Agenda, decisions and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence and notification of substitutions.

Apologies were received from Councillors Dawn Johnson, Councillor Nick O’Donnell was present as substitute.

To approve the minutes from the previous meeting.

Resolved that the minutes of the Planning Committee - West held on 17 December 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 Andy Hadley declared an interest in Agenda Item 7, He declared he will leave the Committee Room before the vote.

Councillor Andy Sully declared that he knew the applicant for Item 6 but he had not discussed the application and was not predetermined.

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 democraticserviceswest@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 public questions raised.

To consider an application for phased development capable of being severed of 292 no. dwellings with associated access, infrastructure, open space (formal and informal) landscaping and related works on land off Lyngford Lane, Taunton

To defer a decision on the application: 

1) In order to receive further information under paragraph 116 of the National Planning Policy Framework in respect of the potential transport impacts of the development; and
2) To carry out a site visit at an appropriate time of day.

(Voting 11 For, 0 Against,1 Abstention) 

The Planning Officer introduced the application with the aid of a presentation. The officer explained that the application sought permission for phased development, capable of being severed, of 292 no. dwellings with associated access, infrastructure, open space (formal and informal) landscaping and related works on land off Lyngford Lane, Taunton. The Highways Officer was introduced to give an overview on the development proposal and highways plans.

The Chair used his discretion to allow more objectors to speak. The Committee were addressed by 10 objectors including Local Members and Parish Councillors whose comments included: The rurality of the road and its lack of suitability for increased traffic, The flood risk within the proposed development, the lack of a link road to the development and the additional pressure on already full schools in the area that the development would pose.

The Committee were addressed by the applicant whose comments included, that the application was prioritising sustainable travel in line with Council Placemaking Principles, that the design had been redesigned three times to meet the Taunton Garden Town objectives and that the development would aid significant investment in Taunton.

Councillors were invited to discuss the application and the following points were raised:

-       Councillors queried the traffic impact assessment and if the widening of the road was included. Sam Tearle, Planning Highways Officer, confirmed that the widening of the road was not part of this application.

-       Councillors queried the traffic impact assessment and the large volume of traffic in Cheddon Fitzpaine. Councillors felt that the reality of the traffic had not been adequately assessed.

-       Councillors raised the need for an additional access point to alleviate the traffic flow and the resolution for this.

-       Councillors did not consider that the site would be well served by an active cycle route and that the improved bus stops would be some distance from the site

-       Councillors asked for clarification on the location of the ransom strip, the Planning Officer clarified by showing this on the map. Policy SS2 required a link road.

-       Councillors questioned whether the application would comply with National Planning Policy Framework para 116

-       Councillors acknowledged that the principle of developing the site was accepted but that more information was needed to understand the transport impacts of the proposals

Councillor Derek Perry proposed that the application be deferred on the basis set out below. This was seconded by Councillor Steven Pugsley. The motion to defer a decision was passed.

To defer a decision on the application:

 1) In order to receive further information under paragraph 116 of the National Planning Policy Framework in respect of the potential transport impacts of the development (including active travel and public transport); and

 2) To carry out a site visit at an appropriate time of day.

(Voting 11 For, 0 Against,1 Abstention)

To consider an application for the erection of 5 No. affordable dwellings, 4 No. open market dwellings with public open space, landscaping, access, drainage and associated works on land west of Station Road, Hatch Beauchamp.

To Grant Permission subject to the conditions and s106 agreement detailed within the officer`s report and an advice note on Electric Vehicle charging.

(Voting 10 For, 2 Against)

The Planning Officer introduced the application with the aid of a presentation. The officer explained that the application sought permission for the erection of 5 No. affordable dwellings, 4 No. open market dwellings with public open space, landscaping, access, drainage and associated works on land west of Station Road, Hatch Beauchamp. The Planning Officer highlighted the update sheet that was shared with Committee Members shortly before the meeting.

The Chair used his discretion to allow more objectors to speak. The Committee were addressed by 7 objectors including Local Members and Parish Councillors whose comments included: lack of public transport in the area, resulting in busier roads with cars; residents who did not own a car had not been considered; the cost of the proposed houses considering the average wage for the area; flooding issues and distance from facilities.

The Committee were addressed by 4 supporters whose comments included, the housing crisis within the County, lack of affordable homes and the excellent transport links onto the M5 and A303.

The Committee were addressed by the applicant’s agent.

Councillors were invited to discuss the application, and the following points were raised:

-       Councillors raised the aspect of why the application was refused previously and how the application had changed to be recommended to be approved today. The Planning Officer confirmed that the key difference was the policy context, this application was being looked at via the subsequential test as a rural exception site. The other potential site in Hatch Beachamp was less suitable due to the constraints.

-       Councillors raised the importance of young people in the local area and were pleased to see support from the local village occupants. Councillors raised that the location of this development was in a good location for local amenities. Councillors raised the importance of homes for local people, and the housing officer confirmed that the houses had been secured with a ‘home for local people’ clause.

-       Councillors raised the fact that there were more objections on the planning portal than that of support, and the fact that the development was outside of the settlement area. Councillors asked for clarity over the consideration for the alternative brownfield site. Councillors asked for clarity over why now the application was deemed acceptable on planning terms

-       Councillors were pleased to note section 11 of the Planning Officers report that gave clear information for the Committee.

Councillor Steven Pugsley proposed that the application be approved, which was seconded by Councillor Andy Sully.

To Grant Permission subject to the conditions detailed within the officer`s report.

(Voting 10 For, 2 Against)

To consider an application for the Modification or Discharge of a Planning Obligation (S106 agreement) to remove the requirement of the Community Facilities Contribution at Land South of Hopcott Rd, Minehead.

To Grant approval for the variation of the s106 agreement as detailed within the officer`s report with the added requirement that the revised community facilities contribution would be paid within 3 months of the completion of the Deed of Variation of the s106 agreement.

(Voting For, Unanimous)

Councillors Farbahi and Sully left the room and missed the start of the application and were unable to vote on the item.

The Planning Officer introduced the application with the aid of a presentation. The officer explained that the application sought permission for the Modification or Discharge of a Planning Obligation (S106 agreement) to remove the requirement of the Community Facilities Contribution at Land South of Hopcott Road, Minehead

Councillor Hadley declared an interest but wished to speak on the item before leaving the room for deliberation and vote, this was allowed by The Chair. His comments included that he objected to the application due to the absence of the community facilities contribution but noted that he could not vote due to the declaration of interest raised and he left the room.

The Committee were addressed by 2 objectors whose comments included, the poor placement of the planning notice and the lack of support or supportive letters for the application.

-       Councillors raised the importance that there should have been due diligence to investigate the site.

-       Councillors raised concerns on the location of the site and difficulty of building on it, and that a viability appraisal had been carried out.

Councillor Derek Perry proposed that the recommendation be accepted, and this was seconded by Councillor Ross Henley.

To Grant Permission subject to the conditions detailed within the officer`s report

(Voting unanimous For)

To consider an application for the erection of 1 No. dwelling in the garden to the rear with retention of garage at Pixie Lawn, Blagdon Hill.

To Grant Permission subject to the conditions detailed within the officer`s report.

(Voting 7 For, 3 Against)

The Planning Officer introduced the application with an aid of a PowerPoint presentation. They confirmed that the application sought permission for the erection of 1 No. dwelling in the garden to the rear with retention of garage at Pixie Lawn, Blagdon Hill

The Committee were addressed by 3 objectors whose comments included, the height of the building, the access road of the property being unsuitable and the opinion that the proposed was not in keeping with the properties in the area.

The Committee were addressed by the Applicant whose comments included, the existing access road already served 4 properties, and the data showed how accidents had happened.

-       Councillors raised concerns regarding the size of the proposed dwelling and houses being squeezed into small spaces and it was too big for the plot.

-       Councillors sought clarification on why the application was more acceptable than the previous application that had been refused if it was moved closer to the property boundary. The Planning Officer confirmed that this was a different area of land. The point of the property overlooking the property of the North was also raised.

Councillor Andy Sully proposed that planning permission be granted, which was seconded by Councillor Habib Farbahi

To Grant Permission subject to the conditions detailed within the officer`s report.

(Voting 7 For, 3 Against)

To consider an application of variation of condition 11 of permission reference 4/31/09/2022 – in order to extend the operating hours for park and ride bus services from 06:15 until 23:15, Monday to Saturday.

To defer the agenda item to the next meeting of Planning Committee – West due to lack of time to consider this item.

To defer the agenda item to the next meeting of Planning Committee – West due to lack of time to consider this item.