Agenda, decisions and minutes

The Chairman asked for nominations for a Member to join him as Vice Chairman for the duration of the meeting.

Members proposed that Councillor Anna Groskop act as Vice Chairman.

It was therefore resolved that Councillor Anna Groskop would act as Vice-Chairman

Apologies of absence were received from Councillors Henry Hobhouse, Mike Beech and Nick Colbert.

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the previous meeting held on Wednesday 8^th November 2017.

Councillor Winder highlighted an error in the minutes from the previous meeting, copies of which had been circulated. He advised that minute number 86 – ‘Minutes of Previous Meeting’ should include a reference to planning application 17/02712/FUL rather than 17/03155/OUT which had been quoted in error.

Councillor Wallace advised that the time that he had arrived at the previous meeting was stated incorrectly and should read 9.05am.

Subject to these amendments, the minutes were agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

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 10^th January 2018 at 9.00 am.

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 10^th January at 9am.

Mr B Gadsden, the Vice-Chairman of West Camel Parish Council, addressed the Committee. He advised members that he felt that the views of the Parish Council were being ignored by Highways England in response to the consultation on plans to dual parts of the A303 in South Somerset. He explained that the village of West Camel would be largely affected by the plans and expressed his concern over the safety of road users and pedestrians. He suggested that the proposed major junction would be better positioned at the end of the B3151, which would discourage traffic to travel through West Camel as a shortcut route.

Councillor Mike Lewis commented that Highways England were quickly progressing with their plans and felt that it was important that the views of West Camel Parish Council were noted as there was significant concern from the Parish. He further explained that the views of the district were important as the plans would affect the district as a whole.

In response to the questions raised, the Chief Executive Officer confirmed that SSDC would be responding to Highways England in response to the consultation.

The Communities Lead confirmed that she would send a letter to Highways England in response to the consultation on the preferred option to duel the A303 in South Somerset.

The Chairman made no announcements.

One member questioned why the date of the December Area East Committee Meeting had been adjusted and was now a week earlier. The Chairman advised that the date had been agreed by Full Council in May, however he agreed that the earlier date was not ideal.

One member questioned why planning application 17/02712/FUL was not on the agenda.  The Communities Lead agreed that she would follow this up with the planning team.

RESOLVED:  That members agreed to transfer £16,000 from the Capital Reserve to the Community Grants Budget

Reason:          For allocation in 2017/18.

(Voting: unanimous)

RESOLVED:  That members agreed a contribution of up to £5,000 (33% of the total project costs) from the Community Capital budget to Horsington Parish Council

Reason:          Towards the installation of new play equipment.

(Voting: unanimous)

RESOLVED: That members agreed a grant contribution of £8,000 (25% of costs) from the Community Capital budget to Blackford and Compton Parish Meeting

Reason:          Towards the new superfast broadband installation subject to the standard conditions set out in appendix A of the agenda report.

(Voting: unanimous)

RESOLVED:  That members agreed a contribution of up to £3000 (26% of the total project costs) from the Community Capital Budget to Hadspen Village Hall Committee

Reason:          Towards the provision of an extended car park, subject to the standard conditions set out in appendix A

(Voting: unanimous)

RESOLVED:  That members agreed a contribution of up to £2,500 (25% of the total project costs) from the Community Capital Budget to West Camel  Parish Council

Reason:          Towards the installation of an outdoor gym, subject to the standard conditions set out in appendix A and

·         the provision of equalities and diversity statement 

·         a direct contribution of at least £500 from the Parish Council

·         equipment should comply with the European standard for the provision of permanently installed outdoor fitness equipment which is currently EN16630:2015 and is independently tested to confirm compliance

(Voting: unanimous)

RESOLVED:  That members agreed a contribution of up to £7920 (32.5% of the total project costs) from the Community Capital Budget to Ansford Parish Council & Castle Cary Town Councils

Reason:          Towards  phase 3 of the Fairfield Project for the provision of an outdoor gym, adventure trail, planting and landscaping subject to the provision of additional quotes, standard conditions set out in appendix A and:

·         Outdoor gym  equipment should comply with the European standard for the provision of permanently installed outdoor fitness equipment which is currently EN16630:2015 and is independently tested to confirm compliance

(Voting: unanimous)

The Area Development Team Lead (East) advised that there were 6 recommendations in the report which included 5 applications for community grants that would be dealt with in turn.

Recommendation 1

The Area Development Team Lead (East) explained that is was recommended that £16,000 of unallocated capital be transferred to top-up the Community Grant Fund to help support smaller project applications which may arise.

On being put to the vote, this was agreed unanimously. One member commented that this was an essential part of area working.

RESOLVED:  that members agreed to transfer £16,000 from the Capital Reserve to the Community Grants Budget for allocation in 2017/18.

(Voting: unanimous)

Recommendation 2

The Neighbourhood Development Officer explained that the application was from Horsington Parish Council towards the installation of new play equipment. He confirmed that the application had scored well against the agreed criteria and that the project had the support of the ward member. He further advised that the Parish Council has provided significant funding and that there had been community support through fundraising.

Councillor William Wallace pointed out an error in the report. The Neighbourhood Development Officer clarified that the Parish Council had contributed £8,223 and that the application was to secure £5,000 from SSDC as a grant fund.

On being put to the vote, it was unanimously agreed that a contribution of up to £5,000 be awarded towards the installation of new play equipment in Horsington.

RESOLVED:  that members agreed a contribution of up to £5,000 (33% of the total project costs) from the Community Capital budget to Horsington Parish Council towards the installation of new play equipment.

(Voting: unanimous)

Recommendation 3

The Neighbourhood Development Officer explained that the application was from Blackford and Compton Parish Council towards the installation of superfast broadband. He felt that this was a strong application which was innovative and creative and had been scored highly with high levels of community support.

Mr T Adams, representing the Parish Meeting, addressed the Committee. He explained that the current broadband was extremely limited in the village and did not allow residents to download films or to work from home. He explained that different options had been explored before deciding that BT Open-reach Fibre would be the best option for the community. He confirmed that only 2 additional poles would need to be installed in Compton Pauncefoot and that residents will be able to use any service provider that they wish and that they would not be locked-in to using BT. He advised members that 90% of the residents within the parish had agreed to contribute towards the project costs.

Councillor Hayward Burt, Ward Member, thanked Mr Adams and commented that broadband was an essential requirement and that the high level of community support confirmed the need within the village.

Councillor William Wallace, also Ward Member, agreed with these comments.

During the discussion, members commented that all areas in the district need help with broadband, including businesses as well as households.

In response to a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

The S106 Monitoring Officer presented his report to members. He explained that the report contained an overview and that the detail was contained within the Monitoring Report (Appendix A). He advised that there had been no recent legislative changes.

In response to a member’s question, he explained that once CIL was implemented, communities should find that funds from CIL could be less restrictive that S106 funds and could go towards things such as cycle paths and allotments.

He further explained that in the case of outline planning applications, that he had kept the report brief as calculations could not be made at outline stage.

During the discussion, members commented that some parishes seemed unaware that there could be contributions available to them. The Area Development Lead confirmed that the parishes receive regular statements which detail financial contributions which are available to them for projects.

RESOLVED:  that members noted the report.

The Development Manager presented his report to members.

He advised members that the Section 106 agreement had now been signed and that the planning consent would be issued in the very near future.

RESOLVED:  that members noted the report.

The Communities Lead advised members that there were less annual service reports on the Forward Plan due to the Transformation Project.

In response to a member’s question, she confirmed that she would discuss the issue of superfast broadband with the Economic Development Team and provide an update to the Committee. It was agreed by members that it would be useful if a representative from Connecting Devon and Somerset would be able to provide a briefing for members. One member suggested that holding the briefing on the same evening as the Annual Town and Parish Council Meeting.

The Area Development Lead advised that the Wincanton Sports Ground report had been removed from the Forward Plan as he felt that a members briefing would be more appropriate.

RESOLVED:  that members noted the Forward Plan.

RESOLVED:  that members noted the schedule of planning applications which would be determined by Committee.

RESOLVED:  that members noted the planning appeals which had been received and determined.

RESOLVED:  that members noted the matters which had followed up from the previous meeting.

Application Proposal: Outline application for up to 23 dwellings with approval for means of access sought and all other matters reserved for future consideration (revised scheme)

The Planning Officer presented his report to members. He explained that the application was an outline application with all matters reserved except the access. Using a PowerPoint presentation, he provided images of the site and plans to show the location and the position of the proposed access.

He explained to members that the application was largely the same as a previous application which had been approved following an appeal to The Planning Inspectorate.

He advised members that the applicant had carried out a viability assessment and felt that the contributions which had been approved on the previous scheme were no longer viable. He further confirmed that the District Valuer had accepted these calculations.

The Planning Officer advised members that the applicant had agreed to make a contribution of £100,000 towards an artificial grass pitch in Wincanton, however as these pitches were included within the CIL 123 list, a Section 106 agreement to secure these funds for an artificial grass pitch would not be binding on the developer. He therefore recommended that the funds were secured through a Section 106 agreement for projects not on the CIL 123 list, with the funds being split between off-site affordable homes and to local play facilities at Cale Park. 

Mrs J Denny and Mr M Steady, spoke in objection to the application. Their comments included;

·         Objection was towards the type of property; bungalows would be preferred

·         The Planning Inspector supported bungalows on the site

·         Adequate screening could be achieved

·         There is an alternative access which could be used, rather than demolishing a bungalow

Mr M Dobson, the agent, addressed the Committee. He advised that he had met with the Ward Members for Wincanton following the results of the viability appraisal. He had offered a contribution which would benefit the residents of Wincanton, however the Planning Officer felt that the contributions did not meet the CIL requirements and the contributions should be for more general leisure facilities and off-site affordable housing contributions. He further clarified that alternative access points had been considered.

The Chairman read out some comments which had been submitted by Councillor Colbert, the Ward Member. Within these comments made by Councillor Colbert, he explained that he had been heavily involved with this application and that his aim had been to make this scheme more acceptable following the approval by appeal. He explained that he hoped that a low density scheme could be achieved which did not include social housing on the site. He further stated that he did not agree with the officer’s recommendation to approve the application with contributions which would likely be spent in Yeovil as Wincanton desperately needed an artificial grass sports pitch. He hoped that members would support the Ward Members and approve the application with a further condition to secure £100,000 towards an artificial pitch in Wincanton.

Councillor Winder, also Ward  ...  view the full minutes text for item 15.

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

The Planning Officer presented her report to members. She advised that although there were two separate planning applications on the site, both of which appeared on the agenda, she had been treating the applications as one.

She explained that the application had been referred to the November meeting of the Committee, but had been deferred to allow further negotiations in relation to the planning obligations which were payable.

Using a PowerPoint presentation, she provided images to show the existing access and buildings on the site. She also provided plans to show the proposed streetscenes.

She explained that the education contributions requested by SCC, which amounted to approximately £99,000 remains unaltered, however the applicant is now offering a contribution of £30,000 towards education. She advised that the applicant has provided an additional viability report, which has been circulated to members of the committee; however the applicant did not confirm that this could also be circulated to the District Valuer.

Tom Griffiths, the applicant, addressed the Committee. He advised that he had attempted to clarify the evidence base used to calculate the education contributions; however he had not been successful. He explained that the further viability assessment was completed by a local valuer with good local knowledge. He advised that the contributions which were now being proposed were approximately £60,000 higher than the currently consented scheme.

Councillor Mike Lewis, Ward Member, supported the application. He pointed that the applicant was now offered half of the contributions which have been requested. He pointed out that there were local schools with available places.

The Lead Planning Officer advised members that the District Valuer did not agree with these calculations and reminded members of the protocol regarding viability that had been produced to provide consistency across the district. Such a protocol had been produced at district wide members’ request due to high profile viability cases in Yeovil and that process had subsequently been given several substantial assurances by the SW Audit Partnership. He was of the view that members risked being criticised for not following their own process. It would be important to set out clearly why the process was not being followed.

Following the discussion, it was proposed and seconded that the application be approved, contrary to the officer recommendation, subject to conditions.

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

RESOLVED:  that planning application 17/02045/FUL be approved contrary to the officer recommendation for the following reason;

The lack of a 5-year housing land supply and the presumption in favour of granting planning permission plus taking into account the material consideration of the previous approval leads the committee to determine this is a sustainable development in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework and policies SS1, SS2, SS6, HG3, TA5, TA6, HW1, EQ2, EQ3, EQ4 and EQ7 of the South Somerset Local Plan (Adopted 2015).

Subject to the prior completion of a Section 106 agreement to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16.

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

Following the discussion, it was proposed and seconded that the application be approved, contrary to the officer recommendation, subject to conditions.

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

RESOLVED:  that planning application 17/02045/FUL be approved contrary to the officer recommendation for the following reason;

The lack of a 5-year housing land supply and the presumption in favour of granting planning permission plus taking into account the material consideration of the previous approval leads the committee to determine this is a sustainable development in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework and policies SS1, SS2, SS6, HG3, TA5, TA6, HW1, EQ2, EQ3, EQ4 and EQ7 of the South Somerset Local Plan (Adopted 2015).

Subject to the prior completion of a Section 106 agreement to secure the affordable housing, leisure contributions and education contributions agreed to by the applicant and subject to conditions to secure the following:

1.    Time limit.

2.    Approved plans.

3.    Details of materials.

4.    Internal FFL.

5.    Scheme of landscaping.

6.    Construction Management Plan.

7.    Surface water drainage scheme and a scheme for its future responsibility and maintenance.

8.    Method statement to protect dormice.

9.    No removal of vegetation used by nesting birds between 1st March and 31st August.

10.  Measures for the enhancement of biodiversity.

11.  Construction of access as per approved plans prior to commencement.

12.  Estate roads details.

13.  Prior to occupation dwellings to be served by consolidated road, footpaths and turning.

14.  Secure parking and turning.

15.  Travel plan.

16.  Secure visibility splays.  

17.  Provision of footpath along site frontage prior to occupation of any dwellings.

18.  Scheme of archaeological works.

The addition of an informative to encourage the applicant to minimise onsite lighting where possible in the interests of light pollution.

(Voting: unanimous)

Application Proposal: Erection of a dwelling

The Planning Officer presented her report to members, with the aid of a PowerPoint presentation to show proposed plans and photos of the site.

She explained that Yeovilton had a church which was owned by the MOD, but no further facilities and therefore did not meet the requirements of a rural settlement under policy SS2.

Mr N Hardy, the applicant, addressed the Committee. He advised that the site was a short distance to Ilchester, where there were many services and facilities. He also pointed out there was a church and public house in Limington. He explained to members that it would be unlikely that there would be a loss of light to existing neighbours and that the access had been used for 28 years without any problems.

Mr O Marigold, the agent, addressed the Committee. He explained that there was an urgent need for housing and that SS2 carried little weight. He further added that it did indeed comply with policy SS2 as the site could easily access the services of Ilchester, which was less than 2 miles away.

Councillor Tony Capozzoli, the Ward Member, offered his support to the application. He explained that there were other in-fill developments and that the site was close to Ilchester and Podimore.

During the discussion, members discussed parking on the site. However, the Planning Officer and the applicant confirmed that this was not an issue. Some members also commented that the Conservation Officer and the Parish Council did not support the application.

The Lead Planning Officer advised members that should the committee resolve to approve the application contrary to the officer’s recommendation that we would consider instigating the 2-star Regulation Committee referral process. Members were advised to carefully consider the policy justification for approving this application in line with policy SS2 and give clear reasons. He advised that a positive recommendation would signal a public view that members considered Yeovilton fit for more development in principle. 

Following the discussion, it was proposed and seconded that the application should be approved contrary to the officer recommendation. On being put to the vote, this was carried 4 votes in support, 3 against and 1 abstention.

RESOLVED:  that planning application 17/03792/FUL be approved contrary to the officer recommendation for the following reason;

01.          The proposal lies in a settlement that the committee considers along with Ilchester and Limington acts as a cluster providing residents with the necessary local services in accordance with Policy SS2 of the of the South Somerset Local Plan (Adopted 2015). The proposal as designed would not impact unduly on the setting of the adjacent Listed Building in accordance with policies EQ2 and EQ3 of the South Somerset Local Plan (Adopted 2015).

Subject to the following conditions:

01.       The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

            Reason:  To accord with the provisions of section 91(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act  ...  view the full minutes text for item 18.

Application Proposal: Change of use and conversion of barn to form annexe/holiday let

The Planning Officer presented his report to members with the aid of a PowerPoint presentation. He explained that the access to the site was reached by a classified B road. He pointed out that although SCC highways had not responded in detail, the SSDC Highways Consultant was now satisfied that the improvements to the access were satisfactory.

He explained that he had an update to the report and that further ecology comments had been received which confirmed that the ecologist had no objection subject to a condition to ensure bat protection.

He further explained that he had included an additional condition to control the visibility splay.

Councillor Anna Groskop, Ward Member, spoke in support of the application. She agreed that the amendments to the access were a significant improvement and felt this this was a great location for a holiday let.

Following the short discussion, it was proposed and seconded that the application be approved, as per the officer report, subject to conditions.

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

RESOLVED:  that planning application 17/03349/FUL be approved as per the officer report for the following reason;

01.          The proposed use of the building as annexe/holiday let accommodation does not adversely affect visual amenity, residential amenity or highway safety in accordance with the aims and objectives of Policies EQ2, EQ3, TA5 and TA6 of the South Somerset Local Plan (2006-2028) and the NPPF chapters 7 and 12.

For the following reason;

01.       The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

            Reason:  To accord with the provisions of section 91(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

02.       The accommodation hereby approved shall be used solely as ancillary accommodation annexe or a holiday let, in connection with the main dwellinghouse known as Moor Wood Cottage Redlynch Road  Bruton, and shall not be sold or let as a separate residential unit.

            Reason:  In the interest of highway safety and residential amenity and to accord with policies EQ2 and TA5 of the South Somerset Local Plan 2006-2028

03.       The materials to be used in the development hereby permitted shall be those as identified within the planning application, approved plans and materials details received on 19 October 2017 from the agent and no other materials unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation.

            Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and to comply with saved policy EQ2 (General Development) of the South Somerset Local Plan (2006-2028) and the provisions of chapter 7 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

04.       The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Details and location and block  drawings received on 01 August 2017, amended visibility drawings and external materials details received from the agent on 19 October 2017 and amended drawings received by email from the agent on 21 November 2017.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19.