Meeting documents

The minutes of the AEC meeting held on 10^th September 2014, copies of which had been circulated were agreed and signed by the chairman after an amendment to the wording in Agenda Item 20 to read:

‘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.

Apologies for absence were received from Cllrs Mike Beech and Lucy Wallace.

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 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 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.

There were no declarations of interest pertinent to this agenda.

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.

4a) Mrs Aspey addressed members in relation to a particular planning application next to her property in Charlton Musgrove. She expressed her despair and concern regarding traffic movements in and out of the site at all hours of the day and night. She had made several complaints to SSDC officers with no satisfactory response; the issue was now making her ill.

After discussion, the Chairman suggested that on Mrs Aspey’s behalf, the matter should be referred to SSDC Legal Services to resolve, with involvement from Ward Member Cllr Mike Beech, the SSDC Enforcement Officer and the Chair of AEC.

The S106 Monitoring officer in attendance at the AEC meeting took details of the issue.

Mrs Elson of Holton Heritage Trust spoke about her concern due to the use of herbicides by the Streetscene Service to suppress weeds in her village, and the delay in clearing the residue of a tin of paint that had been thrown in to a hedge. She was also concerned that posters/signs had been placed on a rare species of tree and other places in the village.

In response, it was suggested that Mrs Elson should make the Streetscene Service aware of any problems, or request her Ward Member to take the issue up.  It was the responsibility of the Parish Council to stipulate if they wanted the weeds sprayed or not.

In conclusion, the Chairman said that people who put up signs advertising an event should be responsible for removing them after the event.

4b).Cllr Tony Capozzoli brought members attention to a nasty, possible deadly spider that had been found in Ilchester.

Cllr Colin Winder had attended a meeting with engineers regarding the ‘Wincanton Hub’ and work should soon go ahead.

There had been no recent meetings of the Regulation Committee.

Members are asked to note that the date of the next scheduled meeting of the committee will be held at the Council Offices, Churchfield, Wincanton on Wednesday 12^th November 2014 at 9.00 am.

Members noted that the next scheduled meeting of the committee would be at the Council Offices, Churchfield, Wincanton on Wednesday 12^th November 2014 at 9.00 am.

The Chairman reminded members:

·         That the Area East Annual Parish Meeting would be held on 27^th January 2015.

·         That the Councillors Xmas dinner at Northover Manor will take place on 10^th December.

·         That members take time to read the Planning Inspectors report about the appeal in Galhampton as detailed under the Items for Information. He was concerned about the Planning Inspectors apparent lack of consistency between planning appeals.

The ADM suggested that concerns should be raised at the Area Chairs meeting next week.

The Chairman wished to convey the best wishes of AEC members to SSDC Engineer, Roger Meecham who retires in November. It was agreed that a card would be sent to thank him for his service to SSDC.

The Corporate Strategic Housing Manager provided the committee with an update and power point presentation showing completed housing; data and construction. He explained that the relevant information pertaining to Area East was detailed in full in the agenda report; but also mentioned that a more comprehensive report covering the programme across the district had been presented to the District Executive in September 2014.

In response to questions from Members, the Corporate Strategic Housing Manager confirmed that:

·         Although a Parish Plan could articulate a desire for more local affordable housing, evidence of a need would still be required to justify a site obtaining planning permission;

·         Affordable rent is set at 80% of the prevailing market rate for a private rented property of a similar size and quality;

·         It was difficult to say how much it cost to build an average affordable home. It depended on a lot of factors, mostly peculiar to the site, for example rural exception sites were more costly as new infrastructure would be required; over the past seven years the District Council had captured around £53m in funding from the Homes and Communities Agency, but there is still a need for more;

·         There would be higher costs associated with building bungalows both because of the additional footprint and the roof/brick ratio;

·         Evidence would have to be gathered regarding a local need for bungalows before any permission be granted, although it was appreciated that by having bungalows available, larger accommodation could possibly be freed up for families;

·         Whereas the question of viability on a site led by a private developer hinges on sufficient reasonable profit being made on the site, Housing Associations tend to ‘break even’ rather than aim to make a surplus from any given site. They try to keep ‘on-costs’ down in order to keep rents to acceptable levels;

·         S106 obligations govern the allocation of local lettings in rural exception sites, targeted on the parish first but they may be offered to those in housing need from adjacent parishes if necessary to find a qualifying tenant. Other lettings are not governed by S106 obligations and may be offered for rent to people living further afield in priority need on the housing register. The recent consultation on the proposed new Housing Strategy Implementation Plan contains proposals for a more local approach for these other vacancies and several members of the Area East Committee had participated in the recent Portfolio Holder’s discussion group held to consider the consultation draft. He expected that a proposal would emerge from this consultation and come forward for consideration by the District Executive soon;

·         Other potential sites in Area East had not been specifically listed in the report as he tried to keep to those with the certainty of funding or planning permission being in place.

At the conclusion of the debate the Chairman thanked the Corporate Strategic Housing Manager for providing a comprehensive report.

RESOLVED: That AE Committee noted the outturn position of the Affordable Housing Development Programme for 2013/14.

The Section 106 Monitoring Officer reminded Members that the Section 106 agreements provided control to development and the monies levied on the developer were used to deliver additional infrastructure and mitigate the impact of the development.  Since his last report to the Committee, S106 processes and working practices had been audited and had received substantial assurances of the processes tested. 

In response to questions from Members, the Section 106 Monitoring Officer confirmed that

·         The next report presented to AEC members would include a statement of accounts for Parish and Town Councils in order for them to be better informed about the specific money available in that parish;

·         The basic formula for calculating S106 monies was nationally agreed and could not be easily changed locally.

·         He understood the frustrations due to the delay in some developers completing obligations;

·         There was a fine balancing act regarding the agreeing of trigger points for obligations. Developers would suggest they require the development to become populated to be able to generate the additional monies to pay the obligations, whereas the Council would prefer monies at an earlier stage so that facilities particularly on-site could be provided.

Cllr William Wallace in his role as Somerset County Councillor confirmed that the highway works at Templecombe, that had been outstanding for some time, were now in the final stages of design.

The ADM confirmed that she is investigating the issue of the open space at Deanesly Way, Wincanton which was near to an overgrown culvert and may present a risk to children.

At the conclusion of the debate, the chairman thanked the Section 106 Monitoring Officer for the improved and informed report.

RESOLVED:That Members noted and commented on the report and verbal update and endorsed the actions taken in respect of the monitoring and managing of Section 106 Planning Obligations.

The Community Office Support Manager presented the report as detailed in the agenda.  Since the last report, there had been a decrease in visitors to all community offices mainly due to increased use of services via the web site. There had still been a steady flow of visitors to the Wincanton offices.

In response to a query the Community Office Support Manager informed members that when the SSDC front office was closed, the police enquiry office was open (as it was now open for longer hours) visitors were able to access SSDC services using the public phone on the front desk and also the public computer.

RESOLVED: That the contents of this report be noted by Area East Committee

The ADM informed members that she was unsure if the update report on the latest news of Superfast Broadband would be available for the AEC meeting November, however there should be report presented to District Executive in November 2014.

Several AEC members felt that they should have the chance to discuss the information not just District Executive members as they were concerned that a lot of the rural areas could lose out on the Superfast Broadband service.

NOTED

NOTED

The Planning Officer presented the application as detailed in the agenda report. He advised that since the report had been written two more letters of objection had been received: one re-iterating previous comments and the other advising their disillusionment with the planning process and that all positive points raised should be considered at this stage rather than at reserved matters stage.

The officer advised that on page 63 of the report reference was made that due to the nature of the site ‘it would not be easily farmed’ but the words should be replaced by: ‘land is constrained and not part of the wider farm’.

With the aid of a power point presentation various photos of the site were shown that included the Grade 2 listed and associated buildings; access details; current road layout and the vicinity of the ‘no build zone’.

The officer confirmed that as none of the technical consultees had raised concerns and a S106 obligation had been agreed, his recommendation was not to defend the appeal against non-determination.

In response to a query the Area Lead East confirmed that it had to be assumed that the cumulative impact of both this site and the site at Verrington Hospital had been considered, as the same Highway Officer had viewed both sites.

Mr R D’Arcy, Mrs S Brennan, Mrs S Macey, Dr S Tindall and Mr R Pratt all spoke in objection to the recommendation. and made the following comments, some of which included:

·         Good grade of agriculture land should not be used for development;

·         Concerned about the lack of school places;

·         Concerned about pedestrian safety;

·         Evidence was available about flooding in the area;

·         Felt that local people had had the chance to help in the process of the Local Plan and one person (the Planning Inspector) could change all of that and make the consultations pointless;

·         SSDC now have a 5 year land supply;

·         The site would not be sustainable;

·         There was no housing shortage in Wincanton;

·         The Health Centre was already overstretched;

·         The ‘no build zone’ had not as yet been agreed;

·         The riparian owner of the land where the culvert was situated would have to give permission for works to take place and that may not be forthcoming;

·         Verrington Lodge, grade 2 listed, would be visible in winter;

·         Suggested that 2 properties and a street light be removed from the plan;

·         The Verrington Hospital application had been considered to be unsustainable, this site would be no different.

Mr T Adams the beneficial owner of the site spoke in support of the recommendation and gave a background history of the site. Ward members had been kept informed throughout the process and amendments had been made along the way, this application was smaller than previous ones.

Ward Member Cllr Colin Winder wished to ensure that the Planning Inspector was aware that this application was for up to 35 dwelling only.  He disputed the Travel and Transport Statement, the bus timetable was inappropriate, residents of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 92.

Prior to consideration of this application Cllr William Wallace declared a personal interest as he had not realised that the applicant was a personal friend.  He left the meeting during consideration of this application.

The Planning Officer presented the report as detailed in full in the agenda report. With the aid of a power point presentation he showed details of the site and various infill plots in the area.  There were no updates to report and his recommendation was to approve the application.

Mrs C Parish and Mr M Russell both spoke in objection to the application, they explained that there was already a problem parking in the area which would be made worse during construction and afterwards with the onset of extra vehicles associated with the new dwellings. The houses in Mundays Mead had originally been built with large gardens, not to be used for the building of extra dwellings. This application would be near a blind bend and busy junction. Members were asked to consider the residents and refuse the proposal.

Mr C P Farrell as the owner of the site spoke in support of the application; he had agreed to off street parking which would alleviate parking issues and had agreed to use obscure glass where appropriate.

Ward Members Cllrs Nick Colbert and Colin Winder although they considered the road was very narrow, realised that it would be hard to refuse the application as good planning reasons would be required.

During discussion, various views were expressed. In response to several queries the Area Lead East and Planning Officer explained that the application was before AEC members as the recommendation did not comply with Highway advice with regards to parking provision and visibility splays. Planning permission would not be required for a dropped kerb as this was an unclassified road; however a license would be required from SCC Highways. Members would have to decide if the extra traffic from Deansley Way now using Mundays Mead was a severe impact; however there would be other means of addressing that issue, other than by refusing the application.

It was proposed and seconded to approve the application as per the officers recommendation. On being put to the vote the motion was carried by 5 votes in favour and 3 against.

RESOLVED: That Planning Application 14/03214/FUL be approved as per the officers recommendation:

01.       The proposal is considered to be acceptable in this location and, by reason of its size, scale and materials, respects the character of the area, and causes no demonstrable harm to residential amenity in accordance with the aims and objectives of Policies ST6 and ST5 of the South Somerset Local Plan (Adopted April 2006) and the aims and provisions of the NPPF.

SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING:

01.       The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason:  To accord with the provisions of section 91(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 93.

The Planning Officer presented the application which had been deferred at AEC on 10^th September 2014 for a members site visit, he gave an update from the Highway Authority in response to the submitted traffic speed data that had been collected during August 2014, who confirmed that it made no difference to their recommendation as the issue of drivers breaking the law due to speeding was for the police to action. The officer confirmed that this application remained as one for approval,

Mr R Keattch, Mr I Durrant and Mr R D’Arcy all spoke in objection to the application and made the following points some of which included:

·         Disappointed that a Highway Officer had not attended the site visit;

·         A new boundary hedge and footpath would be required if the application was approved;

·         The lane was unsuitable for the extra traffic the development would cause;

·         The ‘informal passing places’ were not for public use as they were private entrances;

·         Independent highway advice should be sought;

·         Raised concern regarding the Transport Statement as there had been a fatality in the vicinity and a recent near miss.  An increase in traffic would not help the situation at all.

The Chairman noted that the Ward Member was not in attendance.

In response to questions from Members the Area Lead East explained that the applicant did not need to provide a pavement; the footpath, which walkers currently used, could meet the required need.  In general Rights of Ways could not be laid with tarmac. The accesses to the new properties could be used as passing places and a condition could be included that they be kept clear of obstruction.  Would 3 extra dwellings make that much difference to the current use of the footpath?

A proposal was made and seconded to approve the application as per the officer’s recommendation plus 2 extra conditions to include: the entrance gates should be hung inwards and set back a minimum of 2 meters, and that there should be no vehicular access from the footpath to the rear of the site.  On being put to the vote the motion was carried by 6 votes in favour: 2 against and 1 abstention.

RESOLVED: That Planning Application 14/00479/FUL be approved as per the Officers recommendation:

The proposal, by reason of its size, design, materials and location, represents appropriate infills which is designed to respect the character of the area, causes no demonstrable harm to residential amenity and highway safety and does not foster growth in the need to travel in accordance with the aims and objectives of policies ST2 and ST6 of the South Somerset Local Plan (Adopted April 2006) and the NPPF.

SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING:

01.       The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

            Reason:  To accord with the provisions of section 91(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

02.       The development hereby permitted shall be carried out  ...  view the full minutes text for item 94.

Cllr Tim Inglefield left the meeting prior to consideration of the subsequent planning applications.

The Area Lead East presented the planning application as detailed in full in the agenda. The application had previously been deferred due to the presence of newts on the site, the Ecologist was now happy that the mitigation strategy addressed that issue. The Landscape Officer was content and considered that, if the application was approved, a more detailed scheme could be arranged at the reserved matters stage.  

The officer advised that since writing his report the wording of Condition 14 had been amended in order to ensure clarity; comments from the Parish Council had been received confirming that they still stood by their objections and a letter had also been received from a local resident about previously raised issues.

With the aid of a power point presentation, photos of the site were shown which included the active part of the quarry and ponds that were inhabited by greater crested newts.

The Area Lead East concluded that although the proposal had generated a lot of opposition, it had also generated a lot of support.  It was considered that up to 42 houses would be financially viable and was a reasonable level of development for a single site in Keinton Mandeville plus the S106 obligation to include additional land for school use and the village green.  His recommendation was therefore to approve the application.

Mr B O’Hara, Chairman of Keinton Mandeville PC, (had taken no part in the discussion at the PC meeting) addressed the committee in opposition to the application and the suggested benefits that it could bring.  He felt that 42 dwellings was too large a number, the local roads would not be able to cope with the extra traffic generated by the application and Highway officers were not listening to local people; the land was not free draining and if approved that issue would need rectifying. He also asked members to note that some of the letters in support of the application were from people who did not live in the parish.

Mr A Lines, Mr Thomas, and Mrs B Samson all raised objections to the application as they were concerned about the impact of additional traffic and the lack of public transport, they questioned the necessity of low cost housing in Keinton Mandeville.  The scheme would increase the number of dwellings in the village by 10%.

Mrs A Rood, Mr N Wild and Mrs S Cook all spoke in support of the application which they considered would be a huge benefit to the community and local school. HGV’s currently using the quarry caused dust and noise, there was the possibility that if the quarry remained it could expand, meaning more large vehicles would use the site; any extra vehicles from the proposed dwellings would not cause as much disruption. The moving of the pre-school would also be of benefit to the village.

Mr C Miller the agent for the application asked members to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 95.

The Planning Officer presented the application as detailed in the agenda report.  With the aid of a power point presentation he showed the site, relevant buildings and aerial views. He advised the committee that the informative on page 113 of the agenda report should have the words ‘hereby approved’ removed. The officer confirmed that his recommendation was to approve the application which was solely for repairs and external alterations and not for a change of use.

Mr J Biddlecombe and Mr P Fletcher both spoke in opposition to the application, and voiced their concern about the increased vehicular activity if approved, and felt that a traffic enforcement plan would be required whilst work was being carried out. The privacy of the adjoining property would be jeopardised and if approved the external door should be fitted with obscure glass.

Mr G House the applicant said that he had tried to screen the view of the neighbouring property by placing trellis at an angle. He acknowledged that the nearby junction was awkward but would be made worse if the garage was actually used as a garage.

Ward Member Cllr Nick Weeks voiced his concern that the application could in effect turn the garage into a semi-detached property and could have an impact on the neighbour’s amenity.

Ward Member Cllr Henry Hobhouse noted that the property had at one time been one property and if approved a condition should be included to soundproof the adjoining party wall.

In response to the chairman asking the members of the public if an officer or councillor had made a misstatement, one person said that one of the photos had been taken when the road had been unduly quiet, he disagreed with the applicant when he said that he didn’t usually park on the road.

The Area Lead East explained that ancillary use could include a granny annexe as long as there were no external changes and was less than 4 metres high and would not require planning approval.

During a short discussion the issue of the use of extra sound insulation was raised; a suggestion was made to use opaque glass in the external door and roof lights and any trellis/fence should be of a light colour.

The applicant indicated that he would be happy to address the sound issue.

A proposal was made and seconded to approve the application as per the officer’s recommendation plus 2 additional conditions:

·         Prior to the commencement of development details of noise attenuation measures to the party wall shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Once approved such measures shall be fully implemented prior to the occupation of the ancillary accommodation and shall be maintained at all times thereafter.

·         Prior to the commencement of development the new rear door to the ancillary occupation shall be fitted with obscure glass which shall be maintained at all times thereafter.

On being put to the vote the motion was carried 6 in favour and 2 abstentions.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 96.

The Planning Officer presented the application as detailed in the agenda report. He explained that plans had been amended after a neighbour’s complaint regarding the skylights; however they still had an issue over the proposed height of the dwelling.  With the aid of  a point presentation plans of the site and photos were shown.

The officer confirmed that his recommendation was to approve the application.

Mr N Smith spoke in objection to the application on behalf of himself and near neighbours Mr and Mrs Manns.  Mr Smith was concerned about the loss of privacy from his property Church Cottage, and Mr and Mrs Manns were concerned about the close proximity of the proposed dwelling, the height of the roof shown on the plans and the proposed black roof tiles that would be seen from their window.

Helen Lazenby from Clive Miller Associates on behalf of the applicant, addressed the meeting and advised that the replacement dwelling would be of a similar footprint to the demolished buildings, plans had been amended to address the concerns of the neighbour but if AEC members felt it was necessary, adjustments to the other windows could be made.  

Ward Member Cllr John Calvert felt the application was an over development of the site; the size, form and close proximity to the boundary was of concern.

In response to a query the Area Lead East replied that there was no issue with the nearness of the dwelling to the boundary, but it was about any impact the close proximity could cause.

It was suggested that all windows should have obscure glass.

The agent explained that it was proposed to erect a fence on the boundary wall to take the fence to 1.8 meters high.

During the short discussion it was suggested that if the application was approved and in the event that the new fence could not be erected, all windows should have obscure glass and any roof lights should be installed at least 1.7 meters above floor level and details of the material for  the roof tiles to be specified.

A proposal was made and seconded to approve the application as per the officers recommendation; plus an amendment to the wording of Condition 03; an extra sentence in Condition 07 regarding the fence to the east boundary and another condition regarding the roof lights; plus an informative regarding the materials to be used for the roof tiles.

On being put to the vote the motion was carried by 6 votes in favour and 1 abstention.

RESOLVED: That Planning Application 14/03235/FUL be approved as per the officers recommendation

The proposed development is considered to be acceptable, by reason of its design, scale and materials, and has no adverse impact the character and appearance of the locality, the setting of local heritage assets, highway safety and ecology and causes no unacceptable harm to residential amenity in accordance with the aims and objectives of saved policies ST3, ST5, ST6, EC8, EH1, EH3 and EH5 of the South  ...  view the full minutes text for item 97.

The Planning Officer presented the application as detailed in the agenda report. With the aid of a power point presentation he showed the indicative layout and photographs of the site. He confirmed that his recommendation was to approve the application.

Mr P Springett and Mr M Hutchings both spoke in objection to the application they felt that there was other more suitable land in the vicinity; the proposed dwelling would be very close to the boundary of the Granary and would be overpowering; the character of the village would be spoilt by building outside of the development area. There was concern that this application would set a precedent as there were other large gardens in the area that could request to do the same.

Mr L Grant a near neighbour spoke in support of the proposal as long as a good fence was erected and no precedent was set.

Mr P A Lynch the applicant addressed the committee and explained that he had lived in the village for some time, he felt that there would be no adverse impact from the proposal which would not be overbearing; the sun would not be obscured as the proposal was for a single storey dwelling.

Mrs J Montgomery the agent informed members that there had been a great deal of pre-application discussion before the application had been finalised.

Ward Member Cllr William Wallace addressed the meeting, he advised that he had visited the site and although the dwelling was on a slightly raised site he considered that overall the design was suitable.

In response to several queries the Planning Officer confirmed that a clause could not be added to ensure that a precedent would be set but that issue would be for AEC members to consider should any other applications be presented.  With reference to the development line, the Google aerial view was shown again and the line indicated, it would appear to be sensible to have the access running along the boundary.

A proposal was made and seconded to approve the application as per the Officers recommendation.  On being put to the vote the motion was carried by 5 votes in favour and 2 abstentions.

RESOLVED: That Planning Application 14/02794/OUT be approved as per the officers recommendation for the following reason:

Charlton Horethorne by reason of its size and provision of services and facilities is considered a sustainable location in principle for appropriate development. The erection of a dwelling on this site, immediately adjacent to the settlement limit would respect the character of the locality and the setting of the nearby conservation area with no demonstrable harm to residential amenity or highway safety. As such the proposal complies with policies ST2, ST6 and ST5 of the South Somerset Local Plan (Adopted April 2006) and the aims and objectives of the NPPF.

SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING:

01.       The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the block and location plans 14086-1C received 23 July  ...  view the full minutes text for item 98.