Meeting documents

The minutes of the meetings held on 15^th July 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.

An apology for absence was received from Councillor Paul Maxwell.

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 Sue Osborne declared a personal interest in Planning Application No. 15/02959/FUL, as the ward member.

Councillor Angie Singleton declared a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in Planning Application Nos. 15/03172/FUL and 15/03173/LBC, as the owner of the property.  She would leave the room during consideration of the planning applications.

Councillor Mike Best declared a personal and prejudicial interest in Planning Application Nos. 15/03172/FUL and 15/03173/LBC, as he had known the residents of the property for many years.  He would leave the room during consideration of the planning applications.

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 Mr David Laughton.  He spoke about the possibility of the Council introducing free car parking schemes in Chard and questioned whether this could be integrated and initiated into the Chard Regeneration Scheme.  He also questioned when the review into SSDC parking charges would be completed.

Mr David Laughton indicated that he would be willing to accept a comprehensive written response to his questions and comments.

There were no announcements from the Chairman.

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

Members noted the following additions to the Forward Plan:

·         Update report on Chard Regeneration Scheme in October

·         Update report from Citizens Advice South Somerset in November

(Resolution passed without dissent)

The Environmental Health Manager summarised the agenda report, which provided members with an update on the work of the Environmental Health Service over the last twelve months.  He highlighted a number of examples of work which included the following: 

·         Food and Safety Team – work of the team included food safety inspections – 329 food inspections had been carried out in the last 12 months, dealing with food poisoning, health & safety at work, maintaining the multi-agency Safety Advisory Group which meets regularly with the Police;

·         Environmental Protection Team – the team dealt with noise complaints, contaminated land, participation in the Yeovil One project, involved with working in tandem with the Somerset Councils and the Police;

·         Enforcement Team – the team dealt with littering, fly tipping and pest control;

·         Housing Standards Team – the team dealt with the inspection and licensing of houses in multiple occupation, working with landlords through the landlords forum and the empty property grants scheme, grants for flood repairs and home repair grants.

During the ensuing discussion, the Environmental Health Manager noted the comments of members and responded to questions on points of detail which included the following:-

·         With regard to the Food Hygiene Rating Scheme, if a food catering businesses was given a low score it could be re-inspected after 3 months;

·         The level of houses in multiply occupation was constantly increasing.  There were at least 600 in south somerset.  The Housing Standards Team worked with landlords to produce accommodation to a high standard as possible as there was a real need for this type of accommodation;

·         With regard to the future impact of the housing benefit changes, there was less money available with young people only receiving sufficient funding to rent a room.  Rent levels were increasing and there was a squeeze on the housing stock.  For the Housing Standards Team, there were more places to inspect;

·         A public health burial was where there was no family to pay for the funeral.  Public health burials were costing the council in the region of £8-9,000 per year.

The Chairman thanked the Environmental Health Manager for his excellent report and the work of the Environmental Health team across the district over the past year.

NOTED.

The Countryside Manager summarised the agenda report, which provided members with an update on the work of the Countryside Service across the District over the past year and on key projects for the next 6 months.  With the aid of powerpoint slides she highlighted a number of examples of work which included:

·         The 3 largest sites had retained their Green Flag Awards;

·         The Rangers had continued to manage a diverse events programme.  It was estimated that approximately 5,000 people had attended events;

·         Volunteering continued to be the back bone of the countryside operation with volunteer numbers increasing from 1601 to 2387 donated days per annum;

·         The Friends Groups had also donated extra days;

·         Over 1500 trees were planted across the sites as part of the winter programme;

·         New web pages had been launched with the key feature being the ability to book events online;

·         There were successful Facebook feeds for the main sites which were managed by the volunteers;

·         A £20,000 Heritage Lottery grant had been secured to resurface the stream and excavate a medieval pond at Witcombe Valley;

·         Success of the Ham Hill Community Bonfire and other events;

·         A Commonwealth day event had been held with 50 Yeovilton personnel helping to build a dry stone wall;

·         Success of the new Yeovil Country Park café facilities and Information Centre;

·         A bid to the Heritage Lottery Fund had been successful for a three year project to improve the natural heritage at Yeovil Country Park;

·         The volunteers at Chard Reservoir Nature Reserve had worked tirelessly to replace the old wooden boardwalks with new stone built causeways;

·         Lufton College continued to be regular attendees at the Reservoir;

·         Chard Countryside Day in July was well received with an estimated figure of 500 – 700 people attending the event;

·         Two developments were progressing close to the Reservoir and work to manage the site for the increased footfall was being undertaken;

·         A revision of the 5 year land management plan for Chard Reservoir would be completed over the winter months.

During the ensuing discussion, the Countryside Manager noted the comments of members and responded to questions on points of detail. Points raised included the following:-

·         Once the Management Plan for Chard Reservoir Local Nature Reserve had been reviewed and there was further development of the friends group, the Countryside Manager would look to submit bids for funding;

·         Several members commented that Chard Reservoir Local Nature Reserve was the ‘hidden gem’ of Chard but felt that further promotion of the site was required;

·         The Countryside Manager explained that she would run the draft Management Plan past interested members and would also be asking for letters of support;

·         With regard to promotion of Chard Reservoir Local Nature Reserve, the Countryside Manager explained that there was a section on marketing in the Development Plan which set out links to facebook and twitter.  She was also seeking to access funds to enable the updated site leaflet to be printed.

The Chairman thanked the Countryside Officer for her excellent report.

NOTED.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 38.

The Committee noted the details contained in the agenda report, which informed members of appeals that had been received and dismissed.

NOTED.

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

Application Proposal: Formation of vehicular access track and erection of agricultural building

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 agricultural need/justification for the building and hardstanding and landscape impact. The Planning Officer’s recommendation was for refusal.

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

·         The proposed area of land was quite significant and that policy sought to protect development in the countryside;

·         The Landscape Officer had assessed the character of the area and the impact on the local landscape and had concluded that the size of the area of land was harmful to the character of the landscape;

·         The point made by the Agricultural Advisor about the costs associated with the building of the shed taking a long time to recoup was a general point and would not need to be taken into consideration by members;

·         Somerset County Council would not normally be consulted on this type of application.

The Committee was addressed by Anthony Pike in support of the application.  He advised members that he lived in a neighbouring property and that he fully supported the proposal.  He commented that the proposed location was the most practical place for an agricultural building as it could not be seen.  He spoke about the need to support bringing farms back into operation.  He felt that there was a need for an access track to the building to protect the soil.

The Applicant’s Agent, Paul Dance considered the proposed building to be modest in size and was sufficient for the required need.  He explained that it was important for the building to be close to the applicant’s home. The site had been chosen as it was away from the road and next to a thick wooded hedge.  He pointed out that planning permission was not required for the vehicular access and that it was only the driveway that required permission.  The hardstanding was required to protect the soil.  In response to an earlier member comment, the Applicant’s Agent confirmed that pre-application discussions had taken place with the Planning Officer.  He explained that the applicants had purchased agricultural machinery and if the application were to be approved they would no longer require a container for storage.  The applicants were committed to growing their agricultural business and would be willing to relocate the hedge to accommodate visibility splays. 

The Ward Member, Cllr Sue Osborne commented that a number of issues within the report such as tenancy and ownership were not planning matters.  She referred to the design of the shed being at the discretion of the applicants and that detailed business plans were not required for agricultural sheds and that other applications had not asked for funding information.  She felt that the hard standing was required to protect the soil.  She also referred to the agricultural justification and explained that lambing  ...  view the full minutes text for item 41.

Application Proposal: Separation of annexe from 3 Church Street for use as independent dwelling

(Having earlier declared a disclosable pecuniary interest in the application, Councillor Angie Singleton left the room during consideration of the application.) 

(Councillor Mike Best, also having earlier declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the application 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.  There were no updates to the report.  The key considerations were visual impact, residential amenity and highway safety.  The Planning Officer’s recommendation was for approval.

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

·         There had been no comments received from the Town Council;

·         The Conservation Officer supported the application;

·         The S106 policy was not affected by the Council’s 5 year housing land supply position.

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 carried unanimously. 

Application Proposal: Internal alterations to separate annexe from 3 Church Street for use as independent dwelling

(Having earlier declared a disclosable pecuniary interest in the application, Councillor Angie Singleton left the room during consideration of the application). 

(Councillor Mike Best, also having earlier declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the application 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 application was approved unanimously.

(Voting: unanimous)

Members noted that the next meeting of the Area West Committee would be held on Wednesday 21^st October 2015 at 5.30pm.  Venue to be confirmed.