Meeting documents

SSDC Area East Committee
Wednesday, 10th September, 2014 9.00 am

Venue: Meeting Room, Churchfield Offices, Wincanton. View directions

Contact: Anne Herridge, Democratic Services Officer 01935 462570  Email: anne.herridge@southsomerset.gov.uk

Items
No. Item

56.

Minutes of Previous Meeting

Minutes:

The minutes of the AEC meeting held on 13th August 2014, copies of which had been circulated were agreed and signed by the charman.  

57.

Apologies for absence

Minutes:

Cllrs Anna Groskop and William Wallace gave their apologies for their absence.

58.

Declarations of Interest

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. 

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 15th 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 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.

Minutes:

Cllr Henry Hobhouse declared a Disclosable Prejudicial Interest (DPI) in relation to Agenda Item 19, Planning Application 14/01639/OUT as he is a beneficiary of the applicant.  Although he was not involved in any discussions regarding the application he would leave the meeting when that item was considered.

Cllr Mike Lewis stated that he was also a County Councillor but there was nothing pertinent to that on this agenda.

59.

Public Participation at Committees

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.

Minutes:

a) There were no questions or comments from members of the public

b) Cllr John Calvert requested an update report about Superfast Broadband for AEC in the next 2 months.

Cllr Mike Lewis suggested that the relevant officer at County Council should be asked for his input in that report.

60.

Reports from Members Representing the District Council on Outside Organisations

Minutes:

There were no reports from Members representing the District Council on Outside Organisations.

61.

Feedback on Reports referred to the Regulation Committee

Minutes:

There had been no recent meetings of the Regulation Committee.

62.

Chairman Announcements

Minutes:

The Chairman advised members that unfortunately George Chinnock had passed away on Friday, 5th September he had been a long term member of AEC and a SSDC Alderman.  (A minutes silence was held in respect to George Chinnock.)

The AE Planning Tour had been re-arranged for this Friday 12th September from 12.00 noon.

A date for the New Year diaries is 27th January 2015 for the Annual Parish Meeting.

63.

The Balsam Centre - Allocation of Healthy Living Centre Funding (Executive Decision) pdf icon PDF 158 KB

Decision:

RESOLVED:

 

1)

That members note the report

2)

That £10,000, ring fenced for Healthy Living Centres, be allocated to the Balsam Centre for the delivery of the work programme agreed and set out in Table 1 attached (with a particular focus on skills, jobs and employability).

Reason: to consider the allocation of funding ring-fenced for Healthy Living Centres to the Balsam Centre.

Minutes:

The Neighbourhood Development Officer explained that the Balsam Centre (Healthy Living Centre) was continuing to develop, redesign and increase the programmes on offer and implement more business based services whilst safeguarding some of the services as detailed in the work programme, with a particular focus on skills, jobs and employability.  The officer confirmed that the £10,000 would be used towards training in crucial skills to enable employability.

In response to a query the officer confirmed that the Healthy Living Centre was the only one in South Somerset

Members were content to approve the recommendation.

RESOLVED:

 

1)

That members note the report

2)

That £10,000, ring fenced for Healthy Living Centres, be allocated to the Balsam Centre for the delivery of the work programme agreed and set out in Table 1 attached (with a particular focus on skills, jobs and employability).

Reason: to consider the allocation of funding ring-fenced for Healthy Living Centres to the Balsam Centre.

(Voting Unanimous in favour)

64.

Area East Streetscene Performance pdf icon PDF 254 KB

Minutes:

The Streetscene Manager presented the report as detailed in full the agenda.

In response to a question from Mrs L Elson he replied that he would expect to be advised by the relevant Parish Council if a village requested not to have their verges sprayed with weed killer.  He confirmed that a pro-Bioactive weed killer was used, the issue of ecology was embraced by his service and weed killer was only used where weeds were actively growing. 

In response to members questions the Streetscene Manager replied that:

·    A meeting had recently taken place with shopkeepers from Wincanton to address the issue of late night litter;

·    There was a typo on page 5 of the report reference the 2 Fly tip headings  for ‘Totals’ that should read April – July 14 and April 13 – July 13 (rather than April 13 – March 14);

·    The Service would focus on the parishes showing the highest recorded fly tips; 

·    There was now a new Open Spaces Officer in post;

·    He acknowledged the assistance from a band of volunteers who helped to clear the River Cale ;

·    He considered helping to save the bees was the right thing for his service to do during the course of their work;

·    The service would do as much as they could whilst clearing the designated footpaths  as part of the maintenance of the Rights of Way contracts;

·    He would do what he could to pass information on to the relevant County Council officers regarding other footpaths that needed clearing outside of the contract: which was to maintain the paths chosen for maintenance.

Member’s raised further concerns about some badly signposted and blocked rural footpaths that were badly in need of maintenance but did not come under the umbrella of the Rights of Way contract. It was important that members of the public knew who to contact in order to arrange for paths to be cleared. It was also suggested that more litter bins could be put in some places in Wincanton.

The ADM would make further enquiries regarding possible avenues for funding the maintenance of local footpaths; an example was given of Mendip as a model of good practice. The ADM would investigate if SSDC could learn from their approach.

A suggestion was made that offenders on Probation Service Programmes should be used to help clear some of the overgrown footpaths. Local Scout groups could be used as part of the Adopt a Footpath scheme.

The Streetcene Manager was thanked for the good work his service carried out and the help and hard work given during the flooding last winter.

NOTED

65.

Wincanton Transport & Service Hub Update pdf icon PDF 157 KB

Minutes:

The Neighbourhood Development Officer updated members on the process of, and progress on developing a Transport Services Hub in Wincanton as detailed in the agenda report.

A positive first meeting of the project group had now taken place.  The replacement of the existing bus shelter had been discussed but the car park improvement scheme had to start before work could begin on the shelter. At the next meeting of the project group it was hoped to focus on service provision and identify any gaps in that provision, the SSDC Transport Strategy Officer would be meeting with local bus operators regarding the current bus routes.

Concern was raised about the need for villages to be included as part of the Hub, a lot of enthusiasm would be required to make the scheme work as central government did not really understand rural transport issues. Members also wanted to ensure that the new shelter was made of robust material in order that little or no maintenance would be required.

In response to several questions the Neighbourhood Development Officer replied that the SSDC Transport Strategy Officer had carried out detailed work to find the most suitable material for the shelter, wood and toughened glass had come out the best.  The group would work to a budget and if more funding was required a report would be brought for AEC to consider, a maintenance allowance would be included, but there were no financial implications for SSDC at this moment in time.

Members were content to note the content of the report.

RESOLVED:

That members note and comment on the report.

66.

Area East Community Funding Support Schemes 2013/14 pdf icon PDF 379 KB

Minutes:

The Neighbourhood Development Manager on behalf of his colleague gave a summary of the 35 groups and projects that had been supported with grants during 2013/14.

With the aid of a power point presentation he showed photographs of the new enhanced community space at Kingsdon, the successful and well used MUGA at Wincanton and the Eat Cary project that involved a lot of youngsters.  There had been a community effort to clear rubbish from the River Cale.  The Kingsdon Community shop was a huge success with a social impact on the community, with particular benefit to isolated people, and local youngsters who volunteered to help out in the shop.

The officer was thanked for the informative report, members were pleased that the MUGA was being well used and the benefits to local children of serving the community.

NOTED

67.

Area East Committee Forward Plan pdf icon PDF 23 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Committee members were advised that the report on the LEADER Programme may not be on the agenda for November. The ADM would investigate if a report updating members on Superfast Broadband was possible.

NOTED

68.

Date of Next Meeting pdf icon PDF 16 KB

Minutes:

Members noted that the next scheduled meeting of the committee would be at the Council Offices Churchfield Wincanton on Wednesday 8th October 2014 at 9.00 am.

69.

Items for information pdf icon PDF 68 KB

Should members have questions regarding any of the items for information please contact the officer shown underneath the relevant report.  If, after discussing the item with the officer, and with the Chairman’s agreement, a member may request the item to be considered at a future committee meeting.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

NOTED

70.

Schedule of Planning Applications to be Determined by Committee pdf icon PDF 95 KB

Minutes:

NOTED

71.

Update Report on Land at Verrington Hospital, Dancing Lane Wincanton (Ref. Planning Application 14/00838/OUT) pdf icon PDF 1 MB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Update Report on Land at Verrington Hospital, Dancing Lane Wincanton (Ref. Planning Application 14/00838/OUT)

The Area Lead East explained that this report was before Members in order to obtain their views on the application in the light of  an appeal against the non – determination of the outline application for a residential development of up to 55 dwellings and provision of access at Verrington Hospital.

The officer explained that the amended application overcame the previous inspectors concerns regarding access to the site, and included an extra proposed parking space.  The application did not adequately address the Inspectors concerns with regard to the sustainability of the site relative to the town centre, however the Highways Authority had, (the day before the AEC meeting), now agreed an acceptable Travel Plan which could make the application sustainable and this put a different perspective on the officers reasons for defending a refusal on the basis of poor accessibility.

Mrs R Keep, Mrs Godbolt, Mr R D’Arcy, Mrs A Davis, Mr A Chesterman, Matron Claire Andrews and Mr C Downton, all spoke in opposition and made the following comments some of which included:

·           Local roads were already congested;

·           Other brownfield sites should be used rather than this greenfield site;

·           Residents are unlikely to walk to facilities due to the steep gradient;

·           Vulnerable and frail hospital patients would be upset by the proposal so near to the hospital;

·           Education, health, transport and employment in the town needed addressing;

·           The hospital currently has 7 calm and quiet private rooms used for a person’s last few days but if the proposal was approved those rooms would be overlooking the noisy car park 

·           Land needed to be available for the use of an air ambulance;

·           Friends of the hospital and members of the public have raised a lot of money through fundraising. That money had been used towards extra outpatient’s facilities. The next project was to install a memorial garden;

·           The ambience of the hospital would be lost;

·           Central government states that public opinion was important;

·           Community hospitals were the future of health care and should be protected;

·           The site had been divided in half and would not be good for the safety of the hospital if more vehicles used the space.

Ward Member Cllr Nick Colbert did not consider that Wincanton needed extra housing at the moment. In his opinion affordable housing was not being allocated to local people via Home Finder. The proposed development would result in the loss of high quality agricultural land.  He was disappointed that a Highways Officer did not appear to have visited the site and he was concerned that Dancing Lane would be dangerous for pedestrians if the proposal went ahead. 

Ward Member Cllr Colin Winder also spoke in opposition; he was concerned about the quality of the highways traffic survey, he also felt that economic and social needs should work together.

In response to several queries the Area Lead East explained that now he was in receipt of the Travel Plan,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 71.

72.

Planning Application 14/02107/OUT - Windmill Farm, Grants Lane, Wincanton pdf icon PDF 859 KB

Minutes:

The Planning Officer presented the application as detailed in the agenda.  He provided members with several updates including a letter of objection that had been received after the agenda had been produced, which made reference to the boundary between Bayford and Wincanton; the possible destruction of wildlife, bats etc; the grade of land on the proposed site and made reference to the existing wall of trees. Additional information had also been received from the Ecologist regarding the bat survey.

With the aid of a power point presentation the officer showed photos and indicative plans of the site.  He confirmed that his recommendation was to refuse the application as detailed in full in the agenda report.

Mr T Maccaw spoke in objection on behalf of Stoke Trister & Bayford PC (Parish Council). The PC was concerned about the impact of extra vehicles and possible speeding issues; they felt that Highways had carried out insufficient or no research into the impact of extra vehicles on Bayford Hill in particular.  The PC had recently carried out a traffic count survey and had obtained detailed traffic data. If the application was refused Mr Maccaw asked that a reason should be included regarding the anti-social impact of the increased vehicle movements.

Mr R D’Arcy, Mr A Chesterman,Mr D Castle, MS B Loader, and Mrs L Elson representing CPRE (Council for the Protection of Rural England) all spoke in objection to the applications and made the following comments some of which included:

·         There was other, more suitable land available;

·         Heritage sites should be protected;

·         There would be no definite division between Wincanton and Bayford, both would be merged together;

·         Reference was made to the NPPF and land within a green belt;

·         Referred to the agenda report and the linear woodland on the Southern boundary adjoing Grants Lane that should read’ adjoining Bayford Hill;

·         Pedestrian access to the recreation ground would be required;

·         Lower quality land should be used;

·         Better infrastructure was required;

·         An archaeological survey was needed;

·         Concerned about the possibility of flooding in and around the site;

·         The target for growth in Wincanton had been met already.

The agent Mr I Woodward–Court addressed the committee and requested a copy of the traffic survey conducted by the Stoke Trister & Bayford PC. In his opinion the site was not in the green belt and the land had been classified as Grade 3b by an independent assessor.  Mr Woodward–Court explained that he had requested that consideration of the application be deferred but the Local Planning Authority felt that they were in receipt of enough information for the application to be determined.

Ward Member Cllr Mike Beech did not support the application and did not want to see Bayford and Wincanton merged together, he was also concerned about the possibility of the new development exacerbating flooding in the vicinity.

Ward Member Cllr Colin Winder made reference to the Local Plan and Ward Member Cllr Nick Colbert felt there were already too many new houses in Wincanton which in his opinion  ...  view the full minutes text for item 72.

73.

Planning Application 14/00479/FUL Land OS 3969 Land at Devenish Lane BA9 9NQ pdf icon PDF 682 KB

Minutes:

The Planning Officer presented the application as detailed in the agenda. He provided members with several updates including a letter with photos that indicated the volume of traffic using Devenish Lane and vehicles parking haphazardly along the lane.

Members were also asked to take note that the ‘passing places’ were not for the use of travelling vehicles but were entrances to the resident’s properties. This application was a resubmission, the developer had provided additional information in the form of an Access Technical Note, produced by AWP Highway consultants that addressed the various concerns expressed previously by the Highway Authority, and therefore a highway objection to the current application had not been raised. The officer further advised that he was in receipt of a petition signed by up to 87 people in opposition to the application.

With the aid of a power point presentation the officer showed views of the site and indicative plans plus photos of the lane.  He confirmed that his recommendation was to approve the application.

Mr I Durrant, Mr R Keattch, Mr N Noble and Mr R D’arcy all spoke in opposition to the application, particular concerns were raised about the impact the extra dwellings would have on the highway. There had been one fatality in the area and several near misses. Since the petition had been collated an extra 20 or so names had since been added.

The Area Lead East confirmed that details of the petition were on the SSDC website.

During the short discussion it was proposed and seconded to defer the application for a site visit to assess the access arrangements, if possible with the attendance of a highways officer.

On being put to the vote the motion was carried by 7 votes in favour and 1 vote against.

RESOLVED: That Planning Application 14/00479/FUL be deferred until the next AEC meeting in order for a site visit to be carried out to assess the access arrangements.

(voting: 7 in favour:1 against)

74.

Planning Application 14/01639/OUT Land to rear of Alma Field, South Street, Castle Cary. pdf icon PDF 618 KB

Minutes:

Prior to consideration of Planning Application 14/01639/OUT Cllr Henry Hobhouse previously having declared a DPI left the meeting.

The Planning Officer presented the application as detailed in the agenda, he advised members that another letter had since been received objecting to the application.  With the aid of a power point presentation the officer showed details of the site and the access from Alma Field. He pointed out that a Highway Officer had visited the site and in his opinion the site could cope with additional vehicles therefore the Planning Officer confirmed that his recommendation was to approve the application.

Mr C Hurd spoke in opposition to the application and made reference to the narrow road and the dangerous junction.

Mrs J Montgomery, the agent, confirmed that the applicant had obtained pre-application advice and as Highways had confirmed there were no safety issues members should approve the application.

Ward Member Cllr Nick Weeks raised his concerns about highways; he would not like any further developments in this vicinity.

The Area Lead East asked members to note in the agenda report, that conditions 05 and 06 should be deleted as they duplicated condition 03.

It was proposed and seconded to approve the application as per the officers recommendation but to ensure there would be no more than 3 dwellings and wanted an archaeological watching brief due to the possibility of underground tunnels in the area.

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

RESOLVED: that Planning Application 14/01639/OUT be approved as per the officers recommendation for the following reason:

The proposal, by reason of its location, represents appropriate infill adjacent to the development area and does not foster growth in the need to travel and is therefore sustainable in accordance with the aims of objectives of policy ST3 of the South Somerset Local Plan (Adopted April 2006) and the NPPF.

SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING:

01.       The development hereby permitted shall be begun either before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission, or before the expiration of two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved, whichever is the later.

            Reason: To accord with the provisions of Article 4 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2010.

02.       Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the Local Planning Authority before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

            Reason:  As required by Section 92(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

03.       Approval of the details of the Access, Appearance of the building(s), the Landscaping of the site, Layout and Scale (hereinafter called 'the reserved matters') shall be obtained from the Local Planning Authority in writing before any development is commenced.

            Reason: To accord with the provisions of Article 4 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2010.

04.       The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced  ...  view the full minutes text for item 74.

75.

Planning Application 14/02896/FUL Land to the north of Lighthouse Keinton Mandeville pdf icon PDF 595 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

(Cllr Henry Hobhouse returned to the meeting)

Ward Member Cllr John Calvert informed the committee that since the agenda report had been produced, the Inspector had dismissed the appeal as the S106 obligation had not been completed to his satisfaction. Keinton Mandeville PC, whilst not in favour of the application was now willing to accept the officer’s recommendation.  In light of this information AEC members were content to approve the application as per the officer’s recommendation and voted unanimously in favour.

RESOLVED: That Planning Application 14/02896/OUT be approved as per the officers recommendation subject to:

1.         The prior completion of a S106 planning obligation (in a form acceptable to the Council's solicitor(s)) before the decision notice granting planning permission is issued, the said planning obligation to cover the following issues:-

(a)     financial contributions towards offsite recreational infrastructure of £30,217 broken down as:

·                     £19,333 for local facilities;

·                     £7,199 for strategic facilities;

·                     £3,385 as a commuted sum towards local services;

·                     £299 as the Community Health and Leisure Service administration fee. 

(b)     a monitoring fee to the satisfaction of the Development Manager.

For the following reason:

Keinton Mandeville by reason of its size and provision of services and facilities is considered a sustainable location in principle for appropriate development. The erection of six dwellings on this site, immediately adjacent to settlement limits would respect the character of the locality with no demonstrable harm to residential amenity or highway safety. As such the proposal complies with Policies ST2, ST5, ST6, ST10, EC3, EC7, EC8, EH12, EP1 and CR3 of the South Somerset Local Plan and the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework.

SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING:

01.       Details of the appearance, landscaping, layout and scale (herein called the "reserved matters") shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before any development begins and the development shall be carried out as approved.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

02.       Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the local planning authority before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission and the development shall begin no later than three years from the date of this permission or not later than two years from the approval of the last "reserved matters" to be approved.

Reason: As required by Section 92(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

03.       The site hereby approved for development shall be as shown on the submitted combined site plan and site layout (drawing number 1389/01) received 21/10/2013.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interest of proper planning.

04.       The development hereby permitted shall comprise no more than 6 dwellings.

Reason: To ensure that the level and density of development is appropriate to the location and commensurate with levels of contributions sought in accordance with policies ST5, ST6, ST10 and EC3 of the South Somerset Local Plan.

05.       No development hereby approved  ...  view the full minutes text for item 75.

76.

Planning Application: 14/02144/DPO, Deer Park Farm, Babcary, Somerton pdf icon PDF 574 KB

Minutes:

The Planning Officer presented the report as detailed in the agenda, his recommendation was to allow the discharge of the S106 agreement.

Mr S Hoar of Babcary PC could see no reason to remove the S106 agreement and felt the house should be tied to the farmland surrounding it in perpetuity.

Ward Members Cllrs Henry Hobhouse and Nick Weeks understood that the applicant wanted to give the land to their son.

In response to a question the Area Lead East replied that if the applicant wished to gift the land, a written agreement would have been required to alter things, current legislation needed to be reviewed in line with the NPPF, the advice that the applicant had been given was correct in the circumstances.

The Legal Services Manager further advised that anyone was entitled to make an application and the test was whether the original agreement still served a useful purpose.

A short discussion ensued where concern was raised that if the land was to be farmed the dwelling should remain linked to the land.

In response the Area Lead East and the Legal Services Manager concluded that circumstances within a holding could change and it was not always practical to tie the dwelling to the land.  They indicated that the policy position had moved away from requiring an agricultural workers dwelling to be linked to a specific holding toward the dwelling being available to any agricultural workers in the locality.

It was proposed and seconded to approve the application as per the officers recommendation. On being put to the vote the application was approved by 5 votes in favour: 1 against and 2 abstentions.

RESOLVED: That Planning Application 14/02144/DPO be agreed as per the officers recommendation to allow the discharge of the Section 106 Agreement dated 19 January 1993 made between South Somerset District Council and Malcolm Stewart Beaton.

SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING:

Informatives:

01.  A copy of this decision will be sent to the Council's Land Charges Department so that they can remove the restriction from the land charges register. A copy of this certificate should be retained and kept with the deeds of the property.

(Voting:5 in favour; 1 against; 2 abstentions)

77.

Planning Application 14/02726/OUT - Former stables at Cedar Lodge, High Street, Charlton Adam pdf icon PDF 598 KB

Minutes:

The Planning Officer presented the application as per the agenda report, she updated members with information that Environmental Protection had no objections regarding amenity issues.  With the aid of a power point presentation the officer showed photos of the site and an aerial view.

Ward Member Cllr John Calvert had no objection to the application.

It was proposed and seconded to approve the application as per the officer’s recommendation with an additional condition to agree provision for swallow’s nests.

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

RESOLVED: That Planning Application 14/02726/OUT be approved as per the officers recommendation:

The application site, by reason of its location within easy reach of the services and facilities that can be found within the settlements of Charlton Adam and Charlton Mackrell, is considered to be a sustainable location in principle for this modest development. The erection of a single storey dwelling on this site, adjacent to settlement limits, will respect the setting and character of the surrounding conservation area and adjacent listed buildings, cause no demonstrable harm to residential amenity or highway safety. As such the proposal complies with Policies ST2, ST5, ST6, EH1, EH5, EC7, EC8, EP1 of the South Somerset Local Plan and the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework.

SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING:

01.       Details of the access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale (herein called the "reserved matters") shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before any development begins and the development shall be carried out as approved.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

02.       Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the local planning authority before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission and the development shall begin no later than three years from the date of this permission or not later than two years from the approval of the last "reserved matters" to be approved.

Reason: As required by Section 92(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

03.       The site hereby approved for development shall be as shown on the location plan (drawing number 14115-2 Revision A received 24/07/2014.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interest of proper planning.

04.       The development hereby permitted shall comprise no more than one dwelling.

Reason: To ensure that the scale of development is appropriate to the location in accordance with Policies ST5 and ST6 of the South Somerset Local Plan.

05.       No removal of vegetation that may be used by nesting birds (trees, shrubs, hedges, bramble, ivy or other climbing plants) nor works to or demolition of buildings or structures that may be used by nesting birds, shall be carried out between 1st March and 31st August inclusive in any year, unless previously checked by a competent person for the presence of nesting birds.  If nests are encountered,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 77.