Agenda, decisions and minutes

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the previous meetings held on Wednesday 9^th May and Thursday 17^th May 2018.

The minutes of the previous meetings held on Wednesday 9^th May 2018 and Thursday 17^th May, copies of which had been circulated, were agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

An apology of absence was received from Councillors Anna Groskop and 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 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.

Councillor Sarah Dyke declared a personal interest in agenda item number 9 (Community Grant application for Cucklington Village Hall) as she was a resident of Cucklington.

Councillors William Wallace 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 11th July at 9.00 am.

Members noted that the date of the next scheduled meeting of the committee will be at the Council Offices, Churchfields, Wincanton on Wednesday 11^th July at 9am.

A member of the public expressed his disappointment that an enforcement notice had not been served to the owner of West Farm, Mudford in line with the decision made by Area East Committee in February 2018 to carry out enforcement action after the deadline of 4th June. He asked why another planning application was being considered after many years of debate, numerous retrospective planning applications and appeals, none of which had been supported by the Parish Council, The Planning Inspectorate or the Local Planning Authority.

The Chairman advised that the Lead Specialist (Planning) had been in contact with local residents and the Ward Member and that he had been assured that enforcement action would be taken.

Following the discussion, members agreed that they would like this item to be added to the July Area East Committee agenda to provide members with an update on the situation.

Another member raised concern that a further application for Vedelers Hay had been submitted to discharge thier planning obligation.  

The Chairman made no announcements.

There were no reports from members.

RESOLVED:  that members agreed to;

1.    Approve an award, under the current operating criteria, of up to £1,500 as a 50% contribution to A Bishop Electricals, 4 High Street, Castle Cary.

2.    Approve an amendment to the operating criteria agreed in May 2018 to that, except in exceptional circumstances, a 5-year period should lapse between applications relating to the same premises from the same proprietor.

Reason:        towards shop front improvements, which includes repainting render, wooden windows and railings, from the Community Development budget revenue element ring-fenced for the RSI.

(Voting: unanimous)

The Community Support Assistant presented her report to members. She explained that there were two recommendations on the report. The first recommendation was for a grant application for  A Bishop Electricals in Castle Cary and the second recommendation was to address a change to the operating criteria of the grant scheme.

She explained that the application was for a grant of £1,500, which was 50% of the project cost, towards shop front improvements on this prominent building. She also explained that funding had previously been granted towards improvement works for this building which gave reason to amend the application to ensure that repeat applications could not be made within a 5 year period, except in exceptional circumstances.

Following the discussion, it was proposed and seconded that members agreed to award up to £1,500 towards shop front improvements to A Bishop Electricals, 4 High Street, Castle Cary and to approve an amendment to the operating criteria agreed in May 2018 so that, unless in exceptional circumstances, a 5 year period should lapse before a repeat application will be considered relating to the same premises and the same proprietor.

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

RESOLVED: that members agreed to;

1.    Approve an award, under the current operating criteria, of up to £1,500 as a 50% contribution to A Bishop Electricals, 4 High Street, Castle Cary towards shop front improvements, which includes repainting render, wooden windows and railings, from the Community Development budget revenue element ring-fenced for the RSI.

2.    Approve an amendment to the operating criteria agreed in May 2018 to that, except in exceptional circumstances, a 5-year period should lapse between applications relating to the same premises from the same proprietor.          

(Voting: unanimous)

RESOLVED:   that members agreed a contribution of up to £6,000 (25% of the total project costs) from the Parish Infrastructure Fund budget to Cucklington Parish Council.

Reason:            towards the upgrade of the village hall car park, subject to the standard conditions set out in Appendix A.

(Voting: unanimous)

RESOLVED:    that members agreed a contribution of up to £3,910 (16% of the total project costs) £1,971 from the Parish Infrastructure Fund budget and £1,939 from the Community Grants Capital Budget to Milborne Port Parish Council.

Reason:            towards the installation of lighting and automatic barrier at the village hall car park, subject to the standard conditions set out in Appendix A and written confirmation that the applicant has all the necessary permissions to carry out the work.

(Voting: unanimous)

RESOLVED:    that members agree a contribution of up to £6,500 (25% of the total project costs) from the Community Grants Capital budget to Ilchester Parish Council

Reason:            for the purchase of Allotments Area, subject to the standard conditions set out in Appendix A and the drawing down of funds within 8 months, a repayment clause if the land ceases to be used as allotments within 10 years of the award, undertaking an access audit and subject to a ‘Red Book’ valuation.

(Voting: unanimous )

RESOLVED:    that members refused a contribution of up to £4,025 (25% of total project costs) from the Community Capital budget to Foddington Residents for the installation of fibre broadband system to 16 residents,

Reason:            on the basis that the settlement is included within the next phase of the Superfast Broadband programme

(Voting: 6 in support, 3 abstentions)

The Community Support Assistant presented her report to members. She explained that each of the four grants would be considered in turn.

The Neighbourhood Development Officer advised members that the recommended grant amount detailed within the report were generally 25% lower than original grant amount applied for by the applicants. She explained that the value of the grants requested in this first round had been high and therefore the recommended level of grant was 25% or less for each applications to ensure that funding would be available in December.

1.   Cucklington Parish Council.

The Community Support Assistant explained that Cucklington Parish Council had applied for a £8,000 contribution towards an upgrade of the car park, however advised that it was recommended that £6,000 be awarded from the Parish Infrastructure Fund budget. She explained that the project met the criteria.

Councillor Mike Beech, the Ward Member, offered his support to the application.

It was proposed and seconded that the application be approved as per the officer recommendation.

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

RESOLVED:             that Members agreed a contribution of up to £6,000 (25% of the total project costs) from the Parish Infrastructure Fund budget to Cucklington Parish Council towards the upgrade of the village hall car park, subject to the standard conditions set out in Appendix A.

(Voting: Unanimous)

2.      Milborne Port Parish Council

The Community Support Assistant explained that Milborne Port Parish Council had applied for a grant of £3,910 towards improvements to the village hall which included the installation of lighting and an automatic barrier in the car park. She explained that this would discourage anti-social behaviour and should encourage further attendance at the village hall.

Councillor Sarah Dyke, the Ward Member, offered her support to the application and welcomed the measures to protect the hall and the car park. She agreed that this would increase the usage which would be a benefit to the village.

It was proposed and seconded that the application be approved as per the officer recommendation subject to written confirmation that the applicant has all necessary permissions to carry out the work.

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

RESOLVED:    that members agreed a contribution of up to £3,910 (16% of the total project costs) £1,971 from the Parish Infrastructure Fund budget and £1,939 from the Community Grants Capital Budget to Milborne Port Parish Council towards the installation of lighting and automatic barrier at the village hall car park, subject to the standard conditions set out in Appendix A and written confirmation that the applicant has all necessary permissions to carry out the work.

(Voting: unanimous)

3.   Ilchester Parish Council

The Community Support Assistant explained that Ilchester Parish Council had applied for a grant towards the purchase of some land to be used as allotments. She explained that this land was important to the community and advised that a ‘Red Book’ valuation would be a carried out prior to the grant being finalised.

Councillor  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13.

RESOLVED:     that members;

1.     that members be appointed to serve on the groups and panels as follows:

2.     that members be appointed to the outside organisations

Reason:              for the municipal year 2018/19 as set out in the report.

Area East Working Groups and other organisations

RESOLVED: that members;

1.         that members be appointed to serve on the groups and panels as follows:

2.         that members be appointed to the outside organisations

Reason:          for the municipal year 2018/19 as set out in the report.

Area East Working Groups and outside organisations

Dimmer Liaison Group:                                  Councillor Nick Weeks

Henstridge Consultative Committee:              Councillor’s William Wallace and Hayward Burt

Heart of Wessex:                                            Councillor Mike Lewis

(Voting: unanimous)

RESOLVED: that members agreed to appoint, in line with the revised Development Control Scheme of Delegation, Councillor Hayward Burt (first substitute) and Councillor Colin Winder (second substitute) to act as substitutes for the Chairman and Vice Chairman

Reason:          in line with the revised Development Control Scheme of Delegation.

(Voting: unanimous)

RESOLVED: that members agreed to appoint, in line with the revised Development Control Scheme of Delegation, Councillor Hayward Burt (first substitute) and Councillor Colin Winder (second substitute) to act as substitutes for the Chairman and Vice Chairman

Reason:          in line with the revised Development Control Scheme of Delegation.

(Voting: unanimous)

The Locality Team Manager advised that members would be attending a workshop to consider strategic priorities.

RESOLVED: that members noted the Area East Committee Forward Plan.

Members noted the Action List.

Members noted the list of Planning Appeals which had been allowed or dismissed by The Planning Inspectorate.

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

Application Proposal: Outline application for the development of a farmhouse, associated agricultural buildings, amenity space, fodder store, machine store and livestock buildings

The Planning Officer presented his report to members, advising there had been no updates since the report had been published. Using a PowerPoint presentation, he presented photographs of the proposed site and detailed the position of the proposed access from Wyke Road.

He advised members that should the application be approved, legal agreement would supplement the decision to ensure that the existing farm and farmhouse would be given-up at a suitable time. He also advised that following negotiations, the SSDC Highways Consultant had now found the access to be acceptable. He also confirmed that the Landscape Architect raised no objections to the application and commented that the proposed location was the favoured position within the applicants’ ownership. It was the recommendation of the Planning Officer that the application be approved subject to planning conditions and a legal agreement to ensure that existing farmstead was given-up at a suitable time.

The applicant addressed the committee. He advised that the existing farm and farmhouse was located within an area of residential growth and would be demolished. He explained that he had begun farming many years ago and that he had built up a viable successful business which would be continued by his daughter. He explained that some of the breeds on the farm were rare breeds and hoped that the members would support the application to enable the family business to continue.

Councillor Nick Weeks, the Ward Member, offered his support to the application.

In response to a question from a member, the Planning Officer confirmed that the financial and functional need of the farm had been assessed.

In response to another question, the applicant confirmed that the proposed new location for the farm would be set in 88 acres of land.

It was proposed and seconded that the application be approved, as per the agenda report.

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

RESOLVED: that planning application 17/04180/OUT be approved as per the officer recommendation subject to;

a)         The prior completion of a section 106 agreement or unilateral undertaking (in a form acceptable to the Council's solicitor(s)) before the decision notice granting planning permission is issued to ensure that the existing dwelling and farm buildings are demolished prior to the occupation of the currently proposed development, or within a reasonable period of such occupation, as may be agreed with the local planning authority.

b)         The below conditions.

For the following reason:

01.          The proposed relocation of an existing agricultural business (including an agricultural worker's dwelling), is considered to be acceptable in this location. Subject to suitable details at reserved matters stage, the proposed development on this site would respect the character of the locality with no demonstrable harm to residential amenity or highway safety. As such the proposal complies with policies SD1, SS1, TA5, TA6, EQ2 and HG9 of the local plan, and the aims  ...  view the full minutes text for item 20.

Application Proposal: The erection of a detached single storey dwelling with associated landscaping works

The Planning Officer presented his report to members. Using a PowerPoint presentation, he identified the site on a map and provided images of the site. He described the bungalow as being a modest size, however he further explained that the site was situated in open countryside and that the village could not be reached by pavement. He explained to members that it was view that the application failed policy SS2 of the SSDC Local Plan as well as paragraph 55 of the NPPF and recommended that the application be refused.

A member of the public spoke in objection to the application. She advised that was she concerned about the how busy the road was and that the access would be dangerous and suggested that a pavement was required along this stretch of road. She also explained that she was concerned that additional buildings or extensions may follow on the site.

The agent addressed the committee. He explained that he had discussed the proposal with the Parish Council prior to submitting an application and that they had offered support to the proposal. He advised that bungalows were needed and that he would be happy for a condition to remove PD rights to be added to a permission. He felt that the bungalow would offer social and economic benefits.

The applicant addressed the committee. He advised that his family had lived in the village for 4 generations and hoped to remain in the village and suggested that the bungalow would benefit others in the future.

Councillor Hayward Burt, Ward Member, offered his support for the application. He explained that there were more than 2 services in Horsington and argued that the site complied with the SSDC Local Plan policy SS2 and agreed that there was a shortage of bungalows, however he did point out that this was a dangerous stretch of road.

Councillor William Wallace, also Ward Member, declared a personal interest in the application as he knew the applicant well and advised that he would abstain from the vote.

In response to a question, the Lead Planning Officer confirmed that a condition to ensure adequate screening could be added should the application be approved.

Following the discussion, it was proposed and seconded that the application should be approved, without a condition to remove permitted development rights.

It was subsequently proposed and seconded that the application be approved, with the inclusion of a condition to remove permitted development rights, however no vote was taken.

A vote was taken on the first proposal, which was to approve without a condition to remove the permitted development rights, subject to conditions to specify approved plans, a time limit, material, landscaping, visibility splays and to secure appropriate access arrangements. This was carried 7 votes in support, 1 against and 1 abstention.

RESOLVED:  that planning application 18/00990/FUL be approved, contrary to the officer recommendation, subject to conditions to specify approved  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21.

RESOLVED: that the following agenda item 19 be considered in Closed Session by virtue of the Local Government Act 1972, Schedule 12A under Paragraph 5: “Information in respect of which a claim to legal professional privilege could be maintained in legal proceedings”.

(Voting: unanimous)

Members discussed the report in some detail and gave direction to the officer as to whether they wished to defend all three reasons of refusal at appeal.