Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence and notification of substitutions.

Apologies were received from Councillor Evie Potts-Jones.

To approve the minutes from the previous meeting.

Resolved that the minutes of the Planning Committee - South held on 23^rd May 2023 be confirmed as a correct record.

To receive and note any declarations of interests in respect of any matters included on the agenda for consideration at this meeting.

(The other registrable interests of Councillors of Somerset Council, arising from membership of City, Town or Parish Councils and other Local Authorities will automatically be recorded in the minutes.)

Councillors Jenny Kenton and Martin Wale declared a personal interest in Item 6 – Planning Application 21/03296/OUT as they were both previously District Ward members.

Councillor Sue Osborne declared a personal interest in Item 7 – Planning Application 22/03397/FUL as she is the Division member.

Councillor Jason Baker declared a personal interest in Item 6 – Planning Application 21/03296/OUT as he is the Division member.

The Chair to advise the Committee of any items on which members of the public have requested to speak and advise those members of the public present of the details of the Council’s public participation scheme.

For those members of the public who have submitted any questions or statements, please note, a three minute time limit applies to each speaker.

Requests to speak at the meeting at Public Question Time must be made to the Monitoring Officer in writing or by email to democraticservicesteam@somerset.gov.uk  by 5pm on Wednesday 21 June 2023.

There were no questions from members of the public.

To consider an outline application for the development of up to 67 dwellings with associated access and highway works, drainage and attenuation, open space, play area and landscaping (access to be determined, all other matters reserved).

The Principal Planner explained the reason why the application had been deferred from last month’s committee to allow the Highways Authority to attend committee. For completeness she proceeded to present the application again in full.  She highlighted a correction to the report regarding a property name, and updated on the parking provision and proposed access arrangements.  She reminded members this was an outline application and referred to the key considerations.  She detailed the reason for approval and various planning obligations required along with the conditions listed within the report.

Two members of the public addressed the committee in objection to the application, and some of their comments included:

·         Safety concerns regarding the traffic and parking associated with the school.

·         Reference to the high number of local objections including the Parish and Town councils.

·         Concern about building in the open countryside and reference to Policy SS2 and direction of growth.

·         Disagree the site is acceptable in landscape terms and reference made to an appeal decision regarding a previous application at the site.

One member of the public spoke in support of the application, and some of their comments included:

·         As the highway consultant for the applicant he clarified they had not used traffic survey in the school holidays, and noted comments raised regarding car parking would be considered at the reserved matters stage.

·         Noted that the Highways Authority had raised no objection.

·         Felt a refusal for reason on transport issues would not be justified.

A representative from Crewkerne Town Council addressed the committee and spoke in objection to the application, and some of their comments included:

·         Safety concerns regarding the proposed junction and parking associated with the school.

·         The detrimental and cumulative impact on the town from other applications already being built.

·         Strongly opposed the application.

Division member Councillor Adam Dance raised his concern in objection to the application.  Some of his comments included:

·         Reference to the previously dismissed appeal on the site and felt several issues had still not been addressed in this current application. He queried what had changed since the last refusal.

·         Safety concerns regarding the traffic and query the reality of parking enforcement.

·         Little in the application to deliver pavements or cycle routes.

·         Impact on the local services some of which are already at breaking point.

The Agent addressed the committee.  Some of her comments included:

·         There had been a reduction in dwellings following consultation.

·         Believed it to be a sustainable location.

·         Reminded members this was an outline application and why it had been deferred at the last meeting, however noted no objection on highway safety. 

During discussion the Planning and Highways Officers responded on the points raised by the public speakers and later also on points of detail and technical questions raised by members including:

·         Current housing land supply and delays in build.

·         Context for this application regarding building happening elsewhere in the area and the cumulative impact.

·         Direction of growth.

·         Landscape impact.

·         Both the Council’s Highways officer and an independent Highways  consultant had indicated they  ...  view the full minutes text for item 14.

Erection of up to 95 dwellings (35% affordable housing), with vehicular access from Roman Road, public open space, landscaping, sustainable drainage system, package treatment plant and associated works. All matters reserved aside from access.  

The Principal Planner presented the application and explained this was an outline application. She highlighted the access and visibility splay of the site, updated members on further representations received, and explained the key considerations. She explained the recommendation for approval subject to planning obligations and an amendment to condition 2 to include a parameter plan.

Five members of the public addressed the committee in objection to the application.  Some of their comments included:

·         Increased use of cars and traffic, with minimal availability of public transport.

·         Access to the site would be hazardous for pedestrians and cyclists.

·         Highway safety concerns.

·         Tatworth is not a town, residents will have to travel to facilities and access health provision.

·         Building on this site will have consequences on the three natural springs which are a source of water to local businesses – concern regarding contamination of the water supply,

·         Impact on the character and appearance of the landscape and nearby AONB.

·         Unallocated site that does not comply with policy SS2 and EQ2 and will substantially increase the population of Tatworth.

·         Erosion of the gaps between settlements.

·         Concerns regarding the impact of pollution to the river Axe and ecology.

·         Concerns around the adequacy of the attenuation and sewage treatment proposed.

·         Urban design in a rural area, which is not appropriate.

·         Tatworth is not identified as a rural centre and the proposal is not supported by the local community.

One person then spoke in support of the application.  Some of his comments included:

·         Tatworth has seen little housing growth for many years.

·         As the applicant he explained why the access location had been selected.

·         Energy strategy is in place to make the housing development sustainable in energy terms.

A representative of Tatworth and Forton Parish Council addressed the committee in objection to the application.  Some of their comments included:

·         Not an allocated site and on the wrong side of the road to the main part of the village.

·         Density and layout is inappropriate for the location.

·         Many local objections have been submitted.

·         Consider the officer report to be misleading, and reference made to policy SS2.

Division member Councillor Connor Payne addressed the committee and concurred with many of the comments in objection already made.  He noted there was a need to consider the local community in the long term.  Various concerns had been raised locally and he was of the opinion there were a number of reasons to consider refusing the application.

The Agent then addressed the committee and noted it was one of the largest rural settlements in the area but had seen little housing growth in the last twenty years.  There would be a biodiversity gain and significant S106 obligation funding to support local facilities and infrastructure.  It was a high quality proposal that met the needs of local people.

The Planning Officers and Highway Officer responded on the points raised by the public speakers and later also on points of detail and technical questions raised by members including:

·         Both AONBs had been consulted and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 15.

To consider an application for a proposal that will demolish the existing three barns, two of which have a previously approved Class Q change of use and rebuild into 5no. new habitable dwellings, consisting of 1no. 4 bedroom dwellings, 2no. 3 bedroom dwellings and 2no. 2 bedroom dwellings.

This application was not presented or discussed due to lack of time – deferred to the July meeting.

To consider the meeting arrangements for Planning Committee South and provision of alternative dates.

The Chairman introduced the item and noted there was a backlog of applications to consider in addition to the normal business coming forward.  It was suggested there may be a need for more frequent meetings and he asked if members supported the principle to ask officers and the Monitoring Officer to look at provisional additional meeting dates for Planning Committee - South.  He was aware the existing time was not always convenient and an alternate date between the current monthly meetings would allow more flexible timing and enable more decisions to be made. 

A member requested that the date and time of the existing and proposed additional meetings be reviewed. The Chairman noted the possibility to hold the additional meetings on the second Monday of each month in the afternoon.  Members were asked to indicate their support and this was agreed unanimously.

RESOLVED:

That Planning Committee – South request that officers and the Monitoring Officer look at provisional additional meeting dates for the Committee.  The following suggestions are asked to be considered:

·       A member requested that the date and time of the existing meetings be reviewed.

·       It was noted by the Chairman additional meetings on the second Monday of each month in the afternoon may be a suitable day and time for the additional meetings.

(Voting: Unanimous)