Meeting documents

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the previous meeting held on Wednesday 13^th September 2017.

The minutes of the previous meeting held on Wednesday 13^th September, copies of which had been circulated, were agreed and signed by the Chairman.

There were no apologies of absence received.

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 8^th November at 9.00am.

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 8^th November at 9am.

There were no questions from members of the public present.

The Chairman advised that positive responses had been received from 9 parishes to the letter sent about the need for an artificial grass pitch in the area. He encouraged members to check whether parishes had received the letter.

He advised that another letter had been sent to the Town and Parish Councils to consider support for the SSCAT bus.

He reminded members that the business event was taking place on Thursday 2^nd November at Haynes Motor Museum between 4-7pm and that a Members Transformation Workshop was taking place on Thursday 19^th October at 6pm at Brympton Way, Yeovil.

The Chairman advised that he had nominated 2 members, which were Councillors Mike Lewis and Councillor Colin Winder, to be members on the working group for Member Leadership and Development.  

The Chairman passed on the sad news that Mrs Cave, from Clementina’s in Wincanton, had passed away and explained that she had given a lot of her time to training and helping young people in the town.

The Chairman advised that the Area East Regeneration Board would be meeting in November and that although future meetings had been cancelled; the dates still remained in the diary to allow a meeting to be held should there be any matters to discuss. During the discussion, it was suggested that the Chamber of Commerce be invited to attend to give their support.

The Revenues Team Leader presented her report to members. She advised that the reliefs/measures detailed within the report followed a re-evaluation of business rates.

She highlighted some points of detail from her report;

·         Supporting Small Businesses Relief ensured that the increase would be capped to a maximum of £600. She explained that of the 56 ratepayers in the district that would benefit from this relief, 13 were in Area East.

·         There was a scheme specific to pubs, and although there had been a delay in receiving the guidance from DCLG, letters had now been sent to the eligible pubs across the district to advise them of the reliefs which they could benefit from.  She advised that the application process required an application form to be completed, but hoped that the eligible pubs would take the time to submit the completed form to ensure that they benefited from the business rate relief to which they were entitled.

·         A new relief for public toilets was due to be introduced next year, to allow SSDC to grant discretionary relief on public toilets that they own.

During the discussion, she clarified that there are no reliefs available for libraries as they are owned and maintained by Somerset County Council.

RESOLVED:  that members noted the report and that a letter would be sent to the MP, and copied to Oliver Woodhams, to highlight the concerns of the Committee on the lack of business rate relief available to libraries.

RESOLVED:  that the Bruton Town Plan 2017 be endorsed by Area East Committee.

Reason:          to present a summary of the findings and actions from the Bruton Town Plan

(Voting: unanimous)

The Neighbourhood Development Officer presented his report to members. He explained that a sound process had been followed and that he hoped that the plan would be endorsed by the Committee.

James Hood, a representative from the Bruton Town Plan Steering Group addressed the Committee. He explained that;

·         The document was completed following a thorough review of other town plans and that the evidence base was detailed on their website.

·         A survey was sent to all residents, with over 30% of surveys being completed.

·         He hoped that the document would be considered by planners when determining planning applications.

·         It was clear from the survey responses that transport was a big issue for a lot of the residents that completed the survey.

Councillor Anna Groskop, the ward member, explained that she had great pleasure in seeing the plan completed and hoped that the Committee would endorse the plan.

During the discussion, members praised the plan and commented that it was positive that the plan was concise and not a large document. Some members agreed that the document should be fully considered by the planning department when determining planning applications in Bruton. The Neighbourhood Development Officer confirmed that the planning department had received copies of the plan.

RESOLVED:  that Area East Committee endorsed the Bruton Town Plan 2017.

The Area Development Lead presented his report to members. He explained that the review report came only 5 months after the Area Development Plan was presented to Area East Committee.

He explained that progress had been made on many aspects of the plan. However, he explained that the closure of the banks in Area East had demanded additional officer time to initially try to prevent this from happening and to look at ways to mitigate the issue.  

He advised that the team were also looking at ways to support changes to the SSCAT bus funding and to support urgent works to Brewham Village Hall.

During the discussion, the Area Development Lead was pleased to advise that the Wincanton Neighbourhood Plan had reached examination stage. He acknowledged that it could be a difficult task developing a Neighbourhood Plan, however pointed out that support and funding would be available from SSDC.

The Chairman thanked the Area Development Lead and the Area Development Team for their hard work and explained that he felt that it was important that the Area East Development Team and the Committee remained to be based in Area East.

RESOLVED:  that members;

1)    noted the current position on community grants and other project budgets held by Area East Committee

2)    noted the progress with projects in the Area Development Plan

3)    noted the current Area East Capital Programme and Reserve funds

(voting: unanimous)

The Area Development Lead advised members that he had not yet received any further information on the A303 upgrade and that it was likely that this would be deferred to the December meeting of the Committee.

He advised that the Wincanton Community Hospital report would include transport issues, but that it would likely be moved to the December agenda.

He confirmed that the Superfast Broadband report would remain on the agenda for the meeting in November.

It was suggested that a workshop would be arranged for members to replace the S106/CIL update report; however a summary of local accounts would be circulated ahead of the workshop.

In response to a request from a member, it was agreed that the findings from the business event would be included within the Regeneration Update report.  

RESOLVED:  that members noted the Area East Forward Plan and the amendments suggested.

Members noted the planning appeal which had been received.

Members noted the schedule of planning applications to be determined and noted that planning application 17/03245/COU had been withdrawn by the applicant.

Application Proposal: The erection of 3 no. dwellings along with associated access and parking

The Area Lead (South) presented the report to members using the aid of a PowerPoint presentation. Using PowerPoint slides he provided images of the site and adjoining highway as well as proposed plans as submitted.

He explained that the application was for 3 x two-storey dwellings in the former garden of 50 and 52 Ash Walk. He advised that parking spaces and a turning area had been included within the scheme and that as part of the proposal, the existing pavement would be widened.

He clarified the proposed planning conditions in detail.

He advised members that concern over the access had been raised from several neighbouring residents, however pointed out that the SCC Highways Team had referred only to standing advice and that the SSDC Highways Consultant was now satisfied that an appropriate means of access could be achieved.

Photographs submitted by Mr I O’Donnell, an objector, showing the high level of traffic on the road were presented to members. 

Mr S Cullum, the Vice-Chairman of Henstridge Parish Council addressed the Committee. He explained that the application brings no local benefit and is over-development of the site. He also felt that the design and appearance, in an important focal-point of the village, was inappropriate.

Mr M Player, also representing the Parish Council, addressed members. He explained that the Parish Council had unanimously agreed to recommend that the planning application be refused and agreed that the application was not appropriate and was over-development on the site. He commented that the access would be dangerous to vehicles and pedestrians and explained that in some occurrences, Community Speedwatch had recorded speeds on this stretch of road as high as 50mph. He further commented that a planning inspector had previously refused a planning application on the site over the road, as the access to the site would be dangerous and was too close to the junction.

Mrs J Bates and Mr J Watson spoke in objection to the application. Their comments included;

·         Photographs included on the PowerPoint presentation were mis-leading.

·         The application is over-development of the site.

·         Too few parking spaces included within the application.

·         Concerns that the applicant will leave the site as an eyesore should permission be refused.

·         It is already difficult gaining access to the site next door due to cars queuing at the traffic lights. Should the application be approved, new residents would have the same problem.

·         There is no local benefit

·         Questioned the risk assessment which had been carried out by the SSDC Highways Consultant. No such assessment has been published.

·         Houses on the opposite side of the road will be overshadowed.

Councillor William Wallace, Ward Member, explained that he was disappointed that the SSDC Highway Consultant felt that the access would be suitable. He explained that with his local knowledge, that this was a very busy road with huge amounts of traffic. He commented that the photos of the road, in which the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 83.

Application Proposal: The erection of 1 no. dwelling (outline)

The Area Lead (South) presented his report to members, using the aid of a PowerPoint presentation. He provided images of the site and proposed plans and access. He also pointed out the position of a nearby site that had been granted planning permission for 9 dwellings.

Photographs submitted by the agent were displayed.

Mr M Williams, the Planning Agent, addressed the Committee. He explained to members that the site was close to Wincanton and not separated by Verrington Lane. He pointed out that this contemporary design would not be visible from any point along Old Hill as the dwelling would sit into the hillside. He clarified for members that the proposed dwelling would not interfere with the right of way.

Mr T Baylis, the applicant address the Committee. He informed members that he had moved to Wincanton approximately 5 years ago and had built his current home himself. He advised that would support local businesses by using local materials. He confirmed that the shipping container and caravan on the site would be removed.

Councillor Mike Beech, the Ward Member, pointed out that this was an outline application and that the reserved matters would be considered at a later date. He offered his support to the innovative design.

During the discussion, an informative to ensure that the innovative/eco design of the dwelling would remain at reserved matters stage was discussed; however the Legal Services Manager advised that an informative wasn’t legally binding. She also pointed out that as members were considering an outline application, only the principle of development was being considered and not the design.

Following the discussion, it was proposed and seconded that the application be approved, subject to conditions and an informative to ensure that the future reserved matters application supports the indicative design for the proposed dwelling.

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

RESOLVED:  that planning application 17/03155/OUT be approved, contrary to the officer recommendation for the following reason and subject to conditions and an informative to ensure that the future reserved matters application supports the indicative design for the proposed dwelling.

For the following reason:

The proposal comprises sustainable development that, subject to the approval of reserved matters, would respect the landscape character of the area in accordance with the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework; and policies SD1, SS1, EQ2 of the South Somerset Local Plan (2006-2028).

Subject to the following conditions:

1)            The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 17109-02 received 28 July 2017.

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

2)            Details of the access, scale, layout, appearance and landscaping (herein after called the "reserved matters") shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before any development begins and the development shall be carried out as approved.

Reason: As required by Section 92(2) of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 84.

Application Proposal: Change of ground floor use from office to takeaway

This application had been withdrawn by the applicant and therefore was not considered by members.