that he had also tried to ascertain the facts from Somerset County Council about the Health and Safety related maintenance costs that had precipitated the proposed closure, however, he had received no response from the Portfolio Holder. 

RESOLVED: that Councillor Jason Baker be elected Chairman of the Area West Committee from 1^st September 2018 for the remainder of the municipal year 2018/19.

(Voting:  without dissent)

Councillor Ric Pallister, seconded by Councillor Mike Best, nominated Councillor Jason Baker as Chairman of Area West Committee.

There being no other nominations, it was:

RESOLVED: that Councillor Jason Baker be elected Chairman of the Area West Committee from 1^st September 2018 for the remainder of the municipal year 2018/19.

(Voting:  without dissent)

(Voting: unanimous in favour)

The Neighbourhood Development Officer advised that this was a very busy community centre which hosted many events and was regularly used by the Rainbows, Brownies and Girl Guides.   The wooden floor was very old and in need of replacing otherwise the hall would have to close.

The Chairman of the Trustees spoke in support of the grant.  He said it was regularly used and the Management Committee had already raised almost half of the target amount of £30,000 to replace the floor.  In response to a question from Members, he clarified that the rent from the flat above the hall was used to service a mortgage on the property.

The Ward Member, Councillor Mike Best, said this was a Grade 2 listed hall which was well used and he urged Members to support the grant application.

During a brief discussion, concern was expressed at the comparatively low grant from the Town Council towards the work.  The Communities Lead confirmed that the grant request had been considered by the Town Council some months previously and they may have had limited funds at that time.  There was an expectation that Town and Parish Councils would normally contribute 10% of the cost of a scheme and this was mentioned in the grants application form.  The Communities Lead agreed that, for future applications where lower sums have been secured from the parish the officers report should explain why this is the case.

At the conclusion of the debate, Members unanimously confirmed the grant of up to £12,500 to the Speedwell Hall, Crewkerne towards replacing the wooden floor.

(Voting: unanimous in favour)

Members noted the report which outlined the details of appeals that had been received, allowed and dismissed.

The Communities Lead advised that there would be a workshop prior to the Area West Committee meeting in September to discuss the new Economic Development Strategy.  There would also be a report in September for Members to discuss their chosen Area Priorities before they were put forward into the Corporate Plan. 

It was also requested that an update report on the Cresta Pool be presented to the Committee in September. 

Members noted the schedule of planning applications to be determined as outlined in the agenda.

Application Proposal: Application to vary condition 1 and remove condition 2 of appeal decision 3149762 (25/10/2016) to allow unrestricted B8 use (storage / distribution)

The Planning Officer introduced the application and outlined the history of the site.  He noted the building was granted permission on appeal by the planning inspector for a self-storage business use only.  The appeal was allowed using TRICS vehicle movement data which predicted 16 vehicle movements per day to and from the site and 1 HGV movement.  A sensitivity test conducted by the applicants for the unrestricted B8 use had predicted an additional 6 vehicle movements per day which would be 22 in total.  Taking this into account, with the NPPF approach to Highway Safety and the Planning Inspectors evidence at that time, officers concluded the additional vehicle movements generated would not be so severe and so recommended approval of the application with conditions.

In response to questions from Members, the Planning Officer and the Highway Consultant advised:-

·         The building had been 80% complete when the owners appealed the enforcement notice requiring demolition of the building. 

·         The Highway definition of severe impact upon traffic was not defined but there were a number of planning appeals where it was cited.  16 vehicle movements during a whole day was not an intensive use.

·         There were one or two places where vehicles could pass in Mill Lane and visibility was deficient which the planning inspector had acknowledged.

·         It was difficult to control a set number vehicle movements if this was a condition of approval.  The applicants had stated the traffic would be no greater than that of the earlier application/appeal decision.

·         There was a self-storage business in the business park but the subject building had not been used for self-storage.

The Committee were addressed by one Lopen resident in opposition to the application.  Their comments included:-

·         There was a disappointing history of non-compliance at the site.

·         The appeal had been allowed for self storage only and only two years later they were seeking to change this.

·         There was a good reason why there was a 7.5 tonne weight limit through Lopen. 

·         Lopen Parish Council argued clearly that there were breaches of planning conditions.

The Committee were addressed by the Agent for the applicant.  Their comments included:-

·         Conditions had been imposed by the appeal inspector but since then circumstances had changed.

·         The building was on an established park and pre-application advice had been sought.

·         There would be no severe highways impact and the applicants had no issue with the conditions proposed by officers.

In response to further questions from Members, the Highway Consultant advised:-

·         The 7.5 tonne weight limit did not apply to vehicles requiring access.

·         The TRICS traffic assessment before the planning inspector was based upon self-storage use and it was assessed at 16 vehicle movements per day.  A TRICS assessment on B8 business use was also assessed at the same 16 vehicle movements per day.

During discussion, Members expressed concern at the number of vehicle movements along  ...  view the full minutes text for item 44.

Application proposal: Erection of 25 dwellings and formation of access (outline)

The Planning Officer introduced the application and outlined the history of the site.  He advised that the Local Plan allowed for some development in rural settlements and Ashill had some limited facilities and so was acceptable for development. Historical applications at the site had been refused permission because of impact on the area but settlements previously had development boundaries which no longer existed.  His recommendations was to approve the application with conditions.

In response to questions from Members, the Planning Officer advised:-

·         There were no shops in the village and the bus service had declined but this was one aspect of the whole application.

·         SSDC were investigating setting up their own management company to maintain foul and surface water drainage in the long term at such developments.

·         There was another application for the development of 26 houses to the east of the village which had not been determined.

·         Although the Local Plan had provided an expected target of 2,242 homes across all the rural settlements, with completions and commitments, this figure was now at 2,700.

·         The Highway Authority did not consider that the highways impact would be severe and did not raise an objection to the scheme.

The Committee were addressed by the Clerk to Ashill Parish Council, a local resident and a representative for the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE) who all spoke in opposition to the application.  Their comments included:-

·         The Parish Council were extremely concerned that their comments may be ignored.

·         The scheme did not promote local distinctiveness and was only a few metres away from a flood zone 3 area.

·         The impact of the development would not outweigh the benefits and a site visit should be made before making a decision. 

·         The impact on the Council’s housing target would be negligible.

·         More applications were being approved with no access to facilities or transport.

·         This was a speculative application in the wrong area.

The Committee were addressed by the planning consultant on behalf of the applicants.  He said they had discussed the site with planning officers in 2016 and 2017 and they found the site sustainable and developable.  They had originally proposed 40 houses at the site but reduced this to 30.  Public consultation had taken place and a balanced response had been received. He said there would be no significant landscape harm and he urged the Committee to grant permission.  

The Ward Member, Councillor Linda Vijeh, said she did not feel this was a sustainable location and although she accepted the highway officers’ comments, she did not agree with them.  She proposed the application be refused permission.

During discussion, varying views were expressed.  Some members felt the sustainability of the site was not proven and the application should be refused, whilst others felt that the village should grow to survive and keep the school and other facilities open.

The Senior Planning Adviser stated that the application should help the sustainability of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 45.

Application proposal: The erection of 4 No. detached dwellings with garaging, parking and private drive

The Lead Planning Officer introduced the application and outlined the history of the site.  He advised that the application was referred to the Committee as SSDC owned the land serving a car park which allowed access to the site.  Terms had been agreed with the Council for the applicant to use Essex Close as means of access to the development.  There would be no overlooking of neighbouring properties and although the Town Council had objected because of density the officer concluded this was a low density proposal.   

In response to questions from Members, the Planning Officer confirmed there were no objections from environmental protection and a previous interest by a member of the Committee no longer existed as the interest had been sold.

The Committee were addressed by a representative of Chard Cricket Club who welcomed the application as developing the vacant land would provide an element of security to the cricket ground.  He questioned the officer’s report which said that 6 metre safety netting would be erected along the northern boundary to prevent cricket balls from entering the application site.  He asked that this be increased to a 10 metre high fence for safety reasons. 

The Agent for the applicant said this was a modest development of 4 bungalows, close to the town’s facilities and bus routes.  He confirmed they would be happy to increase the height of the safety fencing. 

The Lead Planning Officer said he understood the 6 metre safety fencing had been agreed between the developer and the cricket club but he was happy to agree to increase the height to 10 metres.  He noted the fencing could be taken down in between games.   

During a brief discussion, Members voiced their support for the development with an amendment to condition 4 to increase the height of the safety fencing.  It was proposed and seconded that the application be approved and on being put to the vote was unanimously agreed.