Decisions

There were no apologies.

SOMERSET COUNCIL

STANDARDS HEARINGS SUB-COMMITTEE

DECISION NOTICE

 

Name of Authority	Burnham and Highbridge Town Council
Name of member who the allegation has been made about	Cllr Mike Murphy
Name of the person who made the original allegation	Elaine Dutton
Name of the Hearings Sub-Committee member who will chair the meeting	Cllr John Bailey
Name of other Members of the Hearings Sub-Committee	Cllr Brian Smedley Cllr Hugh Davies
Name of Independent Person	Philip Knowles
Name of the Monitoring Officer	Scott Wooldridge (represented by Deputy Monitoring Officer Steven Hellard)
Name of the Clerk of the hearing or other administrative Officer	Steve Taylor
Date, time and place of the hearing	10am on Tuesday 2nd May 2023 at   The Sedgemoor Room, Bridgwater House King Square Bridgwater Somerset, TA6 3AR   The hearing was held in public.
A summary of the allegation	It is alleged that on the 23rd of June 2022, at the Town Council offices, Councillor Murphy made inappropriate comments to the Complainant when discussing whether a grant application made on behalf of the Cultural Arts Development Society (CADS) could be approved.   It is alleged that Councillor Murphy: i) questioned whether money for the grant could be taken from elsewhere in the Town Council; ii) suggested that the Complainant spoke to the Town Clerk to try to persuade him to change his mind by wearing a low-cut top and to push her breasts out so that they sit like a balcony, iii) during a further conversation on the 23rd of June, made an inappropriate comment to the Complainant by saying that she made him feel calm and he wanted to give her a cuddle, iv) on a previous occasion when Councillor Murphy attended the Town Council offices, he made an inappropriate comment by saying to the Complainant she was his crush for the day, and he was falling in love with her. v) ignored the request for Councillors to make an appointment with officers before attending the Town Council Offices and when he did attend, he stood in such close proximity to the Complainant as to touch her arm.
The relevant section or sections of the code of Conduct	‘Member obligations   When a member of the Council acts, claims to act or gives the impression of acting as a representative of the Council, they have the following obligations.   1.    They shall behave in such a way that a reasonable person would regard as respectful. 2.    They shall not act in a way which a reasonable person would regard as bullying or intimidatory. 3.    They shall not seek to improperly confer an advantage or disadvantage on any person.’

 

 

Summary of the evidence considered and the representations made

 

 

The Committee heard from Mrs Sinclair, Investigating Officer, who presented her report and explained that there were a number of agreed findings, namely

 

 

1. Cllr Murphy attended the Town Council offices on the 23 of June 2022.

 

2. The Town Council Code of Conduct was engaged for the duration of that visit.

 

3. During the visit Cllr Murphy discussed with the Complainant the possibility of a grant being awarded to the Cultural Arts Development Society (CADS) in relation to an event being held on 3 July 2022.

 

4. Cllr Murphy asked the Complainant if there was anything she could do about the grant. He asked whether funding was available from other sources. The Complainant advised Cllr Murphy that he would need to speak to the Town Clerk.

 

5. During that visit on 23 June 2022 the Complainant was able to resolve an issue that Cllr Murphy had in relation to the IBABS system – in response to the Complainant resolving that issue Cllr Murphy stated “You are fantastic, I’d like to give you a big cuddle but I’m sorry I can’t. You are my crush for the day/week and I could fall in love with you”.

 

6. It was also agreed by Cllr Murphy that he told the Complainant about a time when he was in St Tropez and described an experience he had whilst standing at a market stall explaining that a woman stood next to him wearing bikini bottoms and an open blouse, with a white bra with a fringe which meant that her breasts were at his eye level.

 

There was, however, a dispute as to where, when and the context in which this conversation took place. Cllr Murphy’s position was that the conversation took place at an IBABS training session in the Council Chamber in April 2023 in the context of him raising concerns with the Complainant about how she was dressed. The Complainants position was that the conversation took place during Cllr Murphy’s visit to the Town Council offices on 23rd June 2022 and in the context of Cllr Murphy asking the Complainant to influence the Town Clerk’s decision in relation to the CADS grant application by wearing a low-cut top with a balcony bra or that she push her breasts out.

 

Cllr Murphy categorically denied that he suggested to the Complainant that she dress in a particular way when discussing the CADS grant application with the Town Clerk. This was a matter of factual dispute between the Complainant and Cllr Murphy but Mrs Sinclair had concluded, on a balance of probabilities based on the conversations that Cllr Murphy accepted had taken place, that it was more likely than not that Cllr Murphy had made this comment to the Complainant.

The Sub-Committee heard evidence from the Complainant, Elaine Dutton. She stated that during the discussion about the CADS grant application between herself and Cllr Murphy at the Town Council offices on 23^rd June 2022, Cllr Murphy had asked her to wear a low-cut top with a balcony bra when discussing the matter with the Town Clerk. She also stated that it was during that conversation on 23^rd June 2022 that Cllr Murphy told the story about the time when he was in St Tropez and standing at a market stall when a woman stood next to him wearing bikini bottoms and an open blouse with a white bra with a fringe which meant that her breasts were at his eye level. Elaine Dutton explained that after the conversation she had left the room and explained the conversation to a college who advised her to report it and that she duly did so. She denied that there was any such conversation between them at the IBABS training in April 2022. When asked how the conversations made her feel, she stated that they made her anxious, that she would hide when Cllr Murphy came into the offices, she found the conversations embarrassing, demeaning and insulting that Cllr Murphy made her feel nervous and that she was scared to be around him or alone with him.

 

 

The Sub-Committee also heard from Mrs Martin of Counsel on behalf of Cllr Murphy and heard evidence from Cllr Murphy. Cllr Murphy explained that there were two incidents (rather than a single conversation on 23^rd June 2022) from which the complaints arose, namely an IBABS training event in the Council Chamber in April 2022 and the conversation on 23^rd June 2022.

 

He explained that on 23^rd June 2022 he made an unannounced visit to the Town Council offices having been unable to contact the offices via telephone, and the conversation which took place mostly did so in one room with three persons present.  There was a discussion about the possibility of the grant application being considered by a committee in time for the Picnic in the Park CADS event. Cllr Murphy accepted that he did make reference to the Complainant’s cleavage, which he was very conscious of, on account of the low-cut top she was wearing as he did not want her to think that he was looking at her breasts.

 

Cllr Murphy explained the context to his accepted comments on 23^rd June 2022 were that he was having difficulty with the IBABS Software and asked for the number for the technical team to assist him. However, Elaine Dutton offered to help herself so he fetched his tablet device and she was able to fix the issue with ease. He asked her to show this again and she did so. Cllr Murphy explained that he was so relieved that the computer issue was finally fixed, that he uttered the words, “I could hug you, but that would not be allowed. Instead, I think I will make you my crush for the week / day.” He also said words to the effect that if she was able to fix things with such ease, he could “fall in love with her”.

 

Cllr Murphy explained that the St Tropez conversation had taken place before the conversation on 22 June 2022, at an IBABS training event at the Council Chamber in April 2022.  Cllr Murphy explained that he spoke with the Complainant at that training session which was attended by other council employees and councillors as he had noticed that she was wearing a dress which exposed her cleavage. It appeared to him that others present had noticed but no one else had mentioned it. Cllr Murphy explained that he did not think that the Complainant was dressed appropriately and he decided that he should deal with this issue himself. It was in this context that he

attempted to draw an analogy with what is acceptable dress in one context may not be acceptable in another, by giving an account of the encounter he had had in St Tropez.

 

Cllr Murphy accepted that in hindsight the reference to the woman in St Tropez was inappropriate, that he got it wrong and that he regretted it. He stated that he did not intend to offend or insult the Complainant or make her feel uncomfortable and would not deal with the matter in that way if he found himself in the same situation. He explained that he had taken time to read literature on unconscious bias and now considered himself to be more sympathetic and empathetic and stated that he was deeply sorry that he did not empathise with the Complainant at the time of his comments.

 

 

 

The findings of fact, including the reasons for them

 

The Sub-Committee made the following findings of fact which were agreed.

 

 

1.   Cllr Murphy attended the Town Council offices on the 23 of June 2022.

 

2.   The Town Council Code of Conduct was engaged for the duration of that visit.

 

3.   During the visit Cllr Murphy discussed with the Complainant the possibility of a grant being awarded to CADS in relation to an event being held on 3 July 2022.

 

4.   Cllr Murphy asked the Complainant if there was anything she could do about the grant. He asked whether funding was available from other sources. The Complainant advised Cllr Murphy that he would need to speak to the Town Clerk.

 

5.   During that visit on 23 June 2022 the Complainant was able to resolve an issue that Cllr Murphy had in relation to the IBABS system – in response to the Complainant resolving that issue Cllr Murphy stated “You are fantastic, I’d like to give you a big cuddle but I’m sorry I can’t. You are my crush for the day/week and I could fall in love with you”.

 

 

6.   That Cllr Murphy told the Complainant about a time when he was in St Tropez and described an experience he had whilst standing at a market stall explaining that a woman stood next to him wearing bikini bottoms and an open blouse, with a white bra with a fringe which meant that her breasts were at his eye level.

 

 

The Sub-Committee made the following finding of fact on the disputed facts:

 

7.  At the meeting of 23 June 2022 Cllr Murphy suggested that the Complainant sought to influence the Town Clerk by her wearing a low cut top with a balcony bra to push up her breasts.

 

In relation to finding 7, the disputed fact, the Sub-Committee considered the Complaint Form and associated documents, the response of Cllr Murphy dated 23 August 2022, the statement of the Complainant based on the interview with the Investigating Officer on 8 November 2022, the statement of Cllr Murphy based on the interview with the Investigating Officer on 16 November 2022, the evidence given to the Sub-Committee by the Complainant and Cllr Murphy and the representations made.

 

Having done so, the Sub-Committee concluded that on the balance of probabilities, Cllr Murphy did suggest that the Complainant sought to influence the Town Clerk in relation to the application for grant funding by her wearing a low-cut top with a balcony bra to push up her breasts. The Sub-Committee found the Complainant’s evidence on this issue to be consistent with the written record of the conversation produced by the Complainant for the Town Clerk signed and dated 27^th June 2022 (the Monday following the agreed Thursday meeting) at page 43 of the agenda and with the complaint form at page 34, and accepted her evidence on this issue.

 

 

The finding as to whether the member failed to follow the Code, including the reasons for that finding

 

Respect

 

 

The Sub-Committee concluded that Cllr Murphy had breached the Burnham-on-Sea and Highbridge Town Council Code of Conduct in that he had failed to comply with the following member obligation:

 

‘They shall behave in such a way that a reasonable person would regard as respectful’ 

 

Firstly, the Sub-Committee considered whether the Code was engaged in relation to Cllr Murphy’s conduct. The Code applies ‘When a member of the Council acts, claims to act or gives the impression of acting as a representative of the Council…’

It was accepted on behalf of Cllr Murphy that the Code was engaged throughout Cllr Murphy’s visit to the Town Council offices. The Sub-Committee was satisfied that throughout the visit in discussing both a grant application made to the Town Council for which he was not the applicant and the IBABS system, Cllr Murphy was acting or giving the impression of acting in his role as a member of the Council and the Code was therefore engaged.

 

It was accepted on behalf of Cllr Murphy that the Sub-Committee’s findings of fact gave rise to a breach of the obligation in the Code to behave in such a way that a reasonable person would regard as respectful and in reaching its decision the Sub-Committee also had regard to the Local Government Association’s Guidance on Model Councillor Code of Conduct (‘the LGA Guidance’). Whilst the Town Council Code is not the Local Government Association Model Councillor Code of Conduct, both contain similar provisions requiring respect and the content of the LGA Guidance is therefore appropriate.

 

The LGA Guidance provides

 

‘Examples of ways in which you can show respect are by being polite and courteous… having consideration for other people’s feelings… In a local government context this can mean using appropriate language in meetings and written communications…’

 

Disrespectful behaviour is stated as

 

‘Failure to treat others with respect will occur when unreasonable or demeaning behaviour is directed by one person against or about another. The circumstances in which the behaviour occurs are relevant in assessing whether the behaviour is disrespectful. The circumstances include the place where the behaviour occurs, who observes the behaviour, the character and relationship of the people involved and the behaviour of anyone who prompts the alleged disrespect.

 

Disrespectful behaviour can take many different forms ranging from overt acts of abuse and disruptive or bad behaviour to insidious actions such as bullying and the demeaning treatment of others. It is subjective and difficult to define. However, it is important to remember that any behaviour that a reasonable person would think would influence the willingness of fellow councillors, officers or members of the public to speak up or interact with you because they expect the encounter will be unpleasant or highly uncomfortable fits the definition of disrespectful behaviour.

 

Examples of disrespect in a local government context might include…use of inappropriate language in meetings…’

 

The Sub-Committee considered Cllr Murphy’s comments towards the Complainant to demonstrate a lack of consideration for the Complaint’s feelings.  Comments relating to the Complainant’s personal appearance, that she should dress in a particular way, references to wishing to give the Complainant a cuddle, her being his crush and that he could fall in love with her are entirely inappropriate in a work context from a Member to an officer. The comments were highly personal, entirely unnecessary and associated with the Complainant’s gender.

 

The comments were entirely unreasonable and the Committee unhesitatingly accepted the impact of those comments were to make the Complainant feel uncomfortable, embarrassed, and demeaned such that she would hide from Cllr Murphy, clearly demonstrating an influence on her willingness to interact because of the expectation that the encounter would be unpleasant or highly uncomfortable. The Sub-Committee therefore concluded that Cllr Murphy had blatantly breached the requirement to behave in such a way that a reasonable person would regard as respectful.

 

 

Bullying or intimidation

 

The Sub-Committee concluded that Cllr Murphy had not breached the obligation in the of the Burnham-on-Sea and Highbridge Town Council Code of Conduct providing that Members shall not act in a way which a reasonable person would regard as bullying or intimidatory.

 

The Sub-Committee carefully considered the LGA Guidance which provides:

 

‘Bullying may be characterised as offensive, intimidating, malicious, insulting, or humiliating behaviour, an abuse or misuse of power that can make a person feel vulnerable, upset, undermined, humiliated, denigrated or threatened. Power does not always mean being in a position of authority and can include both personal strength and the power to coerce through fear or intimidation. Bullying may be obvious or be hidden or insidious. Such conduct is usually part of a pattern of behaviour which attempts to undermine an individual or a group of individuals, is detrimental to their confidence and capability, and may adversely affect their health.

 

…

 

‘Like disrespectful behaviour, bullying can be difficult to define. When allegations of bullying are considered it’s likely that the person handling the complaint will consider both the perspective of the alleged victim, and whether the councillor intended their actions to be bullying. They will also consider whether the individual was reasonably entitled to believe they were being bullied.

 

…

 

Examples of bullying include but are not limited to:

 

verbal abuse, such as shouting, swearing, threats, insults, sarcasm, ridiculing or demeaning others, inappropriate nicknames, or humiliating language

physical or psychological threats or actions towards an individual or their personal property

practical jokes

overbearing or intimidating levels of supervision, including preventing someone from undertaking their role or following agreed policies and procedures

inappropriate comments about someone’s performance

abuse of authority or power, such as placing unreasonable expectations on someone in relation to their job, responsibilities, or hours of work, or coercing someone to meet such expectations

ostracising or excluding someone from meetings, communications, work events or socials

sending, distributing, or posting detrimental material about other people, including images, in any medium

smear campaigns.

 

The Sub-Committee considered the perspective of the Complainant, the Member and whether a reasonable member of the public who looks at the conduct objectively would regard it as bullying.

 

The Sub-Committee found this to be a difficult and borderline case. The Sub-Committee had no doubt whatsoever that Cllr Murphy’s comments made the Complainant feel uncomfortable, upset, insulted, intimidated and demeaned.  The Sub-Committee also considered that Cllr Murphy genuinely did not intend to make the Complainant feel that way. That is not in any way whatsoever to excuse his conduct but, on balance, the Sub-Committee concluded that that there was no or no sufficient pattern of behaviour demonstrating an intent to undermine or coerce the Complainant and that Cllr Murphy’s behaviour though entirely inappropriate was not a result of an abuse or misuse of power and that accordingly, it fell just short of bullying. 

 

 

Improperly conferring an advantage or disadvantage

 

The Sub-Committee concluded that Cllr Murphy had not breached the obligation in the Burnham-on-Sea and Highbridge Town Council Code of Conduct providing that Members shall not seek to improperly confer an advantage or disadvantage on any person.

 

Whilst the Sub-Committee found, as an agreed matter of fact, that Cllr Murphy asked the Complainant whether funding was available from other sources, the Sub-Committee found it proper for Cllr Murphy to have asked about the availability of other sources of funding to support the event. There may have been alternative funding routes available of which he was unaware and it was proper for him to ask that question.

 

 

 

The sanctions imposed, if any, including the reasons for any sanctions

 

The Sub-Committee noted Cllr Murphy’s regret at his comments and his acceptance that they were disrespectful and therefore a breach of the Code. The Sub-Committee also had regard to the character references provided on behalf of Cllr Murphy. Whilst the Sub-Committee also noted that it was not Cllr Murphy’s intention to upset the Complainant or make her feel uncomfortable, the Sub-Committee concluded that the nature and seriousness of the breach together with the impact upon the Complainant was such that Cllr Murphy should be sanctioned in order to improve standards of conduct.

 

As Cllr Murphy’s conduct was in his capacity as Town Councillor, the Sub-Committee’s role is to recommend sanctions to the Town Council. The Sub-Committee agreed the following sanctions:

 

1.      Report the findings to Burnham-On-Sea and Highbridge Town Council.

 

2.      Recommend that the Burnham-On-Sea and Highbridge Town Council issue a formal censure to Cllr Murphy.

 

3.    Recommend that the Burnham-On-Sea and Highbridge Town Council arrange training for Cllr Murphy, by a reputable trainer, to include:

    Equalities

    Member/Officer relationships

    Professional boundaries

    Interpersonal relationships

 

We would suggest that the content of the course and the provider is agreed in discussion with the Monitoring Officer.

 

The training to be completed within a period of three months and the completion to be reported to Somerset Council.

 

4.    Recommend to the Burnham-On-Sea and Highbridge Town Council that as soon as possible Cllr Murphy issue a genuine written apology to the Complainant for his conduct as found by the Sub-Committee.

 

5.    Recommend to the Burnham-On-Sea and Highbridge Town Council that it excludes Cllr Murphy from the Council’s offices, with the exceptions of meeting rooms as necessary for attending Council meetings, until he has undertaken the training.

 

6.    Recommend to the Burnham-On-Sea and Highbridge Town Council that Cllr Murphy be removed from any committee/sub-committee until he has completed the training recommended.

 

The Sub-Committee considered that the above recommendations were both reasonable and proportionate in seeking to improve standards of behaviour and to protect the Complainant in the meantime.

 

The Burnham-On-Sea and Highbridge Town Council are requested to report back to the Monitoring Officer within three months of the date of this Decision Notice to confirm whether they have met to discuss the sanction and providing a copy of their decision.

 

Recommendation to the Burnham-on-Sea and Highbridge Town Council

 

The Sub-Committee noted that the Town Council Code of Conduct does not include any obligations relating to equalities or discrimination and recommended the Town Council to adopt a code that included such obligations (such as the Somerset Council Code of Conduct).

 

10/05/2023

 

There were no declarations of interest.

Following consideration of the officer report, appendices and discussion, the Executive:

 

• Approved the Council undertaking a Disability Confident Leader assessment in June. This will include the preparation work, audit process and receiving the recommendations and findings that come from this audit.   

 

• Approved the Council undertaking an internal Race Audit in August. This will include the preparation work, audit process and receiving the recommendations and findings that come from this audit.  

 

• Approved the commitment to deliver training on race and challenging behaviour.  

 

• Approved the Council undertaking an Equality Framework for Local Government (EFLG) Peer Assessment in October. This will include the preparation work, 3-day external Peer Assessment, receiving the recommendations and findings that come from this assessment and agreed to receive a response to this report.  

 

• Acknowledged the level of commitment that will be needed from the whole organisation, and partners, over the coming year to support these three processes. 

 

Following consideration of the officer report, appendices and discussion, the Executive noted and approved:

 

1. The intention of the Council to adopt the legislation identified as Option A, and the proposed policy, to enable and support the operation of the Street Naming and Numbering Service.

 

2. The delegation of authority to the Executive Director Strategy, Workforce & Localities to place the relevant notices in accordance with paragraph 25 of Schedule 14 Local Government Act 1972 confirming the intention set out at paragraph 9(a) of the report; and 

 

3. Further to the notices under 9(b) being issued and the relevant time periods elapsing, that authority be delegated to Executive Director Strategy, Workforce & Localities to arrange to submit the proposal to adopt the Option A legislation, and the draft policy, to Full Council for adoption at the next available date. 

 

The Planning Officer introduced the application to the Committee with the assistance of a slide presentation.

 

The Committee were addressed by a resident in opposition to the application. Their comments included: -

·         The gap between her property and the fence appeared quite wide in the plans but was in fact about 4 foot at its widest reducing down to only 2 feet at the narrowest.

·         The proposed properties were very close the boundary fence and would cause overshadowing.

The Committee were addressed by the Agent. Their comments included:

·         It accorded with all relevant planning policies and the site fell within the established development boundary for the village.

·         It could clearly be seen from the indicative plan that two 3 bedroom properties with good levels of amenity space and sufficient parking could be accommodated on the site.

·         Any concerns could be addressed at the reserved matters stage.

 

In response to questions from Members, the Planning Officer advised that the application was for up to two dwellings.

 

The Committee, whilst understanding the neighbour’s concerns, acknowledged that it was only an outline application and that issues such as loss of light and distances from the boundary would be considered at the reserved matters stage. Consequently, it was proposed by Cllr Filmer and seconded by Cllr Slocombe that the application be approved subject to the conditions in the Planning Officer’s recommendation outlined in the report. On being put to the vote the proposal was carried unanimously.

 

Resolved

To Grant Permission subject to the following conditions:-

 

1.     Approval of the details of the access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be obtained from the local planning authority in writing before any development is commenced.

Plans and particulars of the reserved matters referred to above, relating to the access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale, shall be submitted in writing to the local planning authority and shall be carried out as approved.

 

Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the local planning authority before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

 

The development hereby permitted shall be begun either before the expiration of [five] years from the date of this permission, or before the expiration of [two] years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved, whichever is the later.

Reasons: The application was submitted as an outline application in accordance with the provisions of Article 5(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2015. In accordance with the provisions of Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990 (As amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004).

 

2.    The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans listed in schedule A.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

 

3.    As part of the reserved matters application a programme of biodiversity mitigation and enhancement measures will be submitted for approval. The approved scheme shall be installed in full prior to the first occupation of the dwelling hereby approved. Once installed, the biodiversity enhancements shall thereafter be retained.

Reason: In the interests of biodiversity net gain in accordance with Sedgemoor Local Plan 2011-2032 Policy D20.

 

4.    Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted, a lighting design shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The strategy shall show how and where external lighting will be installed (with the provision technical specifications and operation) so that it can be clearly demonstrated that external lighting will be limited to the application site only. All external lighting shall be installed in accordance with the specifications and locations set out in the design, and these shall be maintained thereafter in accordance with the design. No external lighting other than those approved shall be installed without the prior written consent from the local planning authority.

Reason: To prevent light pollution and unacceptable impacts to neighbouring residential dwellings and in accordance with policies D24 and D25 Sedgemoor Local Plan 2011-2032.

 

5.    If, during the works contamination is encountered which has not previously been identified, then the contamination shall be fully assessed and an appropriate remediation scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

Reason: To protect the health of future occupiers of the site from any possible effects of contaminated land and in accordance with policy D24 Sedgemoor Local Plan 2011-2032.

 

Schedule A

Location Plan Drg No. 00126-23-01B

 

Cllr A Bradford left the meeting.

 

The Planning Officer introduced the application to the Committee with the assistance of a slide presentation.

The Committee were addressed by a representative of the parish council.  Their comments included:

·         Replacing an old bungalow with a modern house was overdevelopment.

·         The first-floor large, glazed windows were out of character and the dwelling would have a detrimental impact in terms of visual amenity.

The Committee were addressed by the Agent.  Their comments included:

·         It was a larger than average plot and the proposal has the same footprint as the original bungalow.

·         By accommodating the first-floor bedrooms within the roof space they had managed to reduce the Ridge height to below the roofline of the neighbouring red brick house and only 1.8 metres higher than the neighbouring bungalow to ensure that it was not overbearing or resulted in the loss of daylight to the neighbouring properties.

During discussion, Members commented that whilst the village had a diverse range of dwellings the large gable feature on the front, in blue lias, was not in keeping.

A proposal was made, and seconded, that the application be approved subject to the gable being in red brick. On being put to the vote the proposal was lost by 6 votes in favour, 7 against.

Members then discussed what their main concerns were and agreed that it was purely the visual appearance of the front elevation and dominance of the gable feature.

It was then proposed by Cllr Murphy and seconded by Cllr Bradford that the application be deferred in order for officers and the agent to negotiate and continue with this application. On being put to the vote the proposal was unanimously carried.

 

Resolved

To defer the application.

 

The Committee then adjourned for a 15 minute comfort break.

 

The Planning Officer introduced the application to the Committee with the assistance of a PowerPoint presentation.  As an update to his written report, he confirmed that a waste management plan had now been received and that a professional waste company would be removing the dog waste and that Condition 7 would now need to be reworded to a compliance condition.

 

The Committee were addressed by a resident, a representative of the Parish Council and a Division Member.  Their comments included: -

·         The narrow roads leading to the premises, with few passing points and a history of accidents.

·         The additional number of vehicles movements caused by the development.

The Committee were addressed by the applicants.  Their comments included:

·         The benefits of the gun dog training that they provided.

·         That the business was closed on Monday and Tuesday (0 car movements)

·         From Wednesday to Saturday, they had one class and 3x one to ones (max 9 visitors, 18 car movements).

·         On Sunday they held four classes (max 24 visitors, 48 car movements) which were held half an hour apart.

Members, whilst conscious of the concerns raised by the various parties, were also aware that Highways had raised no objections to this semi-retrospective application. It was felt that if the number of vehicle movements could be restricted to its current level it would be appropriate to grant permission.

At the conclusion of the debate, it was proposed by Cllr Bruce and seconded by Cllr Hendry that the application be approved subject to an amendment to Condition 7, and a condition restricting the number of vehicle movements to those set out in the Officer’s report.

On being put to the vote the proposal was carried by 10 votes in favour, 3 votes against.

Resolved

To Grant Permission subject to the following conditions and subject to an amendment to Condition 7 and the additional condition as detailed by the officer regarding restriction on car movements to and from the site in connection with the use hereby approved, the wording of these conditions to be delegated to the Service Manager Planning North to be agreed in consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair of Planning Committee - North:

 

1.     The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans listed in schedule A.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

 

2.    There shall be no obstruction to visibility greater than 600 millimetres above adjoining road level of Waldrons Lane in advance of lines drawn 2.4 metres back from the carriageway edge on the centre line of the access and extending to points on the nearside carriageway edge 60m either side of the access. Such visibility shall be fully provided before the development hereby permitted is brought into use and shall thereafter be maintained at all times.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety in accordance with Policy D14 of the Sedgemoor Local Plan.

 

3.    The areas allocated for vehicle parking, loading and unloading, and turning on the submitted plan, drawing number C1 Rev A, shall be kept clear of obstruction and shall only be used for the said purpose and not for any other purposes.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety in accordance with Policy D14 of the Sedgemoor Local Plan.

 

4.    The access way between the edge of the Waldrons Lane carriageway and the entrance gate shall be properly consolidated and surfaced (not loose stone or gravel) within 3 months of the date of this permission. Thereafter the access shall be maintained in that condition at all times.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety in accordance with Policy D14 of the Sedgemoor Local Plan.

 

5.    Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any Order revising revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modifications), the use hereby permitted shall only be as a dog walking/training area or for agriculture and not for any other use including any temporary use.

Reason: In the interest of highway safety and to safeguard residential amenity in accordance with Policies D14 and D25 of the Sedgemoor Local Plan.

 

6.    Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order, 2015 or any statutory instruments revoking or re-enacting the Order with or without modification, no caravan or other temporary structure shall be sited within the red line area as detailed on approved Location Plan Drg No. C1 Rev A.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt as to the extent of the planning permission and in the interests of the visual amenity of the countryside in accordance with Policies CO1, D19 and D2 of the Sedgemoor Local Plan.

 

7.     Within 3 months of the permission hereby approved, a Waste Management Plan shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Thereafter the use hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Waste Management Plan.

Reason: To prevent undue problems to neighbours and the amenity of the locality in accordance with Policy D25 of the Sedgemoor Local Plan.

 

8.    The proposed landscaping as shown on the submitted Site Plan Drg No. CCSP-002 shall be planted in full within 9 months of the date of this permission. The trees/shrubs/hedgerows shall be protected and maintained, and dead or dying trees/shrubs/hedgerows shall be replaced to the satisfaction of the local planning authority for a period of five years following their planting. .

Reason: In the interests of amenity and biodiversity in accordance with Policies D20 and C01 of the Local Plan.

 

Schedule A

Location Plan with Proposed Landscaping to Site Plans Drg No. C1 Rev A

Proposed Plans Drg No. CC-SP-002 Rev A

Proposed Landscaping, Site & Section Plans Drg No C3

Proposed Sheds & Car Parking Drg No. C2 Rev A

 

The Licensing Sub-Committee hearing held on Friday 28 April 2023 in respect of two Temporary Event Notices under the Licensing Act 2003 for Bar 1 and Bar 2, Yeovil Showground, Two Towers Lane, Barwick, Yeovil, BA22 9TA, resolved to permit the event to proceed in accordance with the temporary event notices.

 

The Sub-Committee noted the objections raised by the Police in respect of the event and their concerns of public safety and crime and disorder. However, the Sub-Committee listened to the assurances of the applicant and were satisfied that the applicant understood the risks that were involved and they were content that sufficient measures would be in place to meet the licensing objectives as contained in the Licensing Act 2003, the Licensing Guidelines as well as South Somerset District Council’s Licensing Policy.

 

The Licensing Sub-Committee approved the two applications for the temporary event notices.

 

All parties were reminded that there is a right of appeal against the decision of the Licensing Authority. Such an appeal is to be made within 21 days of the date of receipt of the formal Notice.

 

 

2020/0960/FUL - The Queens Arms, Wraxall

 

Full application for the demolition of existing buildings and erection of 7no. dwelling houses with associated vehicular access and parking (revised scheme).

 

The Officer’s Report stated that this application had been referred to the Planning Board as it was a departure from the Local Plan. The Recommendation was for approval.

 

Ditcheat Parish Council had recommended approval as the scheme would be an improvement to the local character but access onto the A37 should be improved.

 

Other consultees such as the Highways, Drainage and Environmental Protection Officer’s had no objections, subject to various conditions. There had been 1 letter of objection, 1 of support and 2 neutral from local residents. Objections included that it would be wrong to demolish historic buildings, it represented overdevelopment and there were poor local facilities and infrastructure.  Letters in support said that it would provide an improvement to the current street scene.

 

The Officer Report continued that as the Council could not demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply, the tilted balance as set out in Para 11(d) of the NPPF was engaged. The tilted balance said that permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. The delivery of 7 new homes was a recognised benefit and given significant weight. Economic benefits would also be delivered both through the construction period and through the lifetime of the development. There would also be some environmental benefits through the biodiversity net gain.

 

In conclusion, the Officer’s Report said that given the history of the site, the principle of development was considered acceptable in this case as the harms did not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits to the scheme.

 

Also, following the submission of further information on the proposed package treatment works, the application was concluded to be nutrient neutral, which was accepted by SC Ecology and Natural England. Subject to the inclusion of conditions as recommended, the application was considered to be acceptable in all other regards including ecology and impact on bats, highway safety, drainage, design and layout, amenity, archaeology and contaminated land and was therefore recommended for approval subject to conditions.

 

The Planning Officer explained the application to the Committee with the assistance of a PowerPoint presentation.

 

The Committee was then addressed by the agent speaking on behalf of the applicant. His comments included:

 

•        The principle of development for new residential dwellings had previously been accepted by the Council.

•        The submitted Habitats Regulation Assessment had been accepted by the Council’s Ecologist and Natural England.

•        The Planning Case Officer had accepted the proposed layout, design and density of the development.

•        The Planning Case Officer had confirmed that the proposal would not have any harmful impact on the character and appearance of the area or the amenity of future occupants and nearby properties.

 

In the discussion which followed, Members made comments regarding the materials from the demolished buildings. They were keen to ensure that the materials would not be wasted and should be re-used. The Planning Officer confirmed that a Waste Management Plan could be included in the conditions. A soft landscaping condition was also requested to be included in the conditions.

 

Another Member was concerned about the size of the gardens and commented that they were not large enough to enable occupants to grow their own food or for children to play. The Planning Officer responded that there was no policy on garden size and it was down to the discretion of the Local Planning Authority.

 

Other points made by Members included:

 

•        Not keen on tandem parking. The Planning Officer advised there was nothing in the planning guidance to restrict its use in planning applications and in this case was considered acceptable.

•        Could permitted development rights be removed to ensure the small gardens were retained and not built over. The Planning Officer advised that there were options to remove permitted development rights but they would have to meet the relevant tests and there would need to be a robust justification to do this.

•        Could cycle route signage be included including warning signs for cycle crossing points. The Planning Officer advised that for a development of 7 dwellings it would not pass the test to include these.

•        Could we ensure that the hardstanding materials used were permeable? The Planning Officer advised that there was a surface water drainage condition and a hard landscaping condition which could include consideration of a permeable surface treatment.

 

At the conclusion of the debate, it was proposed by Councillor Edric Hobbs and seconded by Councillor Tony Robbins that the application be approved in accordance with the Officer’s Recommendation outlined in the Report, with the addition of planning conditions regarding soft landscaping and a site waste management plan. On being put to the vote the proposal was carried by 9 votes in favour, 1 vote against and 2 abstentions.

 

RESOLVED

 

That planning application 2020/0960/FUL be approved in accordance with the Officer’s Recommendation subject to the addition of planning conditions regarding soft landscaping and the site-waste management plan.

 

That delegated authority be granted to Officers to agree the wording of the additional conditions regarding soft landscaping and the site-waste management plan.