Meeting documents

Reason: To approve an allocation from the Area West Reserve.

(Voting: unanimous)

The Area Development Manager (West) introduced the report, which asked members to consider an allocation of £5,000 from the Area West Reserve to the project outlined in the report.

It was proposed and seconded to approve the recommendation as outlined in the report.  On being put to the vote the proposal was carried unanimously.

Reason: To approve an allocation from the Area West Reserve.

(Voting: unanimous)

The minutes of the meeting held on 20^th August 2014, copies of which had been circulated, were taken as read, and, having been approved, were signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

An apology for absence was received from Councillor Ric Pallister.

In accordance with the Council's current Code of Conduct (adopted July 2012), 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. A DPI is defined in The Relevant Authorities (Disclosable Pecuniary Interests) Regulations 2012 (SI 2012 No. 1464) and Appendix 3 of the Council’s Code of Conduct. A personal interest is defined in paragraph 2.8 of the Code and a prejudicial interest is defined in paragraph 2.9. 

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.  As a result of the change made to the Code of Conduct by this Council at its meeting on 15^th May 2014, 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.  If you have a prejudicial interest you must comply with paragraphs  2.9(b) and 2.9(c) of the Code.

In the interests of complete transparency, Members of the County Council, who are not also members of this committee, are encouraged to declare any interests they may have in any matters being discussed even though they may not be under any obligation to do so under any relevant code of conduct.

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 Linda Vijeh

Where planning applications are referred by this Committee to the Regulation Committee for determination, in accordance with the Council's Code of Practice on Planning, 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.

Councillor Dave Bulmer declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 9 – Feasibility of SSDC and Chard Town Council Sharing Customer Service Reception, as a member of Chard Town Council.

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.

No questions or comments were raised by members of the public.

The Chairman informed members that it had not been possible to bring the Betterment Properties application (Bradfords Site, Misterton) back to Committee this month as sufficient information had not been received.  It was hoped that the application would be ready to consider at the next Area West Committee meeting.

Reference was made to the agenda report, which informed members of the proposed Area West Forward Plan.

The Area Development Manager (West) informed members that the Historic Buildings at Risk report due to be considered at the October meeting would be deferred to the December meeting.

A member made a request for an update on the Chard Regeneration Project.  In response, the Area Development Manager (West) agreed to pass on the request and hopefully an update report would be brought to the Committee by the end of the year.

Members were content to approve the Forward Plan as attached to the agenda subject to the above amendments.

(Resolution passed without dissent)

The Area Development Manager (West) summarised the agenda report, which recommended that the option for Chard Town Council and SSDC to offer a shared customer service desk in the Chard Guildhall is not taken up at the present time.  It was concluded that, taken in isolation, the potential benefits to customers of sharing a front desk service in the Guildhall would not justify the estimated costs involved.

During discussion on the item, the Ward Members expressed their disappointment over the conclusion of the review.  They felt that the option for a shared desk should be kept open and reviewed again as both the costs and benefits involved in working towards a partnership approach could change in the future.

(Voting: resolution passed without dissent)

There were no planning applications referred to the Regulation Committee.

The Committee noted the details contained in the agenda report, which informed members of a planning appeal decision.

NOTED.

Members noted the Schedule of Planning Applications to be determined by the Committee.

The Planning Officer with the aid of slides and photographs summarised the details of the application as set out in the agenda report including the key considerations.  The Planning Officer’s recommendation was for approval.  The Planning Officer updated the report with the following information:

·         The Highway Authority had been asked to response to residents’ concerns over the number of vehicles movements.  The response from the Highway Authority was read out to members of the Committee.  They concluded that 10 movements was unlikely to present a ‘severe’ impact on the highway network;

·         Correspondence had been received from Hinton St George Parish Council advising that they had changed their view at the September meeting and agreed to recommend refusal of the application.  Reasons for refusal included: highway access was inappropriate, size of digester and scale of operation was too large, heritage and conservation issues, adverse visual impact and concerns over the levels of noise, smell and lighting;

·         A letter had been received from Crewkerne Town Council commenting that the potential for additional movements through Crewkerne would be unwelcome and the residents would have a concern;

·         A nearby resident had commissioned a background noise survey based on assumed levels.  In response to the survey, the Environmental Protection Officer had considered the report and commented that the background noise in the area was very low and the impact would be marginal.  The plant would be regulated by the Environment Agency which imposes standard conditions and it would be inappropriate to impose noise conditions considering that the Environment Agency conditions would apply;

·         Further technical information had been received from the applicant in relation to manure sample lab test figures;

·         Further comments had been received from the Environment Agency in terms of richness of the manure.  The comments were read to members of the Committee;

·         Two additional letters had been received in favour of the application, one had expressed concern over the way in which the Parish Council had changed their view;

·         One additional letter had been received in objection to the application over the growth of the industry.

The Planning Officer proposed amended conditions to the application and circulated a copy to members at the meeting.

In response to questions, the Planning Officer clarified points of detail raised by members.  Members were informed of the following:

·         Any Councillors could be involved with approving the details of conditional items;

·         The manure that would be stored on the site during the day would be covered although it could not be confirmed whether it would be fully covered;

·         With regard to the lab results it was not known whether the results would vary according to temperature.  The evidence provided by the applicant had to be taken on face value;

·         Hinton St George had changed their decision due to pressure from residents;

·         The Planning Officer was satisfied with the consultation process undertaken.  The closest neighbours to the site had been consulted and a site notice had been displayed;

·         Some conditions were more enforceable than others.  With regard to condition  ...  view the full minutes text for item 80.

The Planning Officer updated members that the Highway Authority had raised no objection to the application subject to conditions being imposed with regard to visibility splays and Construction Management Plan.  A letter of objection had been received from the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) recommending that the public right of way should be permanent rather than conditional.  The County Archaeologist had recommended approval subject to a condition relating to further archaeological work being undertaken.  The Agent had submitted a landscaping/planting scheme and Condition 5 would be updated with the appropriate drawing number.  The Planning Officer with the aid of slides and photographs summarised the details of the application as set out in the agenda report including the key considerations.  The Officer’s recommendation was for approval.

In response to questions, the Planning Officer clarified points of detail raised by Members.  Members were informed of the following:

·         Sheep would graze on the grass beneath the photovoltaic panels.  There would be a gap of nearly 3 metres between each set of panels;

·         The applicant would be required to pay a business tariff;

·         All buildings would be screened from the array.

The Committee was addressed by Sarah Vigar in objection to the application.  She referred to a number of concerns which included the following:

·         Impact of the development on the landscape, which could be seen from the A30;

·         There was no direct benefit to the local community;

·         Concern over flooding on the Lower Severalls,

·         Impact on the wildlife as there were significant badger setts;

·         Questioned whether a bat survey had been conducted.

The Applicant’s Agent, Jo Hawkesworth informed members that following advise the panels had been removed from the area where it had been found archaeologically sensitive.  She referred to the agricultural land issue and advised that the initial survey was undertaken on the whole of the landowners land, however not all of the land would be used.  She confirmed that the land was mainly 3b and 4 and would be grazed by sheep.  The site would be as screened as possible.  With regard to the issue of flooding she commented that the Council’s Officer was of the view that flooding would not increase and was content with the drainage scheme in place. The applicant had worked hard to provide extra information to make the scheme acceptable.

With regard to the issue of badgers and bats, the Planning Officer confirmed that the County Archaeologist was content with the results of the geophysical survey and was recommending a number of conditions.

Ward Member, Cllr. Paul Maxwell felt that the application was well put together.  He supported approval of the application subject to being consulted regarding any changes to the landscape scheme.   He also made a request for the hedges along the roadside to be retained at such a height to prevent the panels being visible and for the landowner to keep the gate closed during construction.

It was proposed and seconded to approve the application as per the Planning Officer’s recommendation subject to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 81.

The Planning Officer informed members that part of the application site was located within Area North and that members had been consulted on the application but no comments had been received.  All surrounding parishes had also been given the opportunity to comment on the application.  With the aid of slides and photographs, the Planning Officer summarised the details of the application as set out in the agenda report including the key considerations.  The Planning Officer’s recommendation was for approval.

In response to questions, the Planning Officer clarified points of detail raised by Members which included the following:

·         The proposed landscaping would be of mixed woodland and would provide more than ample screening;

·         The A303 Stocklinch panels and the proposed scheme could not be seen in the same view.  They were approximately one mile apart;

·         The breakdown of the land on the proposed site was 24% grade 2, 49% grade 3a and 20% grade 3b;

·         Somerset County Council was unaware of any archaeological implications.  Previous comments including those made by the CPRE were available to them when they made their decision on the application.

The Committee noted the comments of Andrew Troop, the Applicant’s Agent in support of the application.  During his representations, he clarified the position with regard to the agricultural land quality.  He also referred to only a minute proportion of the land being classed as productive farmland.  He advised that a huge amount of time had been spent working with the Landscape Officer defining the boundary of the site.

Ward Member, Cllr. Kim Turner expressed her support for application.  She made a request for the Traffic Management Plan to be agreed in consultation with the Ward Members.

Ward Member, Cllr. Carol Goodall also expressed her support for the application. 

It was proposed and seconded to approve the application as per the Planning Officer’s recommendation outlined in the agenda report subject to the Construction Management Plan being agreed in consultation with the Ward Members.  On being put to the vote the proposal was carried unanimously in favour.

Members noted that the next scheduled meeting of the Committee would be held on Wednesday 15^th October 2014 at the Shrubbery Hotel, Ilminster.

NOTED.