Meeting documents

The minutes of the AEC meeting held on the 8^th October 2014, copies of which had been circulated, were agreed and signed by the chairman.

Cllr John Calvert wanted it noted that the last meeting of AEC was very long and several members of the public in his constituency who had wished to speak on a planning application had to leave the meeting before the application was considered, Cllr Calvert was concerned that the situation could be taken to the Ombudsman, he requested legal advice on the matter.

The Chairman apologised for the long meeting but all business on the agenda had to be considered.

Apologies for absence were received from Cllr Anna Groskop and Cllr William 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.

 With reference to Item 17 Planning Application 14/02995/FUL, Cllr Mike Beech advised that he was the partner of one of the objectors and whilst he didn’t believe that amounted to a personal interest, in the interests of transparency, he wished to acknowledge the fact. Nevertheless he would retain an open mind and any decision would be his own and not that required of him by any other party.

Cllr Mike Lewis advised that when financial matters were discussed he would put SSDC matters before SCC.

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 of Holton raised her concerns about an unmarked very deep sink hole on a verge in her parish which could pose a danger to pedestrians; and the changes proposed by SCC to the mobile library service.

The chairman advised that her comments would be forwarded to the relevant officers and encouraged her to make her views on the Library Service as part of the public consultation.

Mrs J Bowie advised the committee that she had sent a letter to Harvey Siggs of SCC Highways inviting him to attend a public meeting so that he could address her concerns about the  housing developments in Wincanton that are proposed to be built on land (which in her opinion was dangerous) where a mini earthquake had occurred several years ago.

Cllr Mike Lewis requested a copy of the letter and would pass her comments on to relevant officers.

Mr J Jeremiah spoke about the removal, several years ago, of a damaged litter bin, purchased by Holton Parish Council, which had never been replaced.  Rubbish was now being left in the layby.

Apparently the litter bins are rat proof and now have lids; the ADM would take this issue up with the Streetscene Manager and report back directly to Mr Jeremiah.

b) Cllr C Winder referred to Planning Application 14/01704/OUT that had been considered at AEC last month where it had been resolved that external consultants should be employed to defend several objections at appeal.  Cllr Winder was very concerned as the judicial review had now been withdrawn and the original application now stood.  Due to these development changes Wincanton would now require active support from the planning service.

Cllr N Colbert referred to a planning appeal in Crewkerne very similar to the one referred to above, which had been successful.

During the short discussion, it was agreed that the ADM would write to the Development Manager to seek a meeting with Ward Members to discuss the defence of these appeals, consistency of the reasons used and to include the planning officer’s acceptance of SCC travel plans.  A copy to be sent to Ward Members.

Cllr Tony Capozzoli was concerned about a vehicle that had been abandoned for some time in Ilchester, the police were aware of it but were apparently powerless to remove it  The ADM would consult with the police and other relevant officers about the policy used regarding the removal of abandoned vehicles.

Cllr M Lewis raised his concern about the proposed closure of the Castle Cary branch of the Nat West Bank. It was proposed to send a letter to Nat West Bank on behalf of AEC members in order to express their disappointment over the closure of the Castle Cary branch and the impact that would have on businesses dealing with cash, the elderly and the lack of public consultation before the decision had been made.

Cllr T Inglefield had recently attended a meeting of the Henstridge Airfield Committee.  He raised his concerns about the format of that meeting which, in his opinion, had not been quorate and had been chaired and minuted by the same person.  Cllr Inglefield considered the constitution to be invalid and felt that another formal meeting should be arranged to address these deficiencies.

Cllr H Hobhouse understood that at the recent meeting of the Viridor Liaison Committee there had been a discussion about the transfer and closure of the local landfill site.

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

Members are asked to note that the date of the next scheduled meeting of the committee to be held at the Council Offices, Churchfield, Wincanton will be on 10^th December 2014 at 9.00 am.

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

The Chairman brought members attention to the following:

SCC Consultation on Libraries from 3 November- 10th Jan 2014/15

Members to ensure that parishes are alerted to the changes that SCC are proposing to make to the library service and to encourage residents to respond to the consultation process

Further details are now available on the SCC website.

Main changes:

•    To reduce the fleet of mobile libraries

•    To introduce criteria to rationalise stops and only attend communities of highest need with strongest demand eg > 3 miles from fixed library etc. visit play and older folk’s homes etc.

•    To encourage development of alternative provision.

AEC Xmas lunch on 19th December at the Mildmay Arms to let Anne know if interested.

A briefing regarding the future use of the Council Offices at Churchfield will be given at the AEC meeting in December.

Cllr T Capozzoli suggested that thought should be given again to holding AEC meetings in village halls in order to be nearer to the community.

The Assistant Highway Service Manager presented the report as detailed in the agenda he explained that the final surface dressing had now been completed and all of the previous year’s remedial work had stood up well. A final meeting regarding the grass cutting was soon due to take place and would include a review of the contractors used. Information would soon be sent to PC’s regarding details of collection of the grit bags. All the planned structural maintenance had been carried out in Area East and it had been a fairly successful year

In response to issues raised by Cllr Capozzoli the Assistant Highway Service Manager advised that he would liaise with Colin Fletcher of SCC about:

·         the issue of cars parking for long periods of time in the layby at Northover Ilchester and the possibility of a sign to prevent parking there;

·         the problem with work carried out by contractors in Church Street and

·         the yellow lines marked outside the Ilchester Post Office (which was in danger of closing down due to problems parking outside.)

In reply to Cllr N Colbert the Assistant Highway Service Manager would speak to the Winter Maintenance Policy Manager about the issue of gritting a small part of the non-adopted road between Homecanton House, Carrington Way, near to the Co-op. He hoped he would get a swift response.

As requested he would organise to walk around Wincanton with the town clerk to look at relevant highways issues that need addressing.

He suggested that Cllr Inglefield approached Colin Fletcher of SCC about the issue of parking in and around Templecombe Station

He understood that a review of the directional road markings in Castle Cary had taken place but, noting Members’ concerns about their value, he would find out the conclusion and whether it had been agreed to replace the on road, directional signs that had been removed in the centre of Castle Cary.

The chairman thanked the Assistant Highway Service Manager for the report and information.

RESOLVED: That members noted and commented on the report.

Sam Best, SSVCA Chief Executive Officer, gave a detailed presentation that included an update on SSVCA, including Voluntary Sector Support, Furnicare, Community Transport and the Flood Recovery work.

During discussion, the SSVCA Chief Executive Officer, responded to comments raised by members.

Members congratulated the SSVCA on the work done, and continuing to be done regarding the flooding last winter. Comments were also made that SSVCA and the Chief Executive Officer were to be praised for the work achieved over the past few years as funding had continuously been cut.

The ADM would instigate a discussion about the possibility of its community transport arm obtaining money from S106 obligations.

Members thanked the SSVCA Chief Executive Officer for the informative presentation and for all the work carried out by volunteers in particular.

RESOLVED:

(1)    That Area East Committee noted and commented on the Area East Capital Programme and Reserve

(2)    That Area East Committee noted the completion statement for work recently completed

(3)    That a sum of £10,000 be transferred from the Capital Reserve to the Community Grants Budget

(4)    That Area East Committee noted the current position on community grants and other project budgets held by Area East.

Reason: The Community Grant Budget be topped up with a further £10,000 from the Capital Reserve in order to increase the money available to support community projects.

(Voting: Unanimous in favour)

The Area East Development Manager provided members with an overview of the Area East Reserve and Grants Programme.  She referred to the re-launched Retail Support Initiative and the Business Rates Support Scheme; she advised that Officers were making businesses aware of both schemes in order to improve the take up. It was hoped that the decision regarding the bid for LEADER funding would be made known next month. The Queen Camel Neighbourhood Development Scheme was now at the draft report stage, the focus had previously been on the delivery on the ground rather than the plan itself. A Community Partnership had been established in Bruton and a number of community projects were in the pipe line.

Members were asked to consider the transfer of £10,000 from the Capital reserve to the Community Grants Budget in order to in order to increase the money available to support community projects.

Cllr Inglefield suggested that in the future this report should include a simple summary of the overall position on these Area East budgets.

The recommendation was carried unanimously in favour.

RESOLVED:

(1)    That Area East Committee noted and commented on the Area East Capital Programme and Reserve

(2)    That Area East Committee noted the completion statement for work recently completed

(3)    That a sum of £10,000 be transferred from the Capital Reserve to the Community Grants Budget

(4)    That Area East Committee noted the current position on community grants and other project budgets held by Area East.

Reason: The Community Grant Budget to be topped up with a further £10,000 from the Capital Reserve in order to increase the money available to support community projects.

(Voting: Unanimous in favour)

The Area Development Manager (ADM) reminded members that an allocation of a top up had been agreed in principle to expand the provision of superfast broadband in South Somerset; however more detailed information was still unavailable.  A meeting was soon to take place regarding attracting alternative providers to get the best solution to increasing coverage.

The ADM read the resolution that District Executive had agreed to at the meeting held on 6^th November 2014 which included a request that several issues were clarified before the best option available to SSDC could be decided.

During discussion the majority of members raised the same concerns that the delivery to towns would be further enhanced leaving rural areas with low coverage and slow speed.

A map from the Connecting Devon and Somerset web site was displayed which showed the areas already live; those coming soon; those under evaluation; those out of the programme and those commercially covered.

Members were content to note the recommendations of the District Executive report.

NOTED

A report regarding the future use of the Council Offices at Churchfield was requested for the AEC meeting in December and members were advised that an update on S106 obligations would be on the agenda during the middle of next year and that report would be in a slightly different format.

After the annual meeting for Area East parish and town councils, to be held on 27^th January 2015 a workshop would be organised for members.

NOTED

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.

Cllr Inglefield commented on the extract of information for Area East communities regarding the proposed changes to the library service and he asked that SCC be informed that Foxcombe Lane, Stowell was in Somerset and not Dorset.

NOTED

Cllr Mike Beech re-iterated the following declaration of interest regarding Item 17, Planning Application 14/02995/FUL, he advised that he was the partner of one of the objectors and whilst he didn’t believe that amounted to a personal interest, in the interests of transparency, he wished to acknowledge the fact. Nevertheless he would retain an open mind and any decision would be his own and not that required of him by any other party.

With reference to Item 18, Planning Application 14/03507/FUL, Cllr Henry Hobhouse advised that several years ago he had owned the property but he had no interest at all in it now.

NOTED

The Planning Officer presented the report as detailed in full in the agenda, he read out the reasons for the previously refused application, he did not think that this application had addressed those issues and therefore his recommendation was to refuse the application.

Mr B O’Hara of Keinton Mandeville PC addressed the committee in support of the application and urged members to approve it as the proposed dwellings would meet the needs as identified by the Keinton Mandeville Local Community Plan.

Mr l Wright spoke in support of the application on behalf of Pointcloud Consultants, he considered the benefits of the application outweighed any harm.

Ward Member Cllr John Calvert spoke in support as he felt that smaller homes were required and the loss of the countryside could be mitigated against.

During the short discussion the possibility of joining the existing footpath was raised.

It was proposed and seconded to approve the application contrary to the officer’s recommendation as the benefits of the proposed dwellings in terms of meeting the local needs identified by the Keinton Mandeville Local Community Plan outweighed any landscape harm to the character and pattern of the settlement plus conditions as read out by the Planning Officer and informatives. On being put to the vote the motion was carried by 8 votes in favour and 1 abstention.

RESOLVED: That Planning Application 14/03788/FUL be approved contrary to the officer’s recommendation as the benefits of the proposed dwellings in terms of meeting the local needs identified by the Keinton Mandeville Local Community Plan outweigh any landscape harm to the character and pattern of the settlement. As such the proposal complies with the saved policies of the South Somerset Local Plan and the policies contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.

Subject to S106 agreement to provide for:-

Sports, arts and leisure contribution of £40,289;

Monitoring fee (20% of application fee)

Conditions:

1.Time limit

2.Plans

3.Landscaping

4.Contaminated land

5.Drainage

6.Footpath, lighting and access detail

7.Visibility splays

8.Parking

9.Bader mitigation

10.Slow worm mitigation

11.Materials

Informatives

1.Highways licences

2.Badger clarification

3.Reminder of need to explore connection to existing footpath and extension of 30mph limit

(Voting: 8 in favour, 1 Abstention)

The Planning Officer presented the application as detailed in the agenda andwith the aid of a power point presentation showed the site and proposed plans. She confirmed that her recommendation was one of approval.

Mr J Knight of Pitcombe PC spoke in support of the application; the PC considered the proposal would enhance the existing building.

A Fry, S Maude and J Jeffrey all spoke in objection to the application they considered the design to be inappropriate, out of character, intrusive, and would have a detrimental impact on the visual amenity of the conservation area.

E Craigie spoke in support of the application and felt the extension would transform the house into a family home.

J Montgomery on behalf of the agent addressed the committee in support of the application which in her opinion was a modest, well designed application which had been created with a lot of input from the SSDC Planning Officer.

Ward Member Cllr Mike Beech was concerned about the possible impact the ‘L’ shaped extension to the front of the building could have on the conservation area.

Following a short discussion a proposal was made and seconded to approve the application as per the officer’s recommendation. On being put to the vote the motion was carried by 6 votes in favour and 3 abstentions.

RESOLVED: That Planning Application 14/02995/FUL be approved as per the officers recommendation for the following reason:

01.       The proposal, by reason of its size, scale and materials, respects the character of the conservation area and causes no demonstrable harm to residential amenity in accordance with the aims and objectives of policies EH1, ST5 and ST6 of the South Somerset Local Plan (Adopted April 2006).

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.       No work shall be carried out on site unless details of the design, materials and external finish for all new doors, windows, boarding and openings have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This will include detailed drawings including sections of at least 1:5. Such approved details, once carried out shall not be altered without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority.

            Reason: In order to ensure that the development accords with the character of the area in accordance with Policy EH1 of the South Somerset Local Plan as adopted 2006.

03.       No work shall be carried out on site unless full details the new natural stonework walls, including the materials, coursing, bonding, mortar profile, colour, and texture along with a written detail of the mortar mix, have been be provided in writing; this shall be supported with a sample panel to be made available on site and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The work shall be carried out in accordance with  ...  view the full minutes text for item 115.

The Planning Officer presented the application as detailed in the agenda, with the aid of a power point presentation he indicated the changes made since the previously refused application, and he read out the reasons for that refusal. The officer’s opinion was that as a result of the changes made, those reasons had been addressed with this application and therefore he confirmed that the recommendation was one of approval.

Mr J Knight of Pitcombe PC spoke in objection to the application and reaffirmed that the parish council’s recommendation was to refuse the application.

Mr M Taylor and Elizabeth Thomas both spoke in objection to the application.

Ward Member Cllr Mike Beech thought there was little difference between this application and the previously refused application.

During discussion, concern was raised about the proposed roof-lights, the possibility of overlooking and probably damage to the neighbour’s garden, and it was considered that the scale and design did not respect the character of the conservation area.  A suggestion was made that the roof lights could be replaced by sun tubes to the south elevation.

A proposal was made and seconded to approve the application as per the officer’s recommendation with an amendment to condition 7 to require details of alternative roof openings in the form of sun tubes to the south elevation of the single storey part and an additional condition 11 to require retention of the boundary wall to the south.

On being put to the vote the motion was carried by 4 votes in favour; 3 against and 2 abstentions.

RESOLVED: That Planning Application 14/03507/FUL be approved as per the officers recommendation:

01.       Justification

The replacement dwelling due to its design and form respects the character of the conservation area and provides an appropriate modern dwelling. The proposal also does not adversely affect residential or visual amenity. The proposal therefore complies with saved policies ST5, ST6, EC3, EH1 and EP6 of the South Somerset Local Plan and the provisions of chapters 4, 7, 11, 12 and the core planning principles of the National Planning Policy Framework.

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 in accordance with the following approved plans: '1551.080 Rev A', received 30th July 2014 and '1551-110 Rev E, '1551-11 Rev D', '1551-1112 Rev D' and '14/1439/02', received 26th September 2014.

            Reason: For the avoidance of doubt as to the development authorised and in the interests of proper planning.

03.       No development hereby approved shall be carried out until particulars of following have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority;

            a) details of materials (including the provision of samples where appropriate) to be used for the external walls, roofs and new boundary walls;

            b) sample panels of stonework  ...  view the full minutes text for item 116.

Prior to consideration of the application the Legal Services Manager explained that the application sought a COL (Certificate of Lawfulness), the application was to be determined on the basis of the evidence submitted by the applicant and any evidence that might contradict that. If further evidence was likely to come forward during the committee’s discussion, a decision on the application may have to be deferred to allow the applicant to consider and respond to that new evidence.

In response to a question regarding why this application had to be considered by AEC when the Town Council and Ward Members had all recommended refusal, the Legal Services Manager and Area Lead East explained that it was part of the delegated process.

The Planning Officer presented the application as detailed in full in the agenda, he read from a  letter sent by the agent (after production of the agenda) questioning why AEC were to consider the application when the Legal Service were satisfied that enough evidence had been received in order to issue a COL.  The officer confirmed that the recommendation was to grant the Certificate.

Mrs M Emery of Wincanton TC (Town Council) addressed the committee in objection to the application. The TC wished the agricultural tie to be left in place and she asked if there was time limit.

Ward Members Cllrs Colin Winder and Nick Colbert both spoke in objection and felt that the agricultural tie had been put in place for a reason; they considered that one of the applicants had lived in the property whilst complying with the agricultural occupancy condition and the evidence submitted to the Legal Service was questionable.

In response to a question, the Area Lead East explained that the application was not to seek relief from the non-fragmentation covenant but to seek confirmation of the lawfulness of the occupation of Lavendar Green.  The applicants state that occupation of the property had been in breach of the occupancy condition for over the 10 year time limit. The evidence, supported by statutory declarations, was that Mr Foremen had never been employed locally in agriculture as his primary job had been in West Sussex. 

During discussion, varying views were expressed including:-

·         Questioned why the application had to be considered by AEC;

·         There was no option other than to approve the application;

·         Members should have been told about the 10 year time limit;

·         An income could have been taken from the land during the time in question;

·         Members had no choice other than to approve the application with the information they had, and the advice received from the Legal officers;

·         In future these applications should be considered by Regulation Committee;

·         If approved, a red line should be drawn around the property.

In response to several questions the Legal Services Manger explained that:

·         The application was purely about the occupation of the dwelling: if a red line was drawn around the dwelling rather than a larger area, it would indicate the extent of what the Council considered lawful.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 117.