Agenda, decisions and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence and notification of substitutions.

Apologies were received from Councillor Jason Baker.

To approve the minutes from the previous meeting.

Resolved that the minutes of the Planning Committee - South held on Tuesday 27^th August 2024 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: City, Town & Parish Twin Hatters - Somerset Councillors 2023 )

Councillor Oliver Patrick declared a pecuniary interest in Item 9 Planning Application: 24/01665/HOU  as the owner of the property.? He confirmed that he would leave the meeting when the item was considered.

Councillors Henry Hobhouse and Cllr Kevin Messenger, following advice from the Council’s legal representative before the meeting, confirmed that they would be leave the meeting when item 6 was considered, due to predetermination.who was cha

At this point in the proceedings, Cllr Peter Sieb, Vice-chair of the committee and Chair of the meeting in the absence of Cllr Baker, invited nominations of a Vice-chair for the meeting. There was one nomination, for Cllr Tim Kerley and all members unanimously agreed to the appointment.

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 18^th September 2024

The Chair invited Brynley Little, of Your Land Partner who had registered to speak on a procedural matter not relating to any planning application on the agenda.

Mr Little addressed the committee with concerns about planning application 22/02118/OUT - Land West of Silver Street, South Petherton TA13 5AN which had been approved by the committee on the 27^th February 2024.

Mr Little explained that the Section 106 agreements for the application were not yet complete and expressed deep frustration with the communication from Council’s Planning Service. He had sent sixteen emails which had been largely ignored, and the few replies he had received had not been helpful. He advised that he has made two formal complaints to date.

The Service Manager Development Management thanked Mr Little for bringing this, which is a known issue, to the attention of the committee. She explained that there is a backlog of S106 agreements currently, and assured him that she would pick this case up and send Mr Little a full response after the meeting.  

To approve an outline application with all matters reserved except for access for the creation of commercial buildings under Use Class B2 and B8, subject to S106 and travel plan.

Resolved:

That planning application 22/01598/OUT to approve an outline application with all matters reserved except for access for the creation of commercial buildings under Use Class B2 and B8, subject to S106 and travel plan on land South Of, High Street, Sparkford, Yeovil, Somerset be DEFERRED to the next meeting for the following reason:

The Planning Officer advised that there are errors within the report and outstanding consultation responses.

Voting: 8 in favour, 1 abstention

The planning officer advised that, due to errors within the report, and outstanding consultation responses, this item would need to be deferred to a future meeting.

There were several members of the public in attendance who expressed their anger and frustration that this decision was being deferred without notice. In response the Service Manager Development Management explained that the Councils Planning Service had been experiencing resourcing difficulties which has meant that some casework had not been resolved in a timely manner. She explained that actions were being taken to resolve these resourcing issues, and apologised profusely to those members of the public in attendance who had expected a decision today.

Resolved:

That planning application 22/01598/OUT to approve an outline application with all matters reserved except for access for the creation of commercial buildings under Use Class B2 and B8, subject to S106 and travel plan on land South Of, High Street, Sparkford, Yeovil, Somerset be DEFERRED to the next meeting for the following reason:

The Planning Officer advised that there are errors within the report and outstanding consultation responses.

Voting: 8 in favour, 1 abstention

To consider an application for full planning permission for the erection of 29 dwellings, formation of vehicular and pedestrian access from Station Road, landscaping, parking, drainage and other associated infrastructure works. 

Resolved:

That planning application 22/02814/FUL to consider an application for full planning permission for the erection of 29 dwellings, formation of vehicular and pedestrian access from Station Road, landscaping, parking, drainage and other associated infrastructure works at Land Os 6200, Land East of Station Road, Castle Cary, Somerset be APPROVED.

Voting: Unanimous in favour

The Planning Officer presented the application as detailed in the agenda report and with the aid of a Powerpoint presentation to highlight key elements of the proposal including: 

• Site location. 

• An indicative masterplan.  

• Vehicular and pedestrian access
• Proposed heights
• Affordable housing mix
• Landscape plan
• Proposed materials
• Street elevations

? 

He referred to the key considerations being the principle of development, benefits, statutory consultees and phosphates. 

? 

The application was recommended for approval subject to the conditions and terms of a S106 agreement as set out in the agenda report.  

? 

One member of the public addressed the committee in objection to the application.?

Their comments included: 

• Castle Cary has been overwhelmed with new housing in recent years
• The development negatively impacts the nature and character of Castle Cary.
• The decision on this application should be deferred for a thorough assessment of housing need in Castle Cary. 

? 

The Division Member, Councillor Henry Hobhouse (who was predetermined and therefore unable to vote on the item) asked officers in Planning and Legal for several points of clarification including:

·         Members should consider the case of Edwards Ware Homes vs The Secretary of State regarding government instructions to ignore a five year land supply when making this decision. 

·         There has been an increase in police presence at this location and this is concerning.

·         There should be more effective speed control along Station Road to cope with increase in the volume of traffic.

? 

In response, officers advised; 

? 

• Officers are unable to advise members on the case that Cllr Henry Hobhouse has referred to at short notice.
• The titled balance in the NPPF doesn’t say that applications can’t be refused if the harm outweighs the benefit.
• Currently there are 465 new homes in the pipeline for Castle Cary.
• The 15% improvement in drainage is a figure agreed by the LLFA and the applicant. 
• The affordable housing officer has confirmed that there is a local affordable housing need in Castle Cary.
• The Highways Officer confirmed that the data shows an increase of 15 vehicles in the peak hour because of this development, which is not severe and therefore not a significant concern for the local highway network. 

? 

?During discussion, the following points were made by members; 

? 

• Members require a breakdown of all applications that are pending approval or approved but not started in order to assess the cumulative impact of planned development in Castle Cary.
• Regarding Castle Cary and Ansford Neighbourhood plans and direction of growth, how much material weight is given to those above the South Somerset Local Plan.

? 

At the conclusion of the debate, the officer’s recommendation to approve the application was proposed by Councillor Peter Sieb and seconded by Councillor Tim Kerley.? When put to the vote, the proposal was carried by all voting members voting unanimously in favour.  

Resolved:

That planning application 22/02814/FUL to consider an application for full planning permission for the erection of 29 dwellings, formation of vehicular and pedestrian access from Station Road, landscaping, parking, drainage and other associated infrastructure works at Land Os  ...  view the full minutes text for item 31.

To consider an outline application with some matters reserved except access for the erection of up to 46 dwellings with associated works including the formation of a vehicular access, provision of open space and landscaping.

Resolved:

That planning application 23/02258/OUT to consider an outline application with some matters reserved except access for the erection of up to 46 dwellings with associated works including the formation of a vehicular access, provision of open space and landscaping on land west of South Street, Castle Cary, Somerset, BA7 7NY be DEFERRED for the following reasons:

1.    Provide further information in terms of a case law decision and its relevance to this application

2.    Consider the Policy position in terms of potential conflicts with EQ2, EQ3 and SF5

3.    Further information to be provided in terms of the conservation area and location of the site relative to the setting

4.    Further detail to be presented to members in terms of the LVIA

Voting: 7 in favour

The Planning Officer presented the application as detailed in the agenda report and with the aid of a Powerpoint presentation to highlight key elements of the proposal including: 

• Site location. 

• An indicative masterplan.  

• Access arrangements

? ? 

The application was recommended for approval as set out in the agenda report.  

? 

Several members of the public addressed the committee in objection to the application.?

Their comments included: 

• The cumulative impact of all of the proposed new development in the town has not been considered.
• The development will bring significant and demonstrable harm to the landscape.
• The site adjoins a conservation area and heritage assets, how will the committee ensure that these are protected.
• This site is highly regarded as a quiet, reflective and unspoilt landscape by the people of Castle Cary.
• Pedestrian access routes to the Town Centre are not mentioned in the report.
• The many objections that have been received do not seem to have been considered.
• There are contradictions within the report regarding compliance with Local Plan policies.
• The application lacks any evidence concerning phosphate mitigation.  
• It is not appropriate to grant permission based on the Councils shortfall in five-year land supply alone.

? 

Division member Councillor Hobhouse had concerns around sewage and enforcement of drainage conditions, and felt that the committee should not be passing a decision until the Council has employed an appropriate enforcement officer. He added that to his knowledge there is no shortage of affordable housing in Castle Cary.

Division member Councillor Kevin Messenger objected to the application, explaining that the site borders a conservation area, and that there will be significant impact on parking and the volume of traffic, which is already an issue in the area.

? 

?In response to concerns around Highways, The Highways officer referred to the report and explained how the evidence shows that there are no significant concerns about the proposed development.   

At the conclusion of the debate, it was proposed by Councillor Cllr Martin Wale and seconded by Councillor Sue Osborne to defer the application for the following reasons: 

1.    Provide further information in terms of a case law decision and its relevance to this application

2.    Consider the Policy position in terms of potential conflicts with EQ2, EQ3 and SF5

3.    Further information to be provided in terms of the conservation area and location of the site relative to the setting

4.    Further detail to be presented to members in terms of the LVIA

When put to the vote, the proposal was carried by 7 in favour. 

Resolved:

That planning application 23/02258/OUT to consider an outline application with some matters reserved except access for the erection of up to 46 dwellings with associated works including the formation of a vehicular access, provision of open space and landscaping on land west of South Street, Castle Cary, Somerset, BA7 7NY be DEFERRED for the following reasons:

1.    Provide further information in terms of a case law decision and its relevance to this application

2.    Consider the Policy position in terms of potential conflicts  ...  view the full minutes text for item 32.

To consider an application for Erection of self-build dwelling, formation of new access and landscaping with retention of existing cottage for ancillary and incidental use.

Resolved:

That planning application 24/01469/FUL to consider an application for Erection of self-build dwelling, formation of new access and landscaping with retention of existing cottage for ancillary and incidental use at Raymonds Farm, Underhill, Pen Selwood, Wincanton, Somerset, BA9 8LL be APPROVED.

Voting: 7 in favour

The Planning Officer presented the application as detailed in the agenda report and with the aid of a Powerpoint presentation to highlight key elements of the proposal including: 

• Site location. 

• An indicative masterplan.  

? 

He referred to the key considerations being; the principle of development (previously established approved through 21/00153/FUL), visual impact/impact on AONB, Highways safety (provision of new access to replace substandard access) and phosphates/biodiversity net gain/ecology.

? 

The application was recommended for approval, subject to conditions as set out in the agenda report.  

? 

The applicant addressed the committee and described her plans and progress to date in restoring Raymonds Farm from a run down, dilapidated site to a fully working farm.  

The agent addressed the committee and advised that the applicant was happy to accept the conditions as set out in the officer recommendations.  ? 

? 

After a brief discussion whereby all committee members showed support for the application, the officer’s recommendation to approve the application was proposed by Councillor Sue Osborne and seconded by Councillor Tom Power.? When put to the vote, the proposal was carried by 7 in favour. 

Resolved:

That planning application 24/01469/FUL to consider an application for Erection of self-build dwelling, formation of new access and landscaping with retention of existing cottage for ancillary and incidental use at Raymonds Farm, Underhill, Pen Selwood, Wincanton, Somerset, BA9 8LL be APPROVED.

Voting: 7 in favour

To consider an application for the demolition of conservatory and erection of single-storey rear extension together with loft conversion, internal alterations and open porch. 

Resolved:

That planning application 24/01665/HOU to consider an application for the demolition of conservatory and erection of single-storey rear extension together with loft conversion, internal alterations and open porch at Kings Gatchell, Higher Street, West Chinnock, Crewkerne, Somerset, TA18 7QA be APPROVED.

Voting: 7 in favour

The Chair explained that the application had been referred to the committee for decision due to the applicant, Cllr Oliver Patrick, being a Somerset councillor and Planning South committee member.

The Planning Officer presented the application as detailed in the agenda report and with the aid of a Powerpoint presentation to highlight key elements of the proposal including: 

• Site location. 

• An indicative masterplan.

? 

He referred to the key considerations being; impact on visual amenity, impact on heritage assets/archaeology, impact on residential amenity, impact on highways, biodiversity and phosphates, as detailed in the report.

? 

The application was recommended for approval for the following reason:

 The proposal, by reason of its size, scale and materials, respects the character of the area and causes no demonstrable harm to residential amenity, visual amenity, highway safety or other environmental concerns in accordance with the aims and objectives of Policies SD1, EQ2, EQ3, EQ4, TA5 and TA6 of the South Somerset Local Plan (2006-28) and the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework.

? 

After a brief discussion whereby all members showed support for the application, the officer’s recommendation to approve the application was proposed by Councillor Tim Kerley and seconded by Councillor Tom Power.? When put to the vote, the proposal was carried by 7 in favour. 

Resolved:

That planning application 24/01665/HOU to consider an application for the demolition of conservatory and erection of single-storey rear extension together with loft conversion, internal alterations and open porch at Kings Gatchell, Higher Street, West Chinnock, Crewkerne, Somerset, TA18 7QA be APPROVED.

Voting: 7 in favour

The Service Manager Development Management talked members through the appeal decisions and advised that appeals process training would be provided to members and officers in the coming months.