Meeting documents

No apologies for absence were received.

The minutes of the AEC meeting held on 9^th July 2014, copies of which had been circulated, were agreed and signed by the Chairman.

Cllr Colin Winder referred to the issue that he had raised in Minute 25b, as he was still very concerned that as far as he was aware no consent had been given to enable work to be carried out on the Listed Dolphin Hotel, Wincanton, the Conservation Officer was due to visit Wincanton shortly and he would liaise with Cllr Winder.

The majority of members felt that the process of alterations made to Listed Buildings needed clarity and it was suggested that further discussion could take place before AEC members Planning Tour on 12^th September.    

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 2112 (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.  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 Tim Inglefield and William Wallace

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.

Cllr Nick Colbert declared a DPI regarding Agenda Item 18 as he was the applicant of Planning Application 14/02094/FUL.  He would leave the room prior to consideration of that application. 

Cllrs Anna Groskop and William Wallace both declared that they were Somerset County Councillors although there were no items on the agenda pertinent to that.

Cllr Colin Winder advised that he was a member of Wincanton Town Council although again there were no items on the agenda pertinent to that.

a)     Questions/comments from members of the public

b)     Questions/comments from representatives of parish/town councils

This is a chance for members of the public and representatives of Parish/Town Councils to participate in the meeting by asking questions, making comments and raising matters of concern.  Parish/Town Council representatives 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. The public and representatives of Parish/Town Councils will be invited to speak on any planning related questions later in the agenda, before the planning applications are considered.

a)    Mrs L Elson brought members attention to the numerous notices that had been put up on the grass verge opposite Anchor Hill Service Station and the potential damage to a tree because of several notices that had been nailed to its trunk.

b)    Cllr Tony Capozzoli was pleased to report that a meeting had now been arranged to discuss Phase 2 of the cycle way at Yeovilton.

There were no reports from members representing the District Council on outside bodies.

There had not been a meeting of the Regulation Committee recently.

The Chairman advised members that Cllr Mike Beech had raised an issue relating to Item 3 in the agenda – Declarations of Interest - as the wording in the agenda had not been amended to take account of the change to the Code of Conduct made by SSDC at its meeting on 15^th May 2014. This had now been updated and copies of the revised wording (that would be included in all future SSDC committee agendas) had been presented to Councillors.

The AE Planning Tour had been re-arranged for Friday 12^th September from 12.00 noon, with a working lunch provided at Churchfield with discussion with Dave Norris (and possibly Paul Wheatley Principal Spatial Planner) before embarking on the bus.

Councillors to let the Democratic Services Officer  know if they were able to attend the SSDC Xmas meal at the Northover Manor on Wednesday 10^th December. If so a £10.00 deposit per person would be required as soon as possible.

Members were advised that as soon as the relevant SSDC policy had been written with reference to recording committee meetings Area East would then begin to record their meetings

Cllr Tim Inglefield felt that it would not be suitable to discuss issues regarding Henstridge Airfield at the start of the planning tour but a separate informal meeting should be arranged in the next couple of months.

The Revenue and Benefits Manager presented the report as detailed in the agenda.  He updated members on the work of the Revenue and Benefits Service during 2013/14 and the work plans for 2014/15.

In response to several questions the Revenue and Benefits Manager replied that:

·         He would ask the Housing Team, who organise the Housing Fairs, if in the future a housing fair could be held at a venue within area East;

·         He would investigate the suggestion of other ways to raise awareness of Business Rate Relief and he would look to do more to make businesses aware of the help available to them;

·         He would report back to Cllr Groskop once he had information regarding a village hall that wished to reclaim its business rates;

·         The total rate relief given to businesses within Area East was almost £7.4 million: £3.2 million of that was mandatory charity relief; £156,000 was top up charity relief; £92,000 was mandatory rural rate relief; £36,000 top up rural rate relief; £40,000 discretionary rate relief; £24,500 mandatory sports relief and approximately £3.6 million small business rate relief.

·         Council Tax collection figures had been down slightly in 2013/14 when compared to previous years but that was due to a challenging year and the changes that had been implemented.  Members should also be mindful that collection did not stop at the end of the financial year and the team continues to collect previous year arrears;

·         An Empty Homes Officer was in place and the rules regarding Council Tax charges on long term empty/unoccupied properties and the claiming of New Homes Bonus had been properly applied.  There were different rules for different circumstances;

·         He recognised that there were a lot of different levels of need, his service did try to get the right balance, he was aware that often elderly people did not use the internet as much as younger people, but by others using the internet for making claims or notifying changes in their circumstances that officer time was freed up to help those who required direct help.

The Chairman thanked the Revenue and Benefits Manager for the comprehensive report.

It was agreed to defer this agenda item until next month as the Neighbourhood Development Officer was ill.

The ADM gave a summary of the work undertaken by the Heart of Wessex Rail Partnership during 2013/14 as detailed in the agenda report. She also asked AEC members to consider a partnership contribution for 2014/15 of £2,000 from Members discretionary budget.

The majority of members were in favour and wished to support the Partnership. The following points were raised:

·         Railway holts should be brought back into use and perhaps used as request stops, but unlikely to occur as it may slow up the timetables

·         Thanks should be conveyed to Catherine Phillips, from the Heart of Wessex RailPartnership who had helped with the production of the Castle Cary leaflet  used whilst the road was closed due to repairs to the railway bridge

·         Members should remember that the Heart of Wessex Rail Partnership was not the same organisation as the Heart of Wessex Local Action Group, although this work would complement each other

It was proposed and seconded to approve the recommendation, and on being put to the vote, it was unanimously carried in favour.

Reason: To consider a partnership contribution for 2014/15

The ADM advised members that the report on the Balsam Centre on the agenda for September would give an overview of activities at the centre and approve financial contributions for the financial year. The Wincanton Transport and Services Hub update would also be on the agenda for the meeting in September.

NOTED

Members noted the next scheduled meeting of the Area East Committee will be at the Council Offices, Churchfield, Wincanton on Wednesday 10^th September 2014 at 9.00am.

NOTED

Cllr Nick Colbert reiterated his declaration regarding a DPI as he was the applicant of Planning Application 14/02094/FUL.  He would leave the room prior to consideration of that application. 

NOTED

The Planning Officer presented the application on behalf of his colleague; he provided members with an update from the Education Department confirming that they had not made a request at this moment in time, to secure a contribution towards education from the S106 obligation, and an explanation of how the Education Department calculated the future needs of education provision.

With the aid of a power point presentation the officer showed the site, proposed plans and photos of the access points.  He confirmed that the recommendation was to approve the application.

Mr Philip Davis and Mrs Katherine Davis both spoke in objection to the application on behalf of themselves and 27 households. They were both pleased that several members of the committee had visited the site to see the Highway and access issues   for themselves.  They considered that there were other more suitable pieces of land in the area with better access than the proposed site. They understood that land had been included in the application that was not owned by the developer, there was also an incorrectly drawn red line indicating the Highway boundary.  Applications on the site had previously been refused and reference was made to the Milborne Port, 2000 Local Plan which stated no further development should take place without highway improvements.  There had been a 15% increase in new houses in Milborne Port over the past 8 years with no highway improvements and was much more than suggested in the emerging Local Plan.

Mr M Williams, the agent, spoke in support of the application. He said that Milborne Port was classed as a Rural Centre in the emerging Local Plan, if members had been minded to, they could have objected to the amount of proposed development during the Local Plan consultation process.  He considered the site to be sustainable for this low density housing, there had been no objections from the statutory consultees: Highways had advised that they considered the small development would not have a severe impact on the existing road network. There had not been any planning applications refused on this particular site, the time scale for determining this application had now been exceeded therefore he urged AEC members to make a decision.

Ward Member Cllr Lucy Wallace spoke in objection to the proposal, she was disappointed that an officer from Highways was not in attendance at the meeting to respond to various queries members had about the road network in the vicinity of the proposed site, she had written to request an officer attend the meeting but had not recived a response. She reiterated that Milborne Port did not want or need any more housing, she was also concerned that any run-off from the new development would make matters worse for the development at the bottom of the hill. She also made reference to the question regarding ownership of the land. 

In response to a query the agent could confirm that the correct certificate had been completed regarding ownership of the site.

As County  ...  view the full minutes text for item 51.

On behalf of his colleague the Planning Officer presented the report as detailed in full in the agenda. With the aid of a power point presentation he showed the site, and proposed plans.  He confirmed that the officer’s recommendation was to approve the application.

Mrs J Montgomery the Agent addressed the committee and urged members to approve the application as per the officer’s recommendation.

Ward Member Cllr Mike Lewis also agreed with the recommendation, but he suggested that Condition 04 should include wording in order to remedy the foul smell from foul and surface water drainage in the area.

The Area Lead West explained that the suggested additional wording to condition 04 could not be included but could be included in an informative note.

It was proposed and seconded to approve the application as per the officer’s recommendation plus an informative regarding the foul smell.

On being put to the vote the motion was carried unanimously in favour.

The Planning Officer presented the application and explained that this application had been referred to AEC members to allow the issues to be fully debated because the site was outside the development area. With the aid of a power point presentation the officer showed the site and relevant plans and photographs. He confirmed that his recommendation was to approve the application as Templecombe was considered sustainable and there would be no significant visual impact.

The agent Mr Carpendale urged members to approve the application which he considered was an infill plot, was a walkable distance to the facilities and would cause no harm to highway users.

Ward Member Cllr Tim Inglefield questioned why the application was for AEC members to consider. He proposed that the application be approved as per the officer’s recommendation.

In response the Area Lead West explained that the Development Control Manager had requested that planning applications outside the development area be considered by area committees.  He also confirmed that matters such as parking issues would be covered at a later stage of the planning process should this application be approved.

During a short discussion members expressed their support for the application and it was proposed and seconded to approve the application as per the officers recommendation.

On being put to the vote the motion was unanimously carried in favour.

Cllr Nick Colbert left the room during consideration of this item.

The Planning Officer presented the application on behalf of his colleague and with the aid of a power point presentation showed the site and plans of the proposed dwelling. Previous concerns on this site had now been addressed and the officer confirmed that the recommendation was to approve the application as detailed in full in the agenda.

The agent, Janet Montgomery addressed the committee and explained that this application was a much simpler form than the previous applications and was not overbearing nor did it overlook any other properties

Ward Member, Cllr William Wallace was content with the application now that the proposed dwelling would only be one and half storeys high and he proposed that the application be approved.

Ward Member Cllr Tim Inglefield reiterated the above comments although he was concerned about there not being enough space to turn a car, the only option was to reverse on to the highway however he seconded the proposal that the application be approved.

A short discussion ensued about the parking issue but in general members expressed their support for the application.

On being put to the vote, the motion was carried unanimously in favour to approve the application.

The Planning Officer presented the application as detailed in the agenda report, he explained that the officers recommendation to approve the application was contrary to the Highway Authority’s comments in relation to an A class road. Highways were concerned that the height of the canopy may hinder pedestrians.

With the aid of a power point presentation the officer showed photos of the site and plans of the proposed awning.

Mr N Crombie spoke in objection to the application; he did not think the photos shown in the presentation were up to date and did not depict the High Street as it was now. Mr Crombie did not think officers should ignore the advice from Highways, he felt the awning would be intrusive and could set a precedent in the conservation area and consequently would harm visual amenity

Ward Member Cllr Anna Groskop explained that the building had been used as a restaurant since 1984; she considered that it was safer to walk on the opposite side of the road and did not think the awning would cause a problem.  The applicant had amended his plans in order to comply with officers.

A short discussion ensued where several members felt that local businesses should be supported.  Confirmation was given that the applicant was required to pay a licence in order to use the pavement.

It was confirmed that the awning would be folded away when not in use and would be 1.2 metres in depth; it would just cover the chairs as shown on the pavement.

It was proposed and seconded to approve the application as per the officer’s recommendation.

On being put to the vote the motion was carried by 9 votes in favour and 1 abstention.