Meeting documents

The minutes of the meeting held on 18^th March 2015, 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.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Mike Best, John Dyke, Andrew Turpin and Martin Wale.

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, Angie Singleton and Linda Vijeh

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.

Councillors Dave Bulmer, Brennie Halse and Jenny Kenton declared personal interests in Planning Application No. 15/00373/FUL – Land to the rear of Anne Eagles, Kinforde, as members of Chard Town Council. 

During consideration of Planning Application No. 15/00582/FUL – Land at Gappers Pool, Church Street, Merriott, Councillor Angie Singleton declared a personal and prejudicial interest, as the mother of her son-in-law was part owner of the land adjoining the proposed application site.  She left the room for the remainder of the item.

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.

The Committee was addressed by Connel Boyle on behalf of Neroche Primary School Governing Body.  He referred to the need for further preschool places in the village of Broadway and requested South Somerset District Council to commence dialogue with Somerset County Council regarding the inclusion of additional pre-school capacity as part of the S106 obligations for two planning applications submitted in the village.

The Committee was then addressed by Teresa Sienkiewicz who raised concerns with regard to Agenda Item 8 – Crewkerne Key Site.

The Area Development Manager (West) reported that the Council had been awarded a grant of £23,265 for the Manor Court Buildings in Chard.  Work on the feasibility study was almost complete and a further report would be submitted to the Area West Committee in due course. 

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

The Area Development Manager (West) advised that there were no updates to the Forward Plant.  With reference to the update on the Chard Regeneration Scheme, he advised that the date for the next Board meeting had not yet been arranged.

Members were content to note the Area West Committee Forward Plan as outlined in the agenda.

NOTED.

In the absence of the Section 106 Monitoring Officer, the Development Manager introduced the report which provided members with information on signed Section 106 agreements relating to developments within Area West. 

During the ensuing discussion, the Development Manager noted the comments of members and responded to questions on points of detail. Members were informed that:

·         Due to the legislation change, there would be no more contributions sought from Area West developments for the Octagon Theatre.  There would be no way to challenge those agreements already signed;

·         The contributions for the Redrow site had been received and officers would be working on local projects;

·         Government advice was not to embark on CIL until the Local Plan had been adopted.

Members were asked to contact the Section 106 Monitoring Officer with any specific questions on individual schemes.

RESOLVED:  That the report be noted and the actions taken in respect of the monitoring and managing of Section 106 Planning Obligations be endorsed.

The Chairman advised that there were a number of outstanding matters to be resolved in relation to highways, land ownership and the cost of the archaeological dig.  The other two Ward Members were also unable to attend the meeting.  She proposed to defer the report to a future meeting of the Area West Committee.

The proposal to defer consideration of the report to a future meeting of the Area West Committee was seconded and on being put to the vote was carried unanimously.

Members noted the Schedule of Planning Applications to be determined by the Committee.

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.  There were no updates to the report.  The key considerations were highway safety, visual impact and residential amenity.  The Planning Officer’s recommendation was for approval.

In response to questions from Members, the Planning Officer confirmed that:

·         The proposed access came out onto a 30 mph road;

·         The site had no lawful use as a builder’s yard and should therefore be given limited weight. Consideration should be given to the site at present;

·         An alternative access via Kinforde was not proposed and was not being suggested.  To introduce access for a 3^rd dwelling would adversely affect the amenities of the two nearby properties;

·         No concerns had been raised by the County Highway Authority or the SSDC Highway Consultant over moving vehicles passing parked vehicles.

The Committee was addressed by Tony Prior representing Chard Town Council.  He commented that there were frequently parked cars along the road and that Chard Town Council objected to the application on the grounds of the access being extremely dangerous.  He stated that if members were minded to approve the application he would support it being deferred for further negotiations over an access via Kinforde as this would not cause any traffic problems.

The Committee was then addressed by Louise Allen in objection to the application.  Her comments included the following:

·         She objected to the application on the grounds of highway safety;

·         The photographs shown by the Planning Officer were not accurate as there were always parked cars along the road;

·         There was no path outside of her property and the access was not good;

·         There was a more suitable access on the other side between the two nearby bungalows.

The Applicant’s Agent, Paul Dance, commented that he had worked with the Planning Officer to produce a suitable scheme.  He referred to the access being used in a more intense manner in the past and could also be used a lot more with its present use.  He stated that there had been no highway objection to the scheme and that the suggested alternative access route was not owned by the applicant.  He did not feel that 3 car movements out per day would cause a significant issue.  The proposed dwelling had been redesigned to satisfy the issue of overlooking.  He confirmed that the applicant was agreeable to the proposed conditions.

The Ward Member, Councillor Jenny Kenton commented that the proposed location was a brownfield site suitable for use but had concerns over the access being totally unsuitable.  She commented that the Committee was unable to consider the other access.  She also had concerns over there being no pavement and that the access from the property was straight onto a dog leg.  She had requested that the application be considered by the Area West Committee because of the highway issue.

During discussion, varying views were expressed by Members.  Comments raised included  ...  view the full minutes text for item 184.

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 report.  Particular reference was made to the impact on the setting of the Conservation Area as referred to in the agenda report by the Landscape Officer.  The key considerations were harm to heritage assets – the character and appearance/setting of the Merriott Conservation Area, Case Law – Reinforces the statutory duty to "preserve or enhance" heritage assets and precedent for future development of the open space.  The Planning Officer advised that an email had been received from County Councillor Le Hardy in support of the application.  A second email in support of the application had also been received from a nearby neighbour.

The Conservation Officer referred members to Section 72 of the Act that requires special attention to be paid in the exercise of planning functions to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a conservation area.  He referred to NPPF guidance which stated that harm did not have to be publically visible.  He was of the view that the proposed development would cause serious harm.

The Planning Officer advised that Merriott was classed as a rural settlement and that Policy SS2 would apply, which strictly seeks to control development.

In response to questions from Members, the Planning Officer confirmed that:

·         The blue area shown on the site location plan was land in the applicants ownership;

·         The Planning Officer gave information of a recent appeal decision where Policy SS2 had been tested;

·         The Planning Officer was of the view that the proposal did not provide community benefit;

·         Verbal pre-application advice had been given to the applicant;

·         The Parish had recently adopted a village plan and weight could be given to it;

·         SS2 did make reference to development being in accordance with village plans;

·         The footpath ran in a southerly direction and was adjacent to Merriott Social Club;

·         The Ward Member confirmed that approximately 2,000 people lived in Merriott;

·         Any individual proposals for development were assessed against the NPPF and development plan priorities;

·         The Conservation Officer commented that the green area in the village added to the setting of the conservation area.

The Committee was addressed by Martin David in objection to the application.  His comments included the following:

·         The applicant had achieved a lot in the village but this should have no bearing on the application;

·         The application site was a huge field and was one of four fields that joined each other.  The fields made the area unique;

·         A Surveyor had already been seen on the site;

·         Granting permission would be of benefit to very few and would be detrimental to the people of the village.

The meeting was adjourned for 5 minutes in order for the Chairman to seek legal advice from the Legal Services Manager.

Following advice from the Legal Services Manager, Councillor Angie Singleton declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the application and left the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 185.

Members noted that the next meeting of the Area West Committee would be held on Wednesday 17^th June 2015 at 5.30pm.  Venue to be confirmed.