Meeting documents

The Minutes of the meetings held on 18^th May 2016 and 19^th May 2016, copies of which had been circulated, were taken as read, and having been approved were signed by the Chairman as a correct record of the proceedings.

An apology for absence was received from Councillor Dave Bulmer.

In accordance with the Council's current Code of Conduct (adopted July 2012), which includes all the provisions relating to Disclosable Pecuniary Interests (DPI), personal and prejudicial interests, Members are asked to declare any DPI and also any personal interests (and whether or not such personal interests are also "prejudicial") in relation to any matter on the agenda for this meeting. A DPI is defined in The Relevant Authorities (Disclosable Pecuniary Interests) Regulations 2012 (SI 2012 No. 1464) and Appendix 3 of the Council’s Code of Conduct. A personal interest is defined in paragraph 2.8 of the Code and a prejudicial interest is defined in paragraph 2.9. 

Members are reminded that they need to declare the fact that they are also a member of a County, Town or Parish Council as a Personal Interest.  As a result of the change made to the Code of Conduct by this Council at its meeting on 15^th May 2014, where you are also a member of Somerset County Council and/or a Town or Parish Council within South Somerset you must declare a prejudicial interest in any business on the agenda where there is a financial benefit or gain or advantage to Somerset County Council and/or a Town or Parish Council which would be at the cost or to the financial disadvantage of South Somerset District Council.  If you have a prejudicial interest you must comply with paragraphs 2.9(b) and 2.9(c) of the Code.

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

Planning Applications Referred to the Regulation Committee

The following members of this Committee are also members of the Council's Regulation Committee:

Councillors Mike Best, Sue Osborne and Angie Singleton

Where planning applications are referred by this Committee to the Regulation Committee for determination, in accordance with the Council's Code of Practice on Planning, Members of the Regulation Committee can participate and vote on these items at the Area Committee and at Regulation Committee.  In these cases the Council's decision-making process is not complete until the application is determined by the Regulation Committee.  Members of the Regulation Committee retain an open mind and will not finalise their position until the Regulation Committee.  They will also consider the matter at Regulation Committee as Members of that Committee and not as representatives of the Area Committee.

Councillor Martin Wale declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 8 – Chard Business Hub Project, as a member of the Making It Local Executive Group.

Councillor Val Keitch declared a personal interest in Planning Application No. 16/01148/ADV, as a member of Ilminster Town Council.

Councillor Jenny Kenton declared a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest (DPI) in Planning Application Nos. 16/01680/FUL and 16/01681/LBC, as the applicant.

Councillor Garry Shortland declared a personal and prejudicial interest in Planning Application Nos. 16/01680/FUL and 16/01681/LBC, as he sometimes undertook work for the applicant.

Councillors are requested to note that the next Area West Committee meeting is scheduled to be held

Members noted that the next meeting of the Area West Committee would be held on Wednesday 20^th July 2016 at 5.30pm.  Venue to be confirmed.

This is a chance to ask questions, make comments and raise matters of concern.

Parish/Town Councils may also wish to use this opportunity to ask for the District Council’s support on any matter of particular concern to their Parish/Town.

Anyone wishing to raise matters in relation to items on the agenda may do so at the time the item is considered.

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

There were no announcements made by the Chairman.

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

The Assistant Director (Communities) advised that there were no updates to the Forward Plan.

(Resolution passed without dissent)

(Voting: 13 in favour, 1 against)

Reason: To agree an allocation of funding for the Chard Business Hub Project.

With the aid of a powerpoint presentation, the Neighbourhood Development Officer presented his report to members.  Members noted that making the proposed funding allocations would allow the project to go ahead.  As the project develops alternative sources of funding would be sought and if found, the need to draw down funding in Area West reserves would be reduced.

The Neighbourhood Development Officer responded to members’ questions on points of detail.  Responses included the following:

·         One of the project targets was to provide support to 30 community projects which would also involve looking for funding.  The projects would be about working with local groups to develop the community and bring value and could include training and supporting people leaving school;

·         The establishment of a separate hub operating company would be decided by the Project Board and be dependent on funding;

·         It was considered that the targets had been set at an achievable level;

·         The floor space had been advertised for more than two years;

·         The model had been developed to suit the needs of Chard.  The premises costs were inclusive with the exception of business rates.  Other successfully renting premises had been looked at as a guide;

·         The Project Board was recommending appointing additional members to supplement their skills and expertise as the project progressed;

·         There would be various controls in place to manage the performance of the project;

·          The floor space was not considered appropriate for entrepreneur use;

·         The Chard Regeneration Scheme recognised the importance of business incubation in Chard town centre.

During discussion, the majority of members welcomed and expressed their support for the project and wished the Neighbourhood Development Officer success in taking the project forward.  However, one member felt that he could not support the proposal and raised a number of concerns.  Comments expressed in support of the project included the following:

·         A member thanked the Neighbourhood Development Officer and other relevant officers for the work that had gone into the project;

·         It was acknowledged that the demand for business incubation space was hidden and no amount of survey work would expose it.  The highest risk was to do nothing;

·         It was felt that the workspaces should be flexible and modern;

·         A member highlighted the opportunity to apply for funding through the Making It Local Programme.

At the conclusion of the debate, the majority of members were content to approve the recommendations of the report.

The Community Office Support Manager introduced the report and highlighted that across the Community Offices overall footfall had reduced by 8% and that web transactions had increased by 20%.  Members were informed that 3,675 benefit applications had been received in 2015/16 which was a 6.6% reduction compared to 2014/15.  17% of applications had been received electronically compared to 14% the previous year.  Reference was made to the roll out of Universal Credit and it was noted that the implications were unknown but meetings were being arranged to ensure that customers would be assisted with completing documents electronically.

During discussion on the item, the Community Office Support Manager noted the comments of members and responded to questions on points of detail as follows:

·         The most vulnerable people in the community did not have access to the internet and therefore proper telephone access needed to be provided;

·         With regard to the Council’s Transformation programme, it was noted that face to face communication would always exist;

·         As the Ilminster Community Office only opened for 7 ½ hours per week it would be useful to know how many SSDC benefit enquiries have gone to the Town Council Offices when it is closed;

·         The Community Support Team could access the phone lines and provide support when there were peak pressures;

·         As part of Transformation, members were advised that a member workshop would be held to discuss customer support in the future.

The Chairman thanked the Community Office Support Manager for attending the meeting.

RESOLVED:  That the report be noted.

With the aid of a powerpoint presentation, the Area West Development Team Leader Lead gave a presentation on the work of Ilminster Forum.  She explained that over the past year a significant amount of work had taken place to produce a new Ilminster Community Plan.  A household survey was delivered to consult residents on issues relating to the town centre, green spaces, community life, safety and getting about.  853 surveys were completed, a return rate of 31%.  The survey highlighted that a wide variety of community sources were used by residents including the Chard & Ilminster News and Facebook.  89% of respondents had said that walking was the main way they get about in Ilminster and the country footpaths and the Recreation Ground were the two most regularly used green spaces in and around the town.  Members were informed that the Ilminster Forum was continuing to analyse the data to identify all issues of concern to residents and would draw up a list of potential projects and hold a public consultation.   The survey data and public consultation would be used to draft a new Community Plan with accompanying Action Plan for Ilminster. 

The Area West Development Team Leader highlighted some of the other projects that ABCD had been involved with including:

·         Defibrillator project

·         Party in the park – to be held on 28^th August

·         Produce market – held on the first Saturday of the month

The Chairman thanked the Area West Development Team Leader for her presentation.

The Area Development Manager (West) introduced the report and advised that amendments would be made to the Area West Reserve to reflect the decision made to reallocate the reserve to underwrite the Chard Business Hub project.  He referred members to the Area West Development Service Plan and highlighted that all actions were in progress and on target with the exception of the Chard Business Hub Project which had been delayed due to further clarification and questions. 

In response to questions, members were informed that Forton Community Association had submitted an amended planning application.  It was noted that the allocation of £5,000 for the Fore Street study was no longer required and would be reallocated.

(Resolution passed without dissent)

(Resolution passed without dissent)

Reason:  To appoint two members to act as substitutes for the Chairman and Vice-Chairman in the exercising of the scheme of delegation for planning and related applications for the municipal year 2016/17.

(Resolution passed without dissent)

Reason:  To appoint two members to act as substitutes for the Chairman and Vice-Chairman in the exercising of the scheme of delegation for planning and related applications for the municipal year 2016/17.

RESOLVED:  That the following appointments be made to the Area West Working Groups and Outside Organisations for the municipal year 2016/17:

(Resolution passed without dissent)

Reason: To appoint members to working groups and outside bodies for the municipal year 2016/17.

The Committee agreed the appointment of members to serve on outside bodies and working groups within Area West for 2016/17.

RESOLVED:  That the following appointments be made to the Area West Working Groups and Outside Organisations for the municipal year 2016/17:

(Resolution passed without dissent)

Reason: To appoint members to working groups and outside bodies for the municipal year 2016/17.

The Committee noted an appeal that had been dismissed in Chard.

Members noted that if an application goes to appeal, the ward member could request a copy of the Officer’s report.

NOTED.

The Committee noted the schedule of planning applications to be considered.

Application Proposal: Outline application for residential development (for up to 25 No. dwellings) with associated vehicular access arrangements, relocation of parking for Norbeth and The Bell Inn. (GR 332383/115392)

The Planning Officer introduced the report and with the aid of slides and photographs summarised the details of the application as set out in the agenda.  He referred to the key considerations which were principle of development, highway safety, visual/residential amenity and planning obligations.  He advised that the refuse vehicle tracking was considered to be acceptable and the Highways Authority were satisfied with a refuse lorry clipping the kerbside as the movement was only once a week.   One of the benefits of the scheme was to bring forward a remaining space to be used as a rural park for community benefit.   He advised that the application was proposing up to 25 dwellings and that the final scheme would be controlled through reserved matters.  The landscape impact was considered acceptable given the established need for housing.  He advised that further correspondence received from Wessex Water stated that the foul flow from 25 properties would be very small.  He updated that since the publication of the agenda a letter had been received in support of the application. He had also received an email from a local resident raising concerns.  The Planning Officer’s recommendation was for approval.

In response to members’ questions, the Planning Officer informed members of the following:

·         No cycle or bus routes out of the village was not an acceptable reason for refusing the application on the grounds of being an unsustainable development;

·         The site was located in a village central location, was close to a school and well related to services and facilities and was therefore considered to be within a sustainable location;

·         The Conservation Officer had not considered the proposal to be harmful;

·         There were no technical grounds to refuse the application.  It was for members to assess whether another 25 houses on top of the 16 agreed on the adjoining site was acceptable;

·         The Area Lead was not aware of any specific appeal cases with regard to cumulative impact.  He reminded members that each case should be considered on its own merits;

·         The proposed entrance would go through the grounds of the house with a small part from the existing pub car park.  Part of the proposal was to relocate some parking to the rear.  Parking for the pub could be subject to negotiation but could not be controlled under planning;

·         The Highway Officer had confirmed that it was not a problem for a refuse lorry to clip the kerb.  He was satisfied with the plans and had undertaken a site visit;

·         A house gable end fronting onto the road was generally considered to be acceptable.  There had been no objections received from the occupiers of the house;

·         The access allowed for two way traffic.

Christine Trueman, Chair of Broadway Parish Council advised that the Parish Council had commissioned a Housing Needs Survey and the results would be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19.

Application Proposal: Change of use from office (Use Class B1) to residential to provide 1 No. unit of first floor living accommodation

The Planning Officer introduced the report and with the aid of slides and photographs summarised the details of the application as set out in the agenda.    He advised that the property was located within a conservation area and that the signs would be located inside the building.  There had been no objections received on highway safety grounds and given the location and size of the signs the proposal was considered to be acceptable.  The Planning Officer’s recommendation was therefore for approval subject to conditions.

Ward Member, Cllr. Val Keitch advised that Ilminster Town Council objected to the application and felt that the signs were not in keeping with the Conservation Area.  She commented that Ilminster did not have a night time economy and the signs were unnecessary given the footfall in the town at night. She considered the signs to be a distraction and detrimental to the Conservation Area as well as being close to the medieval market place.

The other Ward Member, Cllr. Carol Goodall referred to the Planning Act for Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas and felt that the signage was inappropriate and would have a detrimental effect on the building. 

The Area Lead advised that the Planning Officer had spoken to the Agent and that he was agreeable for the signs to be turned off at 6.00pm and that this could be added as an additional condition.

It was proposed and seconded to approve the application with conditions as outlined in the agenda subject to an additional condition that there shall be no illumination allowed from 6.00pm.  On being put to the vote the proposal was unanimously carried.

Application Proposal: Change of use from office (Use Class B1) to residential to provide 1 No. unit of first floor living accommodation.

(Having earlier declared a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest, Councillor Jenny Kenton left the room during consideration of the application)

(Having earlier declared a personal and prejudicial interest, Councillor Garry Shortland left the room during consideration of the application)

The Planning Officer introduced the report and with the aid of slides and photographs summarised the details of the application as set out in the agenda. 

In response to members’ questions, the Planning Officer informed members of the following:

·         One wall of the building was listed;

·         The space had been previously marketed;

·         As the space was only small it was considered acceptable given the previous conversion.

The Committee was addressed by the Applicant, Andrew Kenton.  He advised that the office space had been empty for 2 years.  It was only a small office space and the conversion would make it into a home.  He confirmed that the Conservation Officer was happy with the proposals.

Ward Member, Cllr. Amanda Broom commented that she had no concerns with the application and felt that the proposal made good use of the space.

It was proposed and seconded to approve the application as per the Planning Officer’s recommendation.  On being put to the vote the proposal was unanimously carried.

Application Proposal: The carrying out of internal alterations.

(Having earlier declared a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest, Councillor Jenny Kenton left the room during consideration of the application)

(Having earlier declared a personal and prejudicial interest, Councillor Garry Shortland left the room during consideration of the application)

It was proposed and seconded to approve the application as per the Planning Officer’s recommendation.  On being put to the vote the proposal was unanimously carried.