Meeting documents

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the previous meeting held on Wednesday 21^st June.

Councillor Anna Groskop advised that she would like an amendment to minute number 17 (Area East Forward Plan) of the minutes of the previous meeting held on Wednesday 14^th June 2017, copies of which had been circulated.

She advised that the committee had agreed, in principle, to seek outline planning permission using their own funds, for a retail unit in Wincanton. It was agreed that the minutes would be amended to reflect this.

The Chairman also advised that concerns which were raised over grass verges in Keinton Mandeveille were not included within the minutes.

Following the discussion, it was proposed and seconded that the mnutes would be amended to include additional text to detail the grass verges in Keinton Mandeville and that in principle, AEC would apply for outline planning permission for a retail unit in Wincanton, subject to a report to follow at the next month’s AEC meeting.

On being put to the vote, this was carried 6 votes in support, with 2 abstentions.

RESOLVED: that the minutes of the previous meeting were agreed subject to the following additional text to minute number 17;

2)  That in principle, Area East Committee would facilitate outline planning permission for a retail outlet, using their own funds, subject to a review of costs to be carried out by the Assistant Director (Communities), for which a supplementary report would be provided to members at the August Area East Committee meeting.

And an addition to minute number 12;

Members raised concern over the machines which were being used to cut the hedgerows/verges across the district, particularly in Keinton Mandeville.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor David Norris and Councillor Hayward Burt.

In accordance with the Council’s current Code of Conduct (as amended 26 February 2015), 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. 

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.  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. 

Planning Applications Referred to the Regulation Committee

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

Councillors Sarah Dyke, Tony Capozzoli, Nick Weeks and Colin Winder.

Where planning applications are referred by this Committee to the Regulation Committee for determination, 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 William Wallace, Mike Lewis and Anna Groskop, members of SCC (Somerset County Council), would only declare an interest in any business on the agenda where there was a financial benefit or gain or advantage to SCC which would be at the cost or to the financial disadvantage to SSDC.

Members are asked to note that the next scheduled meeting of the committee will be at the Council Offices, Churchfield, Wincanton on Wednesday 9^th August at 9.00 am.

Members noted that the date of the next scheduled meeting of the Area East Committee would be held at the Council Offices, Churchfield, Wincanton on Wednesday 9^th August 2017 commencing at 9am.

Ms E Elson, spoke to publically thank the local police for their brilliant help which they had given to her during a recent event.  She was very grateful for the help which she received from the staff at the Wincanton police station based at Churchfields.

The Chairman advised that the Area East Regeneration Board would now only meet as and when a meeting was required. The dates remain in his diary; however he would decide whether the board would meet prior to each meeting.

Councillor Tony Capozzoli advised members that there were problems at Limington where a ditch has been dug near to someone’s home to carry out repairs to a blocked drainage pipe. He was concerned that should there be heavy rain, that there could be flooding. He also expressed his concern that a reply had not been received from RNAS Yeovilton in relation to the flooding at Stockwitch Cross.

Councillor Colin Winder explained to members that he was still being contacted by members of the public for clarification over which types of plastics could be included in the weekly recycling collections. He also raised concern that enforcement action had not yet been taken at 55 High Street, Wincanton following a recent refusal of a retrospective planning application. He also pointed out there was a mobile home, which was being occupied, on Bennetts Field Trading Estate in Wincanton.

In response to the points made, the Area Development Lead Officer (East) advised that there was clear information on the SSDC website which detailed the type of plastics which could be recycled and that he would ensure that this was made available to Councillor Winder. He also advised that the mobile home on Bennetts Field Trading Estate was being dealt with by a Somerset County Council officer.

Councillor Mike Beech pointed out to members that there was still an issue with oversized machines being used to trim the hedgerows around the district.

RESOLVED:  that members

1)    Noted the report

2)    Awarded the £10,000 ring fenced for Healthy Living Centres to the Balsam Centre

Reason:

            For the delivery of the work programme

(voting: unanimouis)

The Area Development Lead presented his report to members. He explained that the Balsam Centre was the only Healthy Living Centre within the district and that the funding for the centre, and the decision for its allocation had been transferred to Area East Committee.

He explained that it had been a positive year for the centre and that the award of £10,000 was to match the funding that the centre receives for the ‘Like Minds’ project. He further advised that the Balsam Centre had received funds from the Armed Forces Community Covenant to employ a Community Development worker to support military families’ integration into the Deansley Way housing estate.

In response to a members question, the Area Development Lead confirmed that the Conkers Nursery was part of the Balsam Centre, however the funding which was being sought, was for the Balsam Centre and Balsam Centre projects only. He advised that this funding was not to be absorbed by Conkers Nursery. He further advised that the Balsam Centre was regulated by charity law, which would scrutinise where funding is spent to ensure that money would not be spent on the nursery.

The Area Development Lead suggested that it would be useful if members could have a report on how Conkers Nursery was funded and agreed that this would be made available to members at the next Area East Committee meeting.

RESOLVED:  that members

1)    Noted the report

2)    Awarded the £10,000 ring fenced for Healthy Living Centres to the Balsam Centre for the delivery of the work programme subject to a follow up report detailing the funding for Conkers Nursey be referred to Area East Committee.

(Voting: unanimous)

The Community Support Assistant presented her report to members. She explained that the report detailed the trends of the 3 market towns in Area East.

She pointed out that the Retail Support Initiative was a successful project and that the team were currently considering 3 new applications for grants and that 19 application packs had been requested from the team. She advised that a recent grant for the Red Lion had not been made as the pub had changed hands and that the money had not been drawn.

She further advised that her report contained suggested revisions to the scheme.

The Neighbourhood Development Officer advised that 2 High Street banks were likely to close in Wincanton and that mobile banks are likely to be provided as an alternative. Following the discussion around mobile banks, she advised that there had been strong lobbying by the Business Association of Wincanton to try to secure the banks from closing in Wincanton.

Members suggested that the car park information which was detailed within the report should be fed into the SSDC corporate review of car parks and that the graphs should be referred to the relevant Town Council. The Neighbourhood Development Officer agreed that she would ensure that this information was referred to the relevant Town Councils and would be included within the SSDC review of car parks and offices.

Following the discussion, it was proposed and seconded that the report be noted and to approve the revised RSI scheme for 2017/18.

On being out to the vote, this was carried unanimously.

RESOLVED:  that members noted the report and agreed to approved the revised RSI scheme for 2017/18.

(Voting: unanimous)

The Community Office Support Manager presented her report to members. She explained that the report provided details of the footfall and enquiry figures for across the district.

She advised members that there had been a decline in all of the area offices since last year. She suggested that this was due to an increase in the use of online services.

Universal Credit, which is being rolled out across the UK, requires all applications to be made online. She pointed out that members of the team were able to assist members of the public with making these online applications. She pointed out that where help is required to make these claims; this is usually offered the next working day. 

She informed members that customer satisfaction survey had been undertaken and that the results of which indicated that 99% of customers had received a good or very good service, she further pointed out that the team are very experienced members of staff.

Looking forward, she explained that she was hoping that the Transformation Project would look to enhance the online services, which would help ensure that face-to-face help would still be required for those that need it.

During the discussion, members questioned whether these services could be provided from the libraries. The procedure for reporting of waste problems was also clarified for members, as this is something which the team assist with.

The Assistant Director (Communities) advised members that SSDC was working with the Somerset County Council on the One Public Estate Programme which looks at ways of sharing public buildings for advice services.

RESOLVED:  that the report be noted.

Members noted the planning appeals which had been received, allowed or dismissed.

The Assistant Director (Communities) advised that the CIL report scheduled for the September meeting would be moved to the agenda for the October meeting.

She further advised that a report on the outline planning application for a retail unit in Wincanton would be included on the agenda for the August or September meeting of the Committee.

She requested that a report on the funding for the Conkers Nursery to be included on the Forward Plan for the August meeting of the Committee.

Councillor Anna Groskop suggested that it would be useful for members to visit the Balsam Centre to look at the benefits which they provide to the community and further requested a report on Tourism in Area East.

Members requested that a report on the future of the Churchfield offices be presented to the Committee following a Portfolio Holder Briefing which was taking place in the near future.

RESOLVED:  that the CIL report, currently scheduled for the September meeting would be moved to the October meeting of Area East Committee.

A report on the outline planning application for a retail unit in Wincanton and a report retiling the funding for Conker Nursery would be on the agenda for the August or September meeting of the committee.

A report on Tourism in Area East and the future use of Churchfield would be included within the Forward Plan.

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

Application Proposal: Outline application for the erection of a four bedroom dwelling and garage (resubmission of 14/01514/OUT)

The Planning Officer presented his report to members with the aid of a PowerPoint presentation. He explained that the application was a re-submission of an earlier outline planning application and that the extant permission will remain as a fall back position.

Mr P Davies and Mr S Jones addressed the Committee to speak in objection to the scheme. Their points included;

·         A site visit would be advisable as the access to the site was a single track steep road which was bounded by stone walls and was close to Listed Buildings.

·         The steep access road was well used and congestion was frequent.

·         A site visit would enable members to appreciate the changes in the land levels on the site.

·         The stability of the land was questionable as the access was over an old mill pond.

·         Social and economic benefits are limited.

·         The proposal was impact on The Old Mill, which was an old landmark building. The access will overlook The Old Mill and will remove all privacy.

Mr A Preston, the agent, addressed the Committee. He explained to members that the application site had gained outline planning permission in 2014 and was therefore regarded as appropriate infill and that the access was reasonable. He further advised that there had not been significant amendments to planning policy and that he felt that the application was acceptable.

Councillor Sarah Dyke, Ward Member, sought clarification on the position of the previous outline planning permission. The Area Lead Officer (North/East) clarified that the outline application remained as a fall-back planning application and that an application for reserved matters had now been submitted. He further clarified that the site had an extant outline planning approval.

During the discussion, members agreed that the access was a narrow, steep and well-used road.

It was proposed and seconded that the application be approved as detailed in the officer’s report; however on being put to the vote, this was not carried with 4 votes in support of the proposal and 5 votes against.

It was subsequently proposed and seconded, that the application be deferred to allow members to undertake a site visit to allow members to appreciate the setting of the proposed dwelling and to bring the report to a later committee meeting for determination at the same time as the current reserved matters application which was being considered by the planning team.

On being put to the vote, this was carried 7 votes in support, with 1 vote against and 1 abstention.

RESOLVED:  that planning application 17/01636/OUT be deferred to allow members to undertake a site visit and for the application to return to the Area East Committee for determination at the same time as planning application 17/02438/REM  which had not yet been determined.

(Voting: 7 votes in support, 1 vote against and 1 abstention)

Erection of a new dwelling and garage (revised design to that approved 15/04460/FUL)

(Having declared a personal and pecuniary interest, Councillor Henry Hobhouse left the room during the discussion of this item)

The Planning Officer confirmed, that with the Chairman’s permission, that he was going to present agenda items 15 and 16 together. He made it clear that although outline permission was granted for 3 dwellings on one site, that the site had now been separated into 3 units and that 2 of which were being considered at the meeting. The 2 units had different owners and different planning agents and would need to be considered separately.

Using a PowerPoint presentation, he provided images of the proposed plans and photographs of the site. He pointed out that the design of the houses was different to the design which had been approved and that the dimensions of the dwellings had been reduced. He advised members that it was his suggestion that the planning application be approved.

Pek Peppin, representing Castle Cary Town Council addressed the Committee. She explained to members that the site was not in the area of growth and that the original application for these houses had been supported for one reason only, which was the unique design of the houses which were proposed to be Hanse Haus dwellings. Hanes Haus dwellings are high efficient and as they are pre-fabricated, would cause little disruption to neighbours. She further pointed out that the original proposal was for 3 houses of similar and matching design. She was disappointed that the current proposal was for modern looking houses with amended window arrangements and amended fenestration. She hoped that the application would be refused.

Mr C Hurd, spoke in objection to the application. He explained that the amended application was no longer in-keeping with the surrounding area. He expressed concern over the disruption which would be caused and the time it would take to build the houses. He raised further concern over the windows which would overlook dwellings.

Mr J Nuth, the agent acting for plot 1, explained that the proposal was still for a timber framed house and pointed out there were no restrictions within the approval to restrict construction techniques He pointed out that the proposed dwellings were of traditional design and not a modern design. He also clarified that the roof height at the position closest to the neighbour’s boundaries are no higher than what was approved.  He pointed out that the windows which were facing existing properties were roof lights and would not cause a loss of privacy.

Councillor Nick Weeks, Chairman and Ward Member, advised members that the Town Council had felt let down by the application as they had previously supported the unique Hanse Haus dwellings. He advised that the current applications were very different and now had concern over the window positions.

Mr S Cooper, the owner of plot 2, advised members that the 3 windows which overlook existing properties would be obscured and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 33.

Application Proposal: Erection of a dwelling and garage (revised design to that approved 15/04460/FUL)

(Having declared a personal and pecuniary interest in this item, Councillor Henry Hobhouse left the room during the discussion of this item)

The discussion of the item had taken place with the discussion of agenda item 15.

It was proposed and seconded that planning application 17/01646/FUL be approved as per the officers report, subject to the amendment to condition 7 to include the wording; ‘unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority’. On being put to the vote this was carried 6 votes in support, 1 against and 1 abstention.

RESOLVED:  that planning application 17/01646/FUL be approved as per the officer report, subject to an amendment to condition 7 to include the wording ‘unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority’ for the following reason;

01.       The proposal, by reason of its location, represents appropriate infill adjacent to the development area and is therefore sustainable development in accordance with the aims of objectives of policy SS1 and EQ2 of the South Somerset Local Plan 2006- 2028.

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: Location Plan, TWP17-CC-003, 001, 002, 004, 005, 008 and 012 received 5 May 2017.

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

03.       Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no windows/dormer windows other than those expressly authorised by this permission shall be constructed.

Reason: In the interests of neighbour amenity further to Policy EQ2 of the South Somerset Local Plan 2006- 2028

04.       Before the development hereby permitted is commenced, foul and surface water drainage details to serve the development, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and such approved drainage details shall be completed and become fully operational before the development hereby permitted is first brought into use. Following its installation such approved scheme shall be permanently retained and maintained thereafter.

Reason: In the interests of neighbour amenity further to Policy EQ2 of the South Somerset Local Plan 2006- 2028.

05.       Prior to commencement full particulars detailing the layout of the natural stone boundary walls bordering the access road, their appearance, including that of the gate piers, use of materials, including a sample panel to show coursing and pointing, shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such details as shall be agreed shall be undertaken as part of the development and thereafter retained and shall not be removed or otherwise altered.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity, character and appearance and for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 34.

Application Proposal: Erect security building and staff parking area. Erect perimeter security fencing all in association with the storage of motor vehicles. Change of use of the land from B2 to B8 use.

The Planning Officer presented his report to members. He explained that since the report had been published, he thought it appropriate to add an additional condition to ensure that no washing or valeting of vehicles occurred until a drainage system had been installed and agreed.

He provided details of further updates to the application. Two letters had been received from LMR Planning Law, which had been circulated to members. The letters argue that there is inadequate detail contained within the application to determine the application and that the officer report lacked detail in key areas such as the principle of development, drainage and highways. Three further letters of objection had also been received, which raised further concern over highway safety.

Using a PowerPoint presentation, The Planning Officer provided maps, plans and photographs to show the area and the application proposal. He further provided plans to show a scheme adjoining the site which had recently been granted planning permission, however had not yet been implemented.

He advised members that in 2008, an established use of B2 was agreed by way of a certificate of lawfulness application. He suggested that a B8 use would have less impact on residents than the already permitted B2 use. His recommendation, as detailed in the report, was that the application be approved subject to the conditions, to include an additional drainage condition.

Mr T Evans, representing Lydford on Fosse Parish Council, addressed the committee. He explained to members that proposal detailed excessive opening times, would create pollution and offered limited employment for the community. He explained that he had concern over the traffic and the impact on the road network. He pointed out that there was little detail contained within the application in relation to number of vehicles to be stored on the site and the traffic movements to and from the site; however he thought that this would be considerably higher than with the current use at the site. He advised members that 20% of the traffic which uses the B3135 is a HGV.

Mr C Edwards, representing Ansford Parish Council, addressed members. He explained that he had grave concerns over the road network and the access to the site which would be used by large transporter vehicles. He explained that the road is unsuitable for HGV’s and that some areas of the road narrowed to single track in some areas, which results in delays and dangerous situations, and this increase in traffic would make the situation worse.

Ms P Peppin, representing Castle Cary Town Council, addressed the Committee. She explained that the Town Council had concerns over the road network and the increased traffic. She advised that it was wrong to compare this application to a similar application in Henstridge as that site was situated next to an A road  ...  view the full minutes text for item 35.

Application Proposal: Application to vary s106 agreement dated 19^th March 2013 between SSDC, Richard Don Knight and Heather Diana Knight to allow use of part of the land for anaerobic digester

The Development Manager explained that the application was strongly linked to a separate planning application for an anaerobic digester plant on the same site and recommend to members that the application be deferred. He suggested to members that this would allow the committee to consider the two planning applications together at the same meeting which would ensure that members have a full transparent picture of the planning applications which are proposed for the site.

It was proposed and seconded that planning application 17/001471/DPO be deferred to a later meeting of the Area East Committee to allow the application to be determined at the same meeting as planning application 17/01515/FUL. On being put to the vote, this was unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED:  that planning application 17/001471/DPO be deferred to a later meeting of the Area East Committee to allow the application to be determined at the same meeting as planning application 17/01515/FUL.

(Voting: unanimous)