Agenda, decisions and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence and notification of substitutions.

Apologies were received from Councillors Jenny Kenton (Cllr Evie Potts-Jones as sub) and Peter Seib (Vice-Chair).

The committee voted all in favour for Cllr Mike Best to be duly elected as Vice-Chair for the meeting.

To approve the minutes from the previous meeting – to follow

The committee was advised that the draft minutes of the previous two meetings held on 26^th November 2024 were not yet available for sign off, and that they will be brought to the committee in January 2025.

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 )

Cllr Kevin Messenger declared a personal interest in Item 5 23/02258/OUT as Division member, and it was agreed that he would leave the room for the vote.

NPPF verbal update:

The Planning Area Manager referred members to a powerpoint presentation regarding NPPF guidance which had been updated on 12^th December 2024. The critical message for the committee being that the 5 yr supply is worse and could be considered to be ‘acute’ or ‘chronic’; and we can’t refuse applications unless we have ‘strong’ evidence of clear harm.

He advised that the committee should refer to the updated NPPF 24 guidance forthwith. 

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.

We are now live webcasting most of our committee meetings and you are welcome to view and listen to the discussion. The link to each webcast will be available on the meeting webpage, please see details under ‘click here to join online meeting’.

Requests to speak at the meeting under Public Question Time must be made to democraticservicessouth@somerset.gov.uk  by 5pm on the Wednesday prior to the meeting.  For those wishing to speak on an application, requests must be made by 5pm on the Thursday prior to the meeting.

There were no members of the public registered to speak under Public Question Time.

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 at Land West Of South Street,Castle Cary, Somerset. BA7 7NY be REFUSED, contrary to the officer recommendations for the following reason:

Does not comply with SSDC Local Plan Policies LMT1, SD1, SS1, SS2, EQ2 and EQ3, the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) and NPPF.

Voting: 5 in favour, 2 against

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.  

• Elevations
• Access
• Hedgerows

? 

The application was recommended for approval subject to S106 obligations and conditions as set out in the agenda report. The Planning officer advised that the key issues of the development are its proximity to the Castle Cary Conservation Area and the two listed buildings, and the visual impact of the development on the landscape. She referred members to the report for the feedback from the Heritage/Conservation and Landscape Officers and summarised that both of the key issues were viewed as being of less than substantial harm.

?Several members of the public addressed the committee in objection to the application.? Their comments included: 

• There has been no consideration given to the emerging Castle Cary Neighbourhood Plan.
• Castle Cary does not have a shortage of housing and is becoming a centre of unplanned growth.
• The proposed development is an unallocated site contrary to SSDC Local Plan policy LMT1 Direction of growth.
• The Council’s lack of 5 year land supply is not a strong enough argument to build another major housing development in a small rural town.
• The proposed development will have a negative impact on the local distinctiveness and character of Castle Cary.
• The NPPF emphasises the importance of local knowledge in a place based development model and local knowledge around issues such as access and rights of way are not being given any weight here.

? 

A representative of Castle Cary Town Council asked members to refuse the application before them, referring them to the objections as detailed in the report and emphasising that Castle Cary has taken enough new housing to meet local need, and that the schools are at capacity.  

? 

The Division Member, Councillor Messenger spoke in opposition to the application based on unsuitability of the access proposals and the visual impact of the development which he felt would demonstrably harm the lay of the land.?  

 ? 

In response to questions from Members, the Planning Officer advised;- 

? 

• The full detailed of the Landscape Visual Impact Assessment will come forward in a later reserved matters application.  
• Access into the site has been a challenge, but the proposed access arrangements have been accessed by Highways with no clear objections received.
• Safe and inclusive travel arrangements will be agreed as part of the Section 106 agreement.
• The Castle Cary neighbourhood Plan has not yet been made and therefore cannot be a material consideration.    

? 

?During discussion, the following points were made by Members:- 

? 

• Castle Cary has taken on an excessive amount of housing in recent years.
• The proposed new development will have a significant negative impact on the conservation area.
• Access into the site via steps is unsuitable for the disabled and the plans are therefore flawed on equalities grounds.     

? 

At the conclusion of the debate, the officer’s recommendation to approve the application was proposed by Councillor Patrick, however  ...  view the full minutes text for item 62.

To consider a full application for the erection of 30 No. dwellings (Use Class C3) with associated access, parking and landscaping.

Resolved

That planning application 20/03613FUL to consider a full application for the erection of 30 No. dwellings (Use Class C3) with associated access, parking and landscaping at Land off Queen Street, Keinton Mandeville, Somerton, Somerset be REFUSED, contrary to the officer recommendations for the following reason:

Does not comply with SSDC Local Plan Policies EQ2, EQ3 and EQ5.

Voting: 4 in favour, 3 against, 1 abstention.

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.  

? 

She explained that the key considerations for the application were surface and foul water drainage, heritage assets, ecology and phosphates and pollution. She referred members to an update on the Landscape Visual Impact Assessment which had been requested following deferral of the decision at the previous meeting on 26^th November 2024.   

? 

The application was recommended for approval subject to the prior completion of a Section 106 Planning Obligation/Agreement and the stated planning conditions. Delegated to the Head of Planning in consultation with the Area Chair (South).

? 

Several members of the public addressed the committee in objection to the application.? Their comments included: 

• There is a strong feeling against the development in the Keinton Mandeville Community.
• Keinton Mandeville does not have housing shortage and it is therefore unfair to expect the village to take another major housing scheme.
• There are very few employment opportunities in Keinton Mandeville,
• Amenities and community infrastrucutre in a small rural settlement like Keinton Mandeville will not cope with another major housing scheme.
• Another major housing development will have a negative impact on the character and distinctiveness of Keinton Mandeville.

? 

A representative of Keinton Mandeville Parish Council spoke in opposition of the planning application, stating that there are a number of errors and inaccuracies within the officer report. He also advised that an independent road safety audit that has been commissioned by the parish council, and within it there is a strong emphasis on the severity of the impact of increased traffic to and from the development.

?In response to questions from Members and members of the public, the Planning Officer advised that;- 

? 

• ?As part of the conditions around water and sewerage, Wessex Water have committed to monitor to ensure drainage at the site is working effectively.
• The affordable housing allocation and housing mix are being secured in the Section 106 agreement.
• Acoustic fencing is proposed at either side of the entrance to the site to mitigate noise pollution for neighbouring dwellings.
• The independent road safety audit commissioned by Keinton Mandeville Parish Council was assessed as part of the application process, and the opinion of the Highways Officer is unchanged.  

? 

?During the debate, the following points were made by Members:- 

? 

• The loss of a valued green space like this one should be allowed.
• Keinton Mandeville village is linear, and the crescent design of this development is not in keeping with the rest of the village.

? 

At the conclusion of the debate, Councillor Page made a proposal to REFUSE the application, seconded by Councillor Osborne.? When put to the vote, the proposal was carried by 4 in favour, 3 against and 1 abstention. 

Resolved

That planning application 20/03613FUL to consider a full application for the erection of 30 No. dwellings (Use Class C3) with associated access, parking and landscaping at Land off Queen Street,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 63.

To consider an Outline Application with all matters reserved except for means of access for the erection of up to 60 dwellings with public open space, landscaping, sustainable drainage system and vehicular access point. 

Resolved

That Planning Application 23/02871/OUT to consider an Outline Application with all matters reserved except for means of access for the erection of up to 60 dwellings with public open space, landscaping, sustainable drainage system and vehicular access point at Land Off Tintinhull Road, Coppits Hill, Yeovil, Somerset, BA21 3PW be APPROVED subject to the prior completion of a Section 106 Planning Obligation/Agreement and the stated planning conditions. Delegated to the Head of Planning in consultation with the Area Chair (South).

Voting: 7 in favour, 1 against.

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 

? 

She reminded members that the Committee had resolved to defer the application to allow further highway assessment of the highway safety merits of the scheme to address concerns over the proposed pedestrian safety mitigation and off-site highway works and referred members to the revised conditions as set out in the report.  

? 

The application was recommended for approval subject to the prior completion of a Section 106 Planning Obligation/Agreement and the stated planning conditions. Delegated to the Head of Planning in consultation with the Area Chair (South).

? 

One member of the public addressed the committee in objection to the application.? The comments included: 

• The site is unallocated land.
• There are no amenities in Tintinhull.
• Rainfall will continue to be an issue and flooding mitigation in these proposals is inadequate.

? 

?During discussion, the following points were made by Members:- 

? 

• This is a good example of the committee using deferral (further assurance required) as part of the decision-making process.
• Both the LLFA and Highways responses have raised no significant concerns.  

? 

At the conclusion of the debate, the officer’s recommendation to approve the application was proposed by Councillor Wale and seconded by Councillor Patrick.? When put to the vote, the proposal was carried by 7 in favour, 1 against. 

 Resolved

That Planning Application 23/02871/OUT to consider an Outline Application with all matters reserved except for means of access for the erection of up to 60 dwellings with public open space, landscaping, sustainable drainage system and vehicular access point at Land Off Tintinhull Road, Coppits Hill, Yeovil, Somerset, BA21 3PW be APPROVED subject to the prior completion of a Section 106 Planning Obligation/Agreement and the stated planning conditions. Delegated to the Head of Planning in consultation with the Area Chair (South).

Voting: 7 in favour, 1 against.

The committee noted the appeal decisions report.