Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the previous meeting held on Wednesday 10^th January 2018.

The minutes of the previous meeting held on Wednesday 10^th January, copies of which had been circulated, were agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

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, Anna Groskop and Mike Lewis, 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 14^th March 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 14^th March at 9am

There were no questions from members of the public present.

The Chairman advised that the Annual Town and Parish Council Meeting had been postponed.

There were no reports or questions from members.

RESOLVED:  that the following agenda items 9 be considered in Closed Session by virtue of the Local Government Act 1972, Schedule 12A under Paragraph 3: “Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information).”

The Conservation Officer, with the aid of photographs, detailed a number of examples of case work relating specifically to historic buildings at risk in Area East.

The Conservation Officer responded to members’ questions on points of detail regarding specific cases.

RESOLVED: that members noted the report.

The Assistant Highway Service Manager introduced his report and advised that the surface dressing sites from last year were now due to be inspected at the end of this month. They will then be reviewed as normal. The surface dressing programme for this year will commence in May. 

He referred to the list of work in the repot and explained that the Shutters Hill work was still outstanding.

In response to a member’s question, he confirmed that he had circulated an e-mail to members which detailed the Somerset County Council response in relation to the request to reduce the speed limit in Chilton Cantelo.

One member explained that there were a number of concerns over the A303 alongside the plans to dual the highway. He asked whether there was a liaison officer that could be contacted. The Assistant Highway Service Manager agreed to find the name of the officer dealing with the plans to dual the A303.

Another member asked for clarification over the proposed removal of the Speed Indicator Devices (SiDs) and asked what will happen to the existing stock should they be removed. The Assistant Highway Service Manager agreed to follow this up with the Traffic Engineer. During the discussion, it was suggested that the SiD’s could be purchased by Town and Parish Councils or by the district council.

The Chairman thanked the Assistant Highways Service Manager for attending.

RESOLVED:  that members noted the report.

The Chief Executive Officer of Citizens Advice South Somerset provided a presentation to members to explain the issues which CASS had been facing as well as describing future projects. Some of the details included;

·         Following the changes to welfare benefits and the roll out of Universal Credit, debt had been an issue for many families as there could be a lengthy wait before entitlement is paid. She explained that the team had been working with many families to help with personal budgeting.

·         Fuel Poverty was an issue and that the team had been assisting with grant applications and helping people ensure that they are on a suitable energy tariff.

·         Council tax arrears were a big issue and advised that the team work closely with the council tax team at SSDC. They were also working with SSDC to help support the requirements of the new Homeless Reduction Act.

·         There had not been an increase in clients, however pointed out that the clients requirements were often more complex.

·         Help could be accessed through many different channels, such as Skype, e-mail or face to face. She further advised that there had been an increase in younger clients.

·         She was excited to advise that there would be an employment advice evening which was being held in Yeovil.

The Chief Executive Officer explained that they are always looking for new volunteers and explained that they were supporting a team of interns.

In response to question from members, she advised that the service at the Balsam Centre was a drop-in service, rather than on an appointment basis. She also advised that data could be shared between different Citizen Advice Centres, such as between Sherborne which was in Dorset and Yeovil. She explained that they work very closely with other local offices.

Members thanked the Chief Executive Officer for attending the meeting.

RESOLVED:  members noted her presentation.

Members noted the Action List

The Communities Lead advised that the Annual Town and Parish Council Meeting had been postponed and that the summary report would be rescheduled once a date had been set for the annual meeting.

She also advised that the Community Grant Programme report detailed on the Forward Plan should be replaced with the Area Development Plan 2018/19 and further advised that the A303 upgrade report would be removed from the Forward Plan. This was due to the consultation deadline and advised that an e-mail would be circulated to members.

Councillor Winder suggested that a report from Sports, Art and Leisure should be included on the Forward Plan to include local details on S106 and CIL contributions. Members agreed that a written report should be included on the April agenda.

Members noted the Area East Forward Plan.

Members noted the planning appeals which had been received and dismissed.

Members noted the Schedule of Planning Applications to be determined by Committee.

Application Proposal: The erection of 3 no. dwellings along with associated access and parking

The Area Lead Planning Officer presented his report to members, with the aid of a PowerPoint presentation. He explained that the application had been considered by Area East Committee in October and that members resolved to defer the application for a traffic report to be produced by the SSDC Highways Consultant.

The SSDC Highways Consultant had now provided a report in response to this request, a copy of which was included within the agenda, which recommended that the applicant provide a traffic speed survey. Following the results of the traffic speed survey, the access arrangement had been modified very slightly and now the SSDC Highways Consultant could raise no objections regarding the application.

He advised members that since writing the report, a letter had been received from a solicitor, acting on behalf of an objector, which questioned restrictive covenants on the land, the land ownership and the certificates which had been completed on the application form. The Area Lead Planning Officer advised that the covenants were not a planning concern and that the certificates were to ensure that no land owner is prejudiced, and in this case the Area Lead Planning Officer felt that no one had been prejudiced and clarified who the owners of the land were. He also confirmed that the correct certificate had now been signed.

The Area Lead Planning Officer explained to members that additional letters of objection has been received which raised concern over the visibility splays and parking and questioned the methodology of transport/speed assessment and the impact of construction traffic.  He also advised that a letter had been received from the Parish Council, which explained that they unanimously recommended that the application be refused due to highway safety concerns and design of the dwellings.

The Area Lead Planning Officer provided images to show photographs of the site and proposed plans. He confirmed that he recommended that the application be approved as detailed in the agenda report.

Mr Howard Bentley-Marchant, a representative of the Parish Council, addressed the Committee. He explained that the Parish Council unanimously agreed to recommend refusal of the planning application. He explained that the site would result in over-development of the site and had concerns over the highway safety and parking on the site. He further explained that there had been a reduction in the visitor parking spaces and suggested that visitors and delivery vans would park on the busy A30.

Mr M Player, Mr S Cullum and Mrs O’Donnell spoke in objection to the application. Their comments included;

·         There is an obstructed view from the proposed access, due to the position of the brow of the hill.

·         Speeding on this stretch of road is common.

·         The speed assessment stated that the tubes were 40 meters from the access; however it was only 34 meters.

·         Delivery drivers will park on the main A30 road as all the properties will face the highway.

·         The whole village and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 52.

Application Proposal: Siting of 1 no. mobile home for agricultural worker (temporary dwelling) and alterations to access (part retrospective)

The Lead Planning Officer presented his report to members with the aid of a PowerPoint presentation. The presentation included plans to show the proposed siting of the mobile home as well as photographs to show the site.

He explained that the applicant had argued that it was essential that he lived on site in order to support the business. The Area Lead Planning Officer explained that planning policy guidance recommended that certain criteria needed to be met. In this case, whether there was a functional need for the worker to remain on site and whether the business was viable. A consultant had been employed to assess the site. The financial test confirmed that the business could be viable; however the functional requirements had not been met and that advised that a worker would only be required a full time presence on site during farrowing events. He therefore recommended that the application be refused.

Mr H Williams spoke in support of the application. He advised that he was a qualified agriculturist and knew the applicant. He explained how the applicant was hard-working and was committed to the business, which he described as being a niche product which required a high standard of work. He pointed out that the Parish Council supported the application. 

Mrs J Montgomery, the agent, addressed the members. She advised that the business was financially sound and advised that the council recognises that a full time member of staff was required. She advised that the calculations contained within the agricultural report do not take into account that sows do not always start farrowing on time and argued that a member of staff should be on site for 7 days per farrowing, this would equate to 60 weeks per year. She explained to members that adverse weather and damage to fences occur and that this was a labour intensive business.

Mr J Hull, the applicant, addressed the Committee. He described examples of times where piglets had died or had disappeared and explained that this would have been less likely to have happened if he lived on site. He further explained that he has been the victim of burglaries and that fences have been damaged. He advised members that this is affecting both his and his livestock’s welfare and whilst he lives off-site, he finds getting insurance difficult.

Councillor Mike Lewis, Ward Member, advised that he had agricultural experience which included keeping pigs and offered his support to the application. He also pointed out the owner of the adjoining land offered support.

During the discussion, members noted that the application was for the temporary siting of a mobile home rather than for the permanent siting.

Following the short discussion, it was proposed and seconded that the application be approved, contrary to the officer recommendation, subject to conditions to ensure that the mobile home is removed after three years, that suitable landscaping  ...  view the full minutes text for item 53.

The Lead Specialist (Planning) presented his report to members. He explained that he was seeking the view of the Committee as a way forward in ensuring that the enforcement notice would be complied with whilst highlighting the potential consequences for the business which operated on the site.

He summarised the planning history of the site and detailed the agreed land use following a certificate of lawfulness application. He explained that the most recent planning application was refused for highway/access considerations and the lack of flood risk information, as the area is known to flood.  At the same time, an enforcement notice, which required the business use to cease within 3 months, was also issued to the applicant. However, he added that a planning appeal had been submitted, and subsequently dismissed after approximately a year, therefore extending the enforcement period for the business to cease to the later date of February 2018.

He advised that the applicant had been unable to find a suitable site to move the business to, and suggested that he would like the view of Committee in order to progress with compliance of the enforcement notice.

He also summarised some of the written views of the local residents and the Parish Council and confirmed that they had been contacted for their comments on the enforcement appeal and to make them aware that the case would be discussed today.

He summarised the suggested four potential options which were detailed in his report.

Mr T Cavalier, the Vice Chairman of Mudford Parish Council addressed the Committee. It was his view that the three months which the applicant was given to find an alternative site was long enough and that the enforcement notice should be carried out without delay. He explained that the applicant has had closer to a year to find alternative premises. He also explained that, in his view, there were fewer employees than the applicant had specified and questioned the licensing and vehicle insurance validity whilst operating under an enforcement notice.

Ms L Dennett, Mr V Willis and Mr B Mathews spoke in objection to the extension of time to the enforcement notice. Their comments included;

·         The HGV’s are dangerous for walkers that use the lane.

·         The verges are being damaged and there are few places for lorries to pull in along the lane. There are concerns for safety.

·         The Planning Inspector walked along the road and agreed that it was dangerous and refused the application.

·         The road forms part of the Monarch Way.

·         This has been on-going for 16 months.

·         There are not as many employees as specified.

·         The applicant should not have moved his business to the site without gaining planning permission. They took a risk in moving.

·         The residents are looking for commitment from SSDC for closure of this on-going issue.

·         Residents feel let down as they have worked closely with SSDC and the Parish Council.

Mr N Eden, addressed the Committee to offer his support to extending the time limit before enforcement action  ...  view the full minutes text for item 54.