Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the previous meeting held on Wednesday 11^th October 2017.

The minutes of the previous meeting, copies of which had been circulated, were agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

Members agreed that progress on actions arising from meetings/previous meetings should be included within future agendas.

One member questioned why planning application 17/02712/FUL which had been deferred at the previous meeting had not been included on the November agenda as agreed at the previous meeting.

An apology of absence was received from Councillor Mike Beech.

In accordance with the Council’s current Code of Conduct (as amended 26 February 2015), which includes all the provisions relating to Disclosable Pecuniary Interests (DPI), personal and prejudicial interests, Members are asked to declare any DPI and also any personal interests (and whether or not such personal interests are also “prejudicial”) in relation to any matter on the Agenda for this meeting. 

Members are reminded that they need to declare the fact that they are also a member of a County, Town or Parish Council as a Personal Interest.  Where you are also a member of Somerset County Council and/or a Town or Parish Council within South Somerset you must declare a prejudicial interest in any business on the agenda where there is a financial benefit or gain or advantage to Somerset County Council and/or a Town or Parish Council which would be at the cost or to the financial disadvantage of South Somerset District Council. 

Planning Applications Referred to the Regulation Committee

The following members of this Committee are also members of the Council’s Regulation Committee:

Councillors Sarah Dyke, Tony Capozzoli, Nick Weeks and Colin Winder.

Where planning applications are referred by this Committee to the Regulation Committee for determination, Members of the Regulation Committee can participate and vote on these items at the Area Committee and at Regulation Committee.  In these cases the Council’s decision-making process is not complete until the application is determined by the Regulation Committee.  Members of the Regulation Committee retain an open mind and will not finalise their position until the Regulation Committee.  They will also consider the matter at Regulation Committee as Members of that Committee and not as representatives of the Area Committee.

Councillors William Wallace, Mike Lewis and Anna Groskop, members of SCC (Somerset County Council), would only declare an interest in any business on the agenda where there was a financial benefit or gain or advantage to SCC which would be at the cost or to the financial disadvantage to SSDC.

Members are asked to note that the next scheduled meeting of the committee will be at the Council Offices, Churchfield, Wincanton on Wednesday 6 December at 9.00am.

Members noted that the date of the next scheduled meeting of the Area East Committee would be held at the Council Offices, Churchfields, Wincanton on Wednesday 6^th December at 9am.

Mr G Czapiewski addressed the Committee. He referred to a recent visit from the Police and Crime Commissioner. During this visit to Wincanton, she mentioned the ‘tipping point’ paper which she explained was developed with consultation from the district council. He questioned whether the committee had provided an input into this report. He also explained that the report suggested that there would be further cuts to PCSO’s within Somerset. The Communities Lead agreed to follow this up.

He also raised his concern over the possible closure of Wincanton Community Hospital. In response to his concern, the Communities Lead confirmed that a report was included on the Forward Plan. The Committee would comment during the consultation period in due course and once further details had been released following the Clinical Commissioning Strategy review.

He pointed out to members that it was now easier for parishes to repaint finger signposts. One member advised that parishes had been made aware of this via the Area East Parish Bulletin and that many parishes had already painted the fingerpost signs within their parish.

The Chairman made no announcements.

Councillor Capozzoli was pleased to inform members that an appeal for land at West Farm, West Mudford Road, Mudford had been dismissed and that enforcement action would be the next step.

Councillor Colin Winder referred to a report by Richard Buxton which had been circulated to members in relation to a site in Mudford where a development of approximately 700 homes was planned. The Communities Lead agreed to contact the Director of Public Health to confirm that there was no risk in relation to the site.

Councillor Mike Lewis reminded members that there was a public exhibition being held at the Haynes Museum on November 10^th between 3pm and 7pm to discuss the plans to dual the A303.

Members discussed the lack of a cashpoint in Castle Cary and commented that the lack of a cashpoint was affecting local businesses. The Communities Lead said that, following specific representations from Area East, the Leader had sent a letter about concerns districtwide regarding the impact of bank closures. Any response will be shared.

Inspector Tim Coomb and Sergeant Matt Thomas from Avon and Somerset Constabulary were welcomed to the meeting and gave a short update presentation on local issues, crime trends and initiatives. Particular reference was made to rural crime as this was one of the biggest challenges in rural Somerset.  They advised that there was a rural crime team based in Bridgwater and that crime prevention advice was available to farmers. They also pointed that there was ‘Farm Watch’ initiative which many farmers were signed up to.

In response to a members question, Sgt. Matt Thomas confirmed that theft of livestock was often a seasonal problem and that lamp poaching and mud on the highway was also a significant problem.

One member advised that she would like to see comments from the Police on more planning applications. Sgt. Matt Thomas agreed that he would pass this comment to the officer responsible for providing input on planning applications.

The Police Officers responded to questions and issues from members raised during discussion. 

They advised members that;

·         Partners and Communities Together (PACT) meetings had recently been re-introduced and that these had been successful. These will be held every three months.

·         There had been an increase in crime over the last 2 years, which was in line with national trends

·         Organised County lines drug crime was an issue within the larger towns in Somerset

The Chairman, who had recently been the victim of crime, thanked the police for all the help which he received and thanked the Police Officers for attending the meeting.

RESOLVED: that members note the report.

The Neighbourhood Development Officer presented her report to members.

She advised members that the business event which was held at The Haynes Motor Museum was well attended and had been a big success; there had been requests for a follow up event.

One member queried the date of the next regeneration board meeting, which was clarified as being held on November 29^th. He also pointed out that the Wincanton and Castle Cary’s car parks were detailed in the report as being a ‘free’ car park. He advised members that the Town & Parish Councils makes contributions towards these car parks and were therefore not free.

During the discussion, members noted that superfast broadband was still a major concern due to the lack of funding. The Communities Lead Officer agreed to look into the position of the corporate funding further.

A letter to Highways England in response to the proposals to dual the A303 would be drafted in consultation with the members whose wards are directly affected.. She advised that this would be circulated to all members before sending to Highways England.

Another members pointed out that the car park survey indicated that the car-parks were well used and suggested that further car-parks should be considered. The Neighbourhood Development Officer advised that current monitoring only provided a ‘snap shot’ of use on any one day/time. A thorough, detailed survey, conducted over an extended period would be needed to justify additional spaces through our Car Parking Strategy. She further agreed that the car parks in Castle Cary and Wincanton were subsidised by the Town Councils in order for them to be kepf free to motorists.

During the discussion, the Chairman advised that it had been reported to District Executive there had been 20-30% reduction in car park usage and hoped that there would be a reduction in fees which would be required from Castle Cary and Wincanton Town Council. The Neighbourhood Development Officer advised that she would look at ways to further monitor car park usage.

Councillor Sarah Dyke confirmed that the Heart of Wessex contracts need to be in place by March 2019, as funding had been condensed. Any other funding after this date would be paid by the treasury.

RESOLVED:  that members noted the report.

Members noted the Forward Plan.

The Communities Lead advised that the A303 consultation report would be delayed until the New Year, when further information on the route detail had been released.

Members agreed that a CIL workshop would be useful.

RESOLVED:  that members noted the report.

Members noted the appeal which had been lodged, decided upon or withdrawn.

Members noted the schedule of planning applications to be determined by Committee.

Application Proposal: Erection of a detached dwelling and garage

The Planning Officer presented her report to members with the aid of a PowerPoint presentation. She advised that the application was for a single dwelling and provided photographs of the site and proposed indicative layout plans.

She also pointed out the position of the church, nearest listed building and objectors dwelling.

She advised members that South Barrow was considered to be a sustainable location and recommended that the application be approved.

Mr D Bishop spoke in objection to the application. He advised members that he had concerns over the traffic and the noise and disruption during the construction. He explained that the road was narrow and that his bank adjoining the highway is often damaged by vehicles. He also pointed out that the property next door was unoccupied and that other close neighbours were tenants, which might explain the limited number of neighbour representations received.

Mr M Williams, the agent, addressed the Committee. He advised that there were no planning policy objections to this application and that South Barrow had been confirmed as a sustainable location by a recent planning approval for a dwelling in the same village.

He further advised that the Parish Council offered support to the application and that the nearest objector would be further than 20 meters from the new proposed dwelling. He suggested that the application would be willing to consider a construction management plan if this would help alleviate objector concerns.

Mr C Kisielewski, the applicant, advised that a quality planting scheme would need to be agreed and that there was already an established access to the site. He also advised that there was adequate space on site for contractor parking and that the new dwelling would be 20 meters from Woodbine Cottage. He hoped that the application would be approved as the Planning Officer and the Parish Council supported the application.

Councillor Weeks, the Ward Member, offered his support to the application and supported the additional condition to ensure that a Construction Management Plan were included.

It was proposed and seconded that the application should be approved, as per the officer report, subject to a condition to specify the requirement for a Construction Management Plan to restrict hours of construction and a condition to protect mature trees on the site.

On being put to the vote, this was carried unanimously.

RESOLVED:  that planning application 17/03158/OUT be approved as per the officer report, subject to additional conditions to include a Construction Management Plan which restricts hours of construction and a condition to protect mature trees on the site.

For the following reason;

01.       The proposed development, due to its location, scale and nature, constitutes a sustainable form of development that makes efficient use of land and respects the setting of the adjacent listed buildings without causing any demonstrable harm to visual amenity, residential amenity, highway safety, ecology or the environment in accordance with the aims and objectives of policies SS2, TA6, EQ2, EQ3,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 98.

Application Proposal: Development of 29 dwellings including affordable housing with associated parking and landscaping.

The Planning Officer presented her report to members. She explained that there were two planning applications, the other being the next item on the agenda, were being considered as one application.

She advised that there was an amendment to the report on page 61, within the conclusion and the paragraph which was 2 paragraphs above the conclusion. The case officer that was previously dealing with the application had agreed that 9 intermediate affordable dwellings were acceptable and that this should be treated as an amendment to the report.

She provided plans to show the proposed development as well as showing plans to show the additional application which was also being considered and industrial units to the rear of the site which had already been granted planning approval. She also provided images to show elevations and floor plans of the proposed dwellings as well as details of the buildings on site which would be demolished.

She explained to members that planning approval had already been obtained for the site, however the new revised application had one additional dwelling included within the scheme and that the red line area had been enlarged slightly. She advised that because a new application had been submitted, rather than an amendment to the previous application, that the applicant would now be liable to making CIL contributions. She also advised that education contributions were now being sought.

She advised that the applicant claimed that the site would become unviable with the additional contributions and for this reason; she was recommending that that application be refused.

She provided a summary of the contributions being sought and advised which contributions were being disputed. The total contributions being sought amounted to £123,444, however she confirmed that the CIL contribution had been agreed by the applicant.

She further explained that the District Valuer did not agree that the scheme was now unviable. The Planning Officer advised that she had expected the applicant to argue the case further at to provide evidence to support the case.

Mr T Griffiths, the agent, addressed Members. He advised that the contributions which were previously agreed were significantly less, totalling approximately £108,000. The revised total contributions with CIL and the education contributions now amounted to £288,000. He explained that this was a high-quality scheme and that the DV figures were unreasonable.

Councillor Mike Lewis, the Ward Member, advised that the fall-back application which had already approved was an inferior development which had narrower roads within the development. He offered his support to the current application and explained that considerable contributions had already been agreed. He hoped that the application would be approved.

During the discussion, members questioned whether there was a need for the education contributions and whether the local primary schools were full. The Planning Officer confirmed that she had challenged the need for education contributions, but now accepts that they are required.

In response to a member’s question, the Legal  ...  view the full minutes text for item 99.

Application Proposal: Development of 6 dwellings with associated parking and landscaping

The Planning Officer advised that the planning application was recommended for refusal for the reasons stated during the previous agenda item as the application was on the same site.

She provided images on a PowerPoint presentation to clarify the positioning of the application and plans to show the development.

Councillor Mike Lewis, Ward Member, offered his support to the application and hoped that the application could be approved. He advised that the site was in a good location.

The Planning Officer clarified that although the planning applications had been submitted as two separate applications, they were being treated as one application.

The Area Lead Officer suggested that the applications should be treated as one application and further suggested that the application should be deferred as per the previous resolution.

During the discussion, the agent and the Planning Officer clarified the reasons behind the applications being submitted separately. The agent advised that this application was submitted in case the fall-back position, which was the previously approved application, had to be implemented.

Following the short discussion it was proposed and seconded that the planning application should be approved, subject to conditions and the obligations required.

There was some discussion over the amount of obligations would be payable.

The Planning Officer clarified that as the applications had been considered as one, calculations had not been made for the contributions which would be required on this application as a separate application.

The Legal Services Manager advised members that it would be unclear to the applicant what the financial impact would be and suggested that it would be unclear and unfair to the applicant what level of contributions would be agreed.

On being put to the vote, this was not carried with 3 votes in support and 6 against.

It was subsequently proposed and seconded that the planning application be deferred, in line with planning application 17/02045/FUL. On being put to the vote, this was carried 6 votes in support and 3 votes against.

RESOLVED:  that planning application 17/02044/FUL be deferred to the next meeting of Area East Committee to allow further comment from the SCC Education Department, ideally with a representative from SCC Education to attend the next meeting and to resolve the issues over the contributions which have been requested.

(voting: 6 in support, 3 against)