Agenda, decisions and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence and notification of substitutions.

Apologies were received from Councillors Tim Kerley and Oliver Patrick.

To approve the minutes from the previous meeting.

Resolved that the minutes of the Planning Committee - South held on 22^nd October 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 )

Councillors Baker, Osborne, Wale, Kenton and Best declared that they had considered and voted on agenda item 5 at various SSDC planning committees. The Councillors confirmed that they would consider the application afresh today, and with an open mind.

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 Queston Time.

To consider an outline application for mixed development comprising residential development of up to 295 dwellings, provision of a floodlit full size football pitch, unlit full size training pitch and community sports pitch with associated multi use clubhouse, spectator facilities and vehicular parking area; hub for local neighbourhood facilities and other community uses, public open space, landscaping, drainage and other facilities; associated vehicular and pedestrian accesses, land regrading, associated infrastructure and engineering works. 

Resolved

That planning Application 18/04057/OUT to consider an outline application for mixed development comprising residential development of up to 295 dwellings, provision of a floodlit full size football pitch, unlit full size training pitch and community sports pitch with associated multi use clubhouse, spectator facilities and vehicular parking area; hub for local neighbourhood facilities and other community uses, public open space, landscaping, drainage and other facilities; associated vehicular and pedestrian accesses, land regrading, associated infrastructure and engineering works at Land East of Mount Hindrance Farm, Mount Hindrance Lane, Chard, Somerset 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: 10 in favour

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

• Site location

• An indicative masterplan  

• The principle of development
• Ecology
• Impacts on landscape and character 
• Highways access and active travel
• Flood risk and drainage

? ? 

The application was recommended for approval subject to the prior completion of a Section 106 Planning Obligation/Agreement and the stated planning conditions as listed in the report. 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 has been very little engagement with local groups during the planning application process.

·                   Various new plans have been slipped in throughout the application process.

·                   Surface water drainage is a serious concern at the site.

·                   The proposed development has very little benefit to the local community and is therefore unsustainable.

A representative from Chard Town Football Club spoke in support of the planning application. He referred members to the planning obligations as set out in the report, and explained how the financial contribution would bring significant benefits to the club and the wider community.

? 

A representative of Combe St Nicholas Parish Council spoke in objection to the application, for several reasons including highways and pedestrian safety, and ecology. The full list of objections is detailed in the report at Section 8.1 Statutory consultees.  

? 

The Division Members, Councillors Wale and Kenton spoke in support of the application. Cllr Wale felt that the plan before members today plan has evolved and improved considerably over the years, and Cllr Kenton agreed that this proposed development will bring a myriad of benefits to the neighbouring communities.

The applicant then addressed the committee. He reminded members that the application had been approved by SSDC planning committee in February 2020,and encouraged members to do the same today.

? 

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

? 

• Details around parking for Chard Town Football Club users will be agreed under the S106 agreement.
• Half of the site lies across the Chard Eastern Development Area (CEDA) – allocated direction of growth in the SSDC Local plan.
• The details of the community hub/neighbourhood centre (class e floorspace) will be agreed under the S106 agreement.
• The cascade arrangement for the community pitches will be agreed under the s106 agreement.

? 

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

? 

• The application before members today is an outline application only.
• Chard is underperforming in terms of housing delivery.

? 

At the conclusion of the debate, the officer’s recommendation to approve the application was proposed by Councillor Wale and seconded by Councillor Kenton.? When put to the vote, the proposal was carried by 10 in favour.

Resolved

That planning Application 18/04057/OUT to consider an outline application for mixed development comprising residential development of up to 295 dwellings, provision of a floodlit full size football pitch, unlit full size training pitch and community  ...  view the full minutes text for item 54.

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 20/03613/FUL 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 DEFERRED for the following reason:

Members requested further evidence that the application is in compliance with SSDC Local Plan policies EQ2 and EQ3.

Voting: 6 in favour, 3 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 and photographs

• An indicative masterplan  

• Access proposals
• The principle of development
• Building materials and architectural design

? 

She referred to the key considerations being the principle of development, residential amenity, design, layout and scale, highways safety and active travel, surface and foul water drainage, heritage assets, ecology and phosphates and pollution.

? 

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: 

• The application does not align with SSDC Local plan environmental policy EQ2 and will have a significant negative impact on the landscape character of the area.
• The application does not align with SDC Local plan policy EQ3 and the site will have a significant negative impact on The Homestead, a nearby Grade II listed Heritage Asset which the council has a duty to protect.
• A Keinton Mandeville Neighbourhood plan is in development and, according the the NPPF should be a material consideration.
• Data suggests 90% of residents in Keinton Mandeville want to protect this valuable green space, and 400 residents are in objection to the proposals
• Keinton Mandeville, classed as a small rural settlement in the SSDC Local plan, and has already overdelivered on housing delivery in this local plan period. 
• An independent Highways Assessment commissioned by the parish council has not been considered as part of the planning application process.

? 

A representative of Keinton Mandeville Parish Council referred to the objections as detailed in Section 7 of the report and advised that the biggest concern is highways safety and that an independent Highways Assessment commissioned by the parish council has not been considered as part of the planning application process.

?The Division Member, Councillor Stephen Page, spoke in opposition to the application, agreeing with all of the Parish Council’s objections, and felt that this housing development was the wrong design, in the wrong place, for the wrong reasons.?  

 ? 

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

? 

• The Keinton Mandeville Neighbourhood plan has not yet been made (adopted) so cannot be a material consideration for this committee.
• In terms of assurance in the delivery of 35% affordable housing, the developer has no concerns in regard to viability, however if this changes the application will be brought back to the committee.
• Keinton Mandeville is not a linear development anymore, and some infill development is deemed as appropriate.

? 

?During the debate members discussed the planning considerations, the objections heard today, and the planning balance. During discussion, the following additional points were made by members: - 

? 

• The development would have a negative impact on traffic and congestion on Queen Street.
• Keinton Mandeville is a linear settlement, and an appeal  ...  view the full minutes text for item 55.

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 DEFERRED for the following reason:

The Chair proposed deferral due to the absence of a highways officer at the meeting.

Voting: 9 in favour.

Due to the absence of a highways officer at the meeting, the Chair made a proposal to defer the item in its entirety. The proposal was seconded by Cllr Best and when put to the vote the committee voted 9 unanimously 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 at Land West Of South Street, Castle Cary, Somerset, BA7 7NY be DEFERRED for the following reason:

The Chair proposed deferral due to the absence of a highways officer at the meeting.

Voting: 9 in favour.

To note the appeal decisions.

The committee noted the appeal decisions.