Meeting documents

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

(Councillor Mike Beech left the room during the discussion as he felt that the Committee might be acting ultra vires)

Councillor Tim Inglefield suggested some amendments to the minutes in relation to agenda item 18 (planning application for Henstridge Airfield). He pointed out that at the previous meeting he had proposed that a time limit be imposed to the time in which the section 106 be agreed and signed by the applicant. He had also proposed that the pilots log should contain further information such as the pilot’s name, to be included within the management agreement and s106 agreement.

Members agreed to defer the signing of the minutes until the end of the meeting to allow the Chairman to seek advice from the Senior Legal Executive.

At the end of the meeting, following advice from the Senior Legal Executive, members resolved that the minutes of the previous meeting, copies of which had been circulated, were correct and were agreed by the Chairman subject to the amendments which were suggested by Councillor Tim Inglefield.

(Councillor Mike Beech was now present)

Members requested that an update report on the progress of the s106 for the Henstridge Airfield application be included on the November agenda for Area East Committee.

Apologies of absence were received from Councillor Sarah Dyke and Councillor Henry Hobhouse.

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 David Norris, Sarah Dyke-Bracher, Tony Capozzoli and Nick Weeks.

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 Colin Winder declared a personal and pecuniary interest in agenda item 17 (planning application 16/02257/FUL) as he was acting as a planning agent for the application. He left the room during discussion of the item.

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.

Angela Barton addressed the Committee to make comments on the minutes taken for planning application 15/04069/FUL which was discussed at the previous meeting (agenda item 18). She explained that she found the meeting confusing without the provision of a PowerPoint presentation and read out a statement which detailed a further 7 amendments which she felt should have been included within the minutes.

Bruce Matthews, a resident of West Mudford addressed the Committee. He explained to members that the road between Ashington and Lovington was increasingly being used by lorries which were operating from a business at West Farm. He explained that the road was not suitable for this heavy traffic, that damage was being caused to the road and that it was dangerous. He also pointed out that the business was creating high levels of noise and were operating at anti-social hours.

Kay MacKenzie, another resident of West Mudford addressed the Committee. She was also a resident of West Mudford and raised similar concerns over the business which was operating at West Farm. She further raised concern over some bunding which had taken place along the river bank and thought that this could further exacerbate the flooding problems in the area.

The Assistant Director (Communities) agreed to discuss this with the Development Control Manager and the drainage board.

Councillor Winder raised concern over a leaflet which was being handed out to vulnerable, older people in sheltered homes by Yarlington Housing Group which he thought, had a threatening tone. The Assistant Director (Communities) agreed to raise this with YHG. 

Councillor Tim Inglefield advised that he had attended a meeting of the South West Audit Partnership Ltd to consider their annual reports.

Members are asked to note that the next scheduled meeting of the committee will be at the Council Offices, Churchfield, Wincanton on Wednesday 14^th September at 9.00 am.

Members noted the date of the next meeting would be Wednesday 14^th September at 9am at The Council Offices, Churchfield, Wincanton.

The Chairman advised that the Area East Planning Tour had been arranged for the morning of Thursday 15^th September which would be focusing on developments which would be creating jobs.

He also advised that in the relation to the Regeneration Board Meetings, further feasibility assessments were being carried out with Economic Development and Planning on the Moor Lane site. The Area East Regeneration board would be meeting the Wincanton Race Course Manager and a networking event for visitor attractions was being arranged. 

He requested that members encourage Town and Parish Councils to attend the Housing and Employment Land Availability Assessment workshop which was being held at The Area Council Offices, Churchfield, Wincanton on the evening of 14^th September.

The Area Development Lead (East) presented his report to members. He summarised the assessment process for applications and explained that there were both small and larger grants available. He further pointed out that there were additional budgets which could be used for projects.

He advised members that during 2015/16, 7 capital projects had been supported, all of which were fairly spread across Area East geographically.

He pointed out to members that projects are often generated following the development of a Community Plan and that Milborne Port and Bruton are currently revising and updating Community Plans.

With the aid of a PowerPoint presentation, images of successful grant aided projects were shown to members. This included Cale Park in Wincanton and the Kingsdon Community Shop.

He responded to member’s questions and members noted the report.

RESOLVED:                           that members;

                                                1) Noted the work the work undertaken by the Partnership in 2015/16 and that a similar report will be taken to Area South Committee

                                                2) Agreed a funding contribution of £2000 from the Members discretionary budget

REASON:                               Towards funding towards 2016/17

The Assistant Director (Communities) presented her report to members. She advised that the contribution from Area East, if approved, would be approximately 3% of the running cost of the partnership. She further explained that the passenger journey figures had reduced and thought this was due mainly to extensive rail disruption further up the line. 

She advised that further evaluation was planned with the long-term aim of an hourly train service and that South West Trains had added additional train services.

She further advised that a Somerset Officer was now the Chairman of the partnership and pointed out current projects included new running in boards at Castle Cary and investigation of a south side passenger access at Bruton railway station.

It was proposed and seconded that members agree the contribution of £2000 from the members’ discretionary budget towards 2016/17.

In being out to the put this was carried unanimously.

RESOLVED: 1) that members note the report, and

2) agree a funding contribution of £2000 from the members’      discretionary budget towards 2016/17.

(Voting: unanimous)

The Community Office Support Manager presented her report to the Committee.

Her comments included;

·         During 2015/16, 43% of enquiries received at Community Offices were for benefit assistance which was best carried out face-to-face.

·         Universal Credit which is due to be rolled out in the spring next year could have a knock on effect on council tax reductions.

·         Online benefit applications were being encouraged to ensure services were provided in the most efficient way. Universal Credit applications will need to be made online. The Community Offices will be able to help applicants.

·         The Community Support team can provide telephone support to the Customer Services team at peak times.

She responded to questions from members. The Chairman thanked her for attending.

RESOLVED: that the report be noted.

The Assistant Director (Communities) advised members that the Growing Space funding request which was detailed on the Area East Forward Plan for September would now be included on the agenda for the October meeting.

RESOLVED: that the report be noted.

Members noted the appeals which had been determined.

Members noted the Schedule of Planning Applications.

Application proposal: Erection of 3 dwellings and ancillary works

The Planning Officer presented his report to members with the aid of a PowerPoint presentation. He advised members that he had received a late letter of objection which raised concern over constant foul drainage problems and an access gate.

He also advised members that he had revised the second reason for refusal following advice from the Rights of Way Officer and displayed this amendment on the PowerPoint presentation. He continued to read out a copy of a letter which he had sent to the applicant in response to a letter which had been sent to the members of the Committee by the planning agent which clarified that the applicant was not seeking the removal of the hedgerow, but to move the hedgerow.

Tim MacCaw, a representative of the Parish Council addressed the Committee. He advised members that he wanted to see the hedgerow retained as this historic hedgerow formed the parish boundary. He pointed out that the footpath along the site was now inaccessible and that a hedgerow which ran along the adjoining site had been removed without permission. He felt that the close board fencing was inappropriate and the gravel path meant that if was difficult to walk on.

Mr Keattch and Mr Durant addressed the Committee. Their comments included that;

·         They did not want the ancient hedgerow to be removed

·         They would like the footpath reinstated

·         A manhole cover for foul waste has been covered and the position of which cannot now be located.

·         The site is not in a sustainable location

·         The dwellings would be detrimental to the surrounding area

Matthew Kendrick, the agent, addressed the Committee. He explained several points to members including;

·         The site was an easy walking distance to the town and that the site was in a sustainable location.

·         The fence was erected to secure the site and to prevent fly-tipping and that this could be painted and removed once the hedgerow was established.

·         It was proposed that the hedgerow be translocated and not removed.

·         The footpath was 1.8 meters wide and that any problems with the accessibility of the site are due to the maintenance of the hedge. It was his view that this problem would be alleviated by a condition to ensure the removal of the fence.

·         No disruption would be made to the drainage and water supplies to existing properties.

Councillor Mike Beech advised the Committee that he had concerns over the fence, footpath and amenity of residents.

During the discussion, the Planning Officer explained that the tree officer had little confidence that the hedgerow could be translocated successfully and further advised that he had found a very rare orchid growing within the hedgerow.

He also confirmed that a condition could be added to ensure that the fence is removed once the hedgerow is established, should the planning application be approved. 

Following the discussion, it was proposed and seconded that planning permission 16/00677/FUL be approved, contrary to the officer report,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 54.

Application proposal: Application to remove Condition 4 (Agricultural occupancy) of approved planning permission 45934/ A dated 26th June 1964.

The Planning Officer presented his report to members with the aid of a PowerPoint presentation. He advised members that the applicant had not provide a marketing appraisal in support of the planning application and further advised members that a new dwelling would not normally be supported in this location.

Lilian Elson addressed the Committee to speak in support of the application on behalf of the applicant. She informed members that it was no longer viable for the applicant to run a small scale business on the site.

John Loosemore, the planning agent, addressed the Committee. He pointed out to members that the agricultural condition had been imposed in 1964 and that things were very different then. He further explained that the ownership of the land used to be much larger at about 10 acres and was now only 4.5 acres. He also advised that this was a modest bungalow, just outside the village, close to other dwellings. He concluded that agricultural numbers had reduced and the condition is outdated.

Councillor William Wallace noted that the property had not been marketed, but felt that the applicant would stay in the property rather than look to sell and move home.

Councillor Tim Inglefield advised the Committee that he would like to support the application but would like to see an exceptional reason to do so.

During the discussion, it was suggested that the applicant could market the property for 6 months, rather than a year.

Following the discussion, it was proposed and seconded that the agricultural tie be removed contrary to the officer recommendation.

On being put to the vote, this was carried 5 votes in support, 3 against with 1 abstention.

RESOLVED: that planning application 16/02009/S73 be granted, contrary to the officer recommendation.

For the following reason;

01.         The applicant has demonstrated that the current agricultural occupancy condition is no longer valid and does not serve any useful planning purpose. The application is in accord with Policy HG10 of the South Somerset Local Plan 2006-2028.

(Voting: 5 in support, 3 against with 1 abstention)

Application proposal: Erection of a rear extension

The Planning Assistant presented her report to members with the aid of a PowerPoint presentation. She informed members that there would be no windows on the first floor level of the southern elevation which faced the adjoining property.

Ceri Stephens, representing the applicant, addressed the Committee to speak in support of the application. She advised members that this was a large plot on the edge of the village. She confirmed that the applicants have a right to use the access lane to the side of the dwelling and that this would not be obstructed. She also advised that there was nothing to suggest that the extension would be used by anyone other than the applicants.

Councillor Mike Lewis mentioned that the applicants had done a good job in tidying the site and agreed that concerns over the access were a civil issue, but hoped that the lane remained assessable and unobstructed.

Following the discussion, it was proposed and seconded that the planning application be approved as detailed in the officer report. On being put to the vote, this was carried unanimously.

RESOLVED: that planning application 16/02563/FUL be approved, subject to conditions, as detailed in the officer report.

Justification

01.          The proposal by reason of its location, size, materials and design will have no substantial adverse impact on visual or residential amenity or highway safety in accordance with the aims and objectives of policies EQ2 and SD1 of the South Somerset Local Plan (2006-2028) and the relevant sections of the National Policy Planning Framework 2012.

Subject to the following conditions;

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 approved plans received 2 June 2016.

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

03.       The external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall be of materials as indicated in the application form and no other materials shall be used without the prior written consent of the local planning authority.

            Reason: To ensure that the local character and distinctiveness of the area is not adversely affected in accordance with Policy EQ2 of the South Somerset Local Plan (2006-2028).

04.       The accommodation to be provided within the development hereby permitted shall remain as permanent ancillary accommodation to the dwelling known as Casa Mdena and shall be occupied only by persons of the same household.  There shall be no subdivision of this single residential planning unit.

            Reason: The accommodation is not considered suitable for separate use, because of the relationship between it and adjacent dwelling(s), in line with the aims and objectives of policy EQ2 of the South Somerset Local Plan (2006-2028).

05.       Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (or any order  ...  view the full minutes text for item 56.

Application proposal: Conversion of barn to dwelling (alternative scheme) to include the erection of a conservatory and to retain changes to approved scheme

The Area Lead (North/East) presented his report to members with the aid of a PowerPoint presentation.

Councillor Mike Beech advised members that the planning application had been referred to the Committee in line with the Scheme of Delegation as Councillor Colin Winder was acting as a planning agent.

Following the short discussion, it was proposed and seconded that the planning application be approved, subject to conditions, as detailed in the officer report.

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

RESOLVED: that planning application 16/02257/FUL be approved, subject to conditions, as detailed in the officer report.

Justification

01.          Notwithstanding local concerns the proposed curtilage and conservatory would have no adverse impact on the setting of the listed building, the character and appearance of the locality, residential amenity or highways safety. As such the proposal complies with policies EQ2, EQ3 and TA5 of the South Somerset Local Plan2006-2028.

Subject to the following conditions;

01.       The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out otherwise than in complete accordance with the following plans:-

                        Location plan and site plan; roof plan; HCM/12/2/2A and HCH/12/2/4B and HCM/12/2/5A received 13/05/16.

Reason: To clarify the development hereby approved.

02.       Prior to its completion, details of the external materials for the conservatory hereby approved shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Once approved the conservatory shall be constructed used the approved materials and not subsequently altered without the prior express grant of planning permission.

Reason: In the interest of visual amenity and to safeguard the setting of the nearby listed building in accordance with policies EQ2 and EQ3 of the South Somerset Local  Plan 2006-2028.

03.       Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General

Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no extensions, other than those agreed as part of this application, shall be erected without the prior express grant of planning permission.

Reason: In the interest of visual amenity and to safeguard the setting of the nearby listed building in accordance with policies EQ2 and EQ3 of the South Somerset Local Plan 2006-2028.

04.       Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General

Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no outbuildings, garages or other structures, other than those agreed as part of this application, shall be erected within the curtilage hereby approved without the prior express grant of planning permission.

Reason: In the interest of visual amenity and to safeguard the setting of the nearby listed building in accordance with policies EQ2 and EQ3 of the South Somerset Local Plan 2006-2028.

(Voting: unanimous)