Agenda, decisions and minutes

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the previous meeting held on Wednesday 14^th February 2018.

The minutes of the previous meeting held on Wednesday 14^th February, copies of which had been circulated, were agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

An apology of absence had been received from Councillor Henry Hobhouse.

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.

Councillor Anna Groskop declared an interest in item number 12 as she was a Director of the South Somerset Community Accessible Transport..

Members are asked to note that the next scheduled meeting of the committee will be at the Council Offices, Churchfield, Wincanton on Wednesday 11^th April 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 11^th April at 9am.

Mrs B Beane addressed the Committee to explain the problems she had experienced with the drainage at her home. She explained that since the work to clear the gullies in Mill Lane had taken place, water had been coming up through the drains and the cess pit at her home.  She advised members that this had been an on-going problem since the summer and it was costing her large amounts of money to have the cess pit emptied.

Following the short discussion, the Locality Manager advised members that he would contact the relevant officers at Somerset County Council to highlight the issues which had been raised at the meeting.

The Chairman congratulated Wincanton Town Council on the help which they provided to drivers who had been unable to continue their journey on the A303 during the recent snow.

One member commented that he had raised concern with the Planning Team that some confidential information had been published on the website.

Another member expressed his disappointment that an enforcement case in Wincanton had not been resolved by the Planning Department. The Chairman advised this member to contact the Section 106 Monitoring and Compliance Officer.

The Streetscene Manager was unable to attend the meeting. Members agreed that the report would be deferred to enable him to attend and to present his report.

RESOLVED:  that members deferred the report to the April meeting of the Committee to allow the Streetscene Manager to attend.

RESOLVED: that members agreed to approve the de-allocation of £5,000 previously awarded to the Growing Space and to approve the ring-fencing of £20,326 from the Members Discretionary budget

Reason:          Towards the Area East priorities agreed at the members’ workshop March 2018.

(voting: 9 votes in support and 1 abstention)

The Localities Manager advised that every year a Members Discretionary Budget is allocated to address priorities of the Area East Committee. He advised that the unallocated budget and priority projects would be discussed at a workshop following the meeting to decide how the budget would be allocated. He advised that a formal report would be prepared following the workshop and would be included on the next Area East Committee agenda.

Following the short discussion, members agreed to approve the de-allocation of £5,000 previously awarded to the Growing Space and to approve the ring-fencing of £20,326 of the Members Discretionary budget towards the Area East priorities agreed at the members’ workshop March 2018.

On being put to the vote, this was carried 9 votes in support with 1 abstention.

RESOLVED: members agreed to approve the de-allocation of £5,000 previously awarded to the Growing Space and to approve the ring-fencing of £20,326 of the Members Discretionary budget towards the Area East priorities agreed at the members’ workshop March 2018.

(voting: 9 votes in support and 1 abstention)

RESOLVED:  that members agreed to formally endorse the Charltons Community Plan 2017.

Reason:          To consider endorsing the Charltons Community Plan 2017

(voting: unanimous)

The Localities Manager introduced Mr B Adams and Mrs M Hilborne, members of the Charltons Community Plan Working Group.

Mrs M Hilborne addressed members and explained that work began in 2014 on creating the Community Plan. She explained that all residents were contacted in 2015 with a questionnaire and following this, an open day was held to feedback the results from the questionnaire. A housing needs survey was also completed. She pointed out other members of the working group within the crowd.

Mr B Adams addressed members. He advised that there was a 34% return on the questionnaire from households and that over 200 residents attended the open day. He advised that the purpose of a housing needs survey was explained to residents at the open day.

He advised that the Community Plan contained guidelines, rather than policies and summarised some of the 21 guidelines included within the plan. He also advised that the plan, which has been agreed by the Parish Council, was already being used and was a living document which would be reviewed.

The Localities Manager advised members that a considerable amount of time had been invested into the plan and the result was a sound and evidence-based document.

Councillor David Norris, Ward Member, thanked the working group and the Locality Manager for their effort in putting together such a comprehensive plan.

He proposed that the Community Plan be endorsed by the Committee. Another member seconded this proposal and on being put to the vote, this was carried unanimously. 

RESOLVED:  that members agreed to formally endorse the Charltons Community Plan 2017.

(voting: unanimous)

RESOLVED:  that members agreed to formally endorse the North Cadbury and Yarlington Community Plan 2017.

Reason:          To consider endorsing the North Cadbury and Yarlington Community Plan.

(voting: unanimous)

The Localities Manager introduced Mr M Martin and Mrs S Cox to members.

They explained to members that the group started the Community Plan in 2017. They advised that a questionnaire had been circulated to all households and that 47.9% had been returned. They advised that there had also been three open days and that the residents had been very interested and enthusiastic. They also advised that the plan was considered to be a living document.

They further advised that they visit every planning application site and have found the determination of planning applications by SSDC to be an issue. They also advised that they had started work on a Village Design Statement and that a Neighbourhood Plan would be considered in the future. They thanked the Locality Manager for his help with the Community Plan.

The Locality Manager explained to members that an extraordinary amount of work from the working group was required to finalise a Community Plan. He also explained that the purpose of endorsement is to validate the process and actions set out in the plan, not to endorse the views of the Parish Council which relate to the planning process and how it is applied.

Following the short discussion, it was proposed and seconded that the Community Plan be endorsed by the Committee.

On being put to the vote, it was unanimously agreed that the Committee would endorse the North Cadbury and Yarlington Community Plan 2017.

RESOLVED:  that members agreed to formally endorse the North Cadbury and Yarlington Community Plan 2017.

(voting: unanimous)

The Localities Manager presented his report to members. He advised that a letter had been sent to the Parish Councils in Area East requesting that they consider financial contributions towards the service. He advised that this had been extremely positive and advised that the outcomes of this were included within the report.

Mr M Rowlands, manager of the South Somerset Community Accessible Transport addressed the Committee to express his appreciation to the Town and Parish Councils that had contributed financially. He explained that one contract had been lost, however another one had been gained. He advised that there had been an increase in fares and that one bus was soon to be replaced.

He informed members that they were required to prepare a detailed report on the concessionary charges. He explained that as they do not have the correct computer systems for bookings, this was difficult for them. The charge for this system was approximately £6,000 and without this, it was a very time consuming task for them to provide the report.

He also advised that there were possible changes to operating licences which might result in some drivers needing to undertake additional training. He felt that this could be a problem as existing drivers may not with to undertake this training and that drivers could be lost.

During the discussion, some members commented that it was unfortunate that Somerset County Council had requested this report.

Another member commented that it might be useful contacting the NHS to see whether they were able to contribute any funding.

The Localities Manager advised that he would contact Town and Parish Councils to thank them for their funding where they had contributed or to ask for funding if they have previously been unable to contribute.

The Chairman thanked Mr M Rowlands for attending.

RESOLVED:  that members noted the report. 

RESOLVED:  that members noted the report.

The Case Services Officer tabled the latest copy of the Area East Committee Forward Plan.

RESOLVED:  that members noted the Forward Plan.

Members noted the planning appeals which had been allowed. The Chairman also advised that it would be useful if the decision type could be detailed within the report to highlight whether it was a committee resolution or officer decision.

RESOLVED:  that members noted the report.

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

Application Proposal: The construction of an anaerobic digestion plant to include associated equipment and on-site infrastructure for the purpose of generating renewable energy from grass silage and straw and upgrading and improvement of the existing access farm track.

(Councillor Anna Groskop declared a person, but non prejudicial interest as she was the Regulation Portfolio Holder for Somerset County Council)

The Planning Officer presented her report to members. She advised that there had been an update to the report and pointed out that the height of the digestive tanks had been reduced from 14m to 10m. She also advised that the gas bag was now 41.5m long.

Using the aid of a Powerpoint presentation, she provided plans to show the proposed track and access as well as the proposed layout. She explained that some items of equipment were already installed on site.

She also showed members some photographs which she had taken and some images provided by the applicant that showed the site from areas such as Long Sutton, Ash, Tintinhull and Long Load, however she advised that it was difficult to view the site from some of these areas.

She explained that the applicant had permission to control the vegetation which was growing on the opposite side of the highway to where the access was situated.

She suggested an amendment to condition 3 to specify that should the site cease to provide energy, the site shall return to an agricultural use. She also suggested an additional condition to clarify the finished floor levels and an additional informative to encourage the application to liaise with Highways England to provide additional directional signage.

Using Powerpoint, she provided some images which had been provided by the Parish Council.

Mr J Edmondson, Vice-Chairman of Ilchester Parish Council spoke in objection to the application. He explained that the Parish Council had concerns over the wider traffic impact. He explained that large vehicles would take shortcuts through Ilchester and that small lanes and bridges would be used by HGV’s.

Mr P Horsington, Clerk to Ilchester Parish Council, spoke in objection to the application and thanked members for attending a site visit. He advised members that the area floods and that the Parish Council had concerns over the access and the additional traffic.

Mr M Knight, the applicant, addressed the Committee. He explained that the proposed works would enable him to employ further staff and that the bio gas would reduce the carbon footprint as material is currently sent to Cullumpton and could be disposed of on site.

Ms D Cairns, the agent, addressed the Committee. She advised that the proposal would work towards the government targets for an increase in eco gas. She explained to members that the proposal could create 40,000 megawatts of energy which would be delivered straight to the grid. She advised that there would be local economic benefits and 3 additional employees would be required. She also advised that the visibility splays would be controlled and that a Traffic Management  ...  view the full minutes text for item 71.

Application Proposal: Application to vary condition no. 2 of (approved plans) of planning approval 09/3037/FUL, 11/02147/S73 and 16/03330/S73A to substitute with revised plans.

(Councillor Nick Colbert declared a personal, non-prejudicial interest as he owns a property nearby to the site)

The Planning Officer presented her report to members. She explained that the application was to change 2 of the plots from bungalows to two story dwellings and to enlarge a further home. She also advised members that she had received a late letter of objection.

Using a PowerPoint presentation she provided images of the site and plans to show the proposed amended dwellings. She explained that the breach of contract which objectors had raised was a civil issue and explained that it was her recommendation that the planning application be approved.

Mr G Duffy spoke in objection to the application. He explained that he had purchased his new home ‘off plan’ and felt that larger homes would mean more people and more cars. He also explained to members that there was a restriction on the development to prohibit parking on the street. He advised that there is a need for bungalows and there is no commercial benefit to amending the proposal.

Councillor William Wallace, Ward Member, explained that people had bought homes on the understanding that the homes were going to be bungalows and not houses and understood why the neighbours were upset. For this reason, he objected to the application.

Councillor Hayward Burt, also Ward Member, spoke in objection to the application. He explained that the original scheme was for a well-balanced development with houses on one side of the road and bungalows on the other. He felt that it was unfair that the goalposts had been moved and that the development would be amended at this late stage. He also commented that there was a shortage of bungalows. He stated that there were not enough parking spaces on site, which was made worse by the restrictive on-street parking. He stated that the application should be refused as it was contrary to policies TA5 and TA6 of the South Somerset Local Plan.

Following the discussion, it was proposed and seconded that the planning application be refused contrary to the planning officer recommendation as plots 2 and 3 would have an unacceptable impact on residential amenity in the way of overlooking and loss of privacy contrary to policy EQ2 and the increase in size would result in an inappropriate and unusable parking arrangements contrary to policies TA5 and TA6 of the South Somerset Local Plan.

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

RESOLVED:  that planning application 17/04047/S73 be refused contrary to the planning officer recommendation for the following reasons;

01.          The proposed alterations to plots 2 and 3 would, by reason of their resultant height, size, and position, result in an unacceptable impact on the residential amenity of the occupiers of neighbouring properties by way of overlooking and the resultant loss in privacy, contrary to policy  ...  view the full minutes text for item 72.

Application Proposal: Application for reserved matters following approval of 15/00288/OUT to include details of accesses, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale.

The Planning Officer presented his report to members. He advised that he had received an additional letter of concern which made reference to the tree on site. He also advised that he had received some supporting information which provided details of the surface water drainage. He advised that the previous plans had not been accepted by Wessex Water as they do not have a statutory responsibility to accept highway water. It was now proposed to use an infiltration system and he suggested an additional condition was required to ensure that drainage details would need to be approved in conjunction with the Local Lead Flood Agency.

Using the aid of a PowerPoint presentation, he provided images to show the site and the existing tree as well as plans to show the proposed layout and dwellings. 

He clarified that this was a reserved matters application following an outline approval. He also advised that due to the infiltration system proposed, the highway would not be adopted by Somerset County County Highways.

He advised that he recommended an amendment to planning condition 7 to ensure that the lighting is continually maintained and he recommended an additional condition 12 to ensure that the drainage details are agreed in liaison with the Lead Local Flood Agency.

Miss Old spoke in objection to the application. She advised members the site was on the edge of a conservation area and felt that the site was not correct for this application. She also suggested that the tree was not diseased.

Mrs C Brace, Development Manager and applicant, addressed the Committee. She explained that the outline application was approved in March last year and that the homes were good quality affordable homes. She explained that the 15 homes proposed would be ‘rent to buy’ properties, and that as the freehold would remain with Stonewater, the highway did not need to be adopted. She also advised members that the development was sensitive to the adjoining conservation area and that no statutory consultees had raised an objection, including highways.

Councillor Winder, Ward Member, questioned whether condition 11 of the planning application was necessary and felt that it should be removed. However, the Planning Officer felt that it was necessary to ensure that the area remained clear of obstruction. Councillor Winder also expressed his concern that the tree would be removed.

Following the discussion of condition 11, it was suggested that the application be deferred to allow time to assess the legality of proposed condition 11.

The Area Lead Planning Officer advised that deferring the application would give problems to the applicant.

Councillor Nick Colbert, also Ward Member, advised that he would offer his support to the scheme if it was stipulated that the application was for shared ownership homes. He expressed concern that the highway would not be adopted.

Ms Charlotte Brace, representing the applicant, advised that the homes were ‘rent to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 73.