Agenda, decisions and minutes

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

The minutes of the previous meeting held on Wednesday  14^th November 2018, copies of which had been circulated, were agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

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

There were no other declarations of interest.

Members are asked to note that the next scheduled meeting of the committee will be at the Council Offices, Churchfield, Wincanton on Wednesday 9th January 2019 at 9.00 am.

Members noted that the date of the next meeting of the Committee would be at the Council Offices, Churchfields, Wincanton on Wednesday 9^th January 2019 at 9am.

There were no questions from members of the public present.

The Chairman advised that the minutes from the last Regulation Committee meeting had not yet been circulated as they had not been finalised.

The Chairman also wished the Committee members a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

Councillor Anna Groskop advised that she had attended the Pitcombe Parish Council meeting and reported that the village hall was unable to get an internet connection and that there was limited mobile phone signal in the hall. She expressed her concern that this was a problem for several parishes and felt that they needed assistance.

Councillor Tony Capozzoli hoped that a letter could be sent to RNAS Yeovilton to ask for their cooperation in dealing with the issues around flooding at Stockwitch Cross. He explained that this was an on-going issue. The Communities Lead advised that Councillor Mike Lewis might have already made contact, however agreed that she was send a follow up letter.

The Locality Manager presented his report to members. He also introduced the Strategic Planning Specialist as she had also been working on the Council Plan and Area Chapters. 

He explained to members that this new approach for 2019/20 and reminded members that the priorities within the plan had been highlighted at the workshops held in July.

He pointed out that some of the common priorities, which had been highlighted in other areas, were now identified as Council Plan Priorities.

He explained that the plan had been circulated to council officers and once agreed by Full Council in February, an action plan and key individuals would be identified to deliver the aims of the plan.

In response to members questions, the Locality Manager advised that support would be given to communities where required, for example in providing support to Community Land Trust projects. However, he pointed out that resources within the team were limited and wanted the plan to only include projects which he felt could be delivered. He also advised that existing projects would still be delivered.

One member raised concern over staff safety when lone working. The Locality Manager assured the Committee that this was concern of his and advised that additional training would be given to staff in the New Year. He also explained that other devices/tools were being developed to help ensure that staff were safe when lone-working.

The Locality Manager advised that update reports would be reported to the Committee every six months.

Following the discussion, it was proposed and seconded that members agreed for the priorities for the Area Plan to be presented to District Executive for consideration for inclusion in the Council Plan. On being put to the vote, this was carried unanimously.

RESOLVED:  that members agreed the priorities for the Area Plan to be presented to District Executive for consideration for inclusion in the Council Plan.

(Voting: unanimous)

DECISION:           That Area East Committee agreed:

·           To extend the allocations approved in June 2018 to Milborne Port Parish Council for the Springfield Road car park improvement project and Ilchester Parish Council for allotment purchase, for a further 6 months.

·           That a grant be awarded to Caryford Community Hall Association of up to £12,500, as a 19% contribution, for phase 1A, (the preliminaries, foundation and structure) of a new link corridor and plant room which will facilitate the Caryford Hall extension and refurbishment project. The grant to be allocated from the Community Grants Capital Budget and subject to the standard grant conditions.

Reason:                To consider a request for grant funding towards an extension and refurbishment of Caryford Community Hall

(voting: unanimous)

The Neighbourhood Development Officer presented her report to members.

She hoped that members would agree to extend the funding approved to Milborne Port Parish Council and Ilchester Parish Council in July 2018, could be extended for a further 6 months.

She explained that the works to the Milborne Port Village Hall had begun and were due for completion within the next month; however the time extension had been requested in case the project ran behind schedule.

She explained that funding for Ilchester Parish Council had been agreed towards the purchase of allotment land, however advised that following a valuation, the purchase price was still being negotiated and any reduction would result in a commensurate reduction in grant funding. This was the reason for the 6 month time extension.

The Neighbourhood Development Officer tabled a list of standard conditions, referred to as Appendix A, which had not been published as part of the agenda. She confirmed that the standard conditions had not been amended in any way and explained that they should have been included within the agenda.

She explained to members that there was only one new application for community grant funding which was from the Caryford Community Hall Association. She explained that the total cost of the project was over £500,000 and that the project would be completed in stages. She further explained that the application was requesting a grant of £40,000 however in line with the scheme of delegation, grants could only be awarded for up to £12,500 by an Area Committee. She therefore advised that the application was for phase 1A of the project, which would enable the project to start and would hopefully encourage further funding from other sources once the decision from other key funders is known it is anticipated that a further request for funding will be made to the Committee in early 2019. She also pointed out that funding from S106 agreements might be possible in the future.

The Chairman on the Caryford Community Hall Association addressed the Committee. She advised that support from Area East Committee would be essential to ensure that the project could progress. She was pleased to advise members that enough money had been raised to cover the cost of design fees and other professional fees. She was hopeful that once the project had started, that funding from other sources might follow. She explained that the hall was successful and was able to meet all of its day-to-day expenses, however was in need of remodelling of refurbishment. 

During the discussion, members commented that this was an excellent project and one member commented that a loan for further funding would be appropriate and that DX or Full Council should consider offering additional funding, however the Chairman advised that there were reasons why this approach had been taken. He felt that the grant funding of £12,500 would enable the project to begin.

Following the discussion, it was proposed and seconded that the contribution of up to £12,500 be awarded to the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 104.

DECISION:     It was agreed that:

·                         The draft strategy for Wincanton Town Centre be approved for consultation’.

·                         The report be noted.

Reason:          To consider agreeing publication of the Wincanton draft strategy for consultation in January 2019 and to provide an update on progress to date.

(voting: unanimous)

The Neighbourhood Development Officer presented her report to members. She explained that a draft strategy had been prepared and should members agree, consultation on this strategy would take place in January. She also explained that the following the consultation, an update report could be considered by Area East Committee in March.

She introduced two representatives from Chilmark Consulting, who provided a PowerPoint presentation to describe the draft strategy in further detail. 

During the presentation, the Chairman requested that the press officer refrain from taking photoraphs of the presentation slides and reminded him that he should have advised the Chairman that he was intending to take photographs.

They explained to the Committee that a draft Strategy and Action Plan had been developed which aimed to boost footfall and vibrancy within the town. The consultants explained that they had discussed the strategy with stakeholders and business owners within the town.

They summarised some of the issues, which had faced Wincanton, some of which were national problems, such as online shopping and closures of many banks.

The consultants summarised a vision for Wincanton; that the town could become a thriving place to live, work and visit. They hoped that retail land social functions of the town could be enhanced and suggested that the close proximity of the town to the A303 and the Racecourse were valuable opportunities to attract visitors. They advised members that a large part of Wincanton High Street was within a Conservation Area and contained many Listed Buildings. He was suggested that the High Street frontages would largely remain the same, however there may be development opportunities behind the High Street.

They explained that opportunities within the town had been identified and provided a map to point out key areas of the town mainly to the north  of the High Street. Schemes which had already been granted planning permission were also highlighted on the map. It was also commented that there was a good provision of parking areas within the town.

A local business owner addressed the Committee. He questioned what evidence was being used and suggested that case studies from other towns should be used. He also highlighted the importance for free car-parking in Wincanton and felt that the removal of free car-parking could be devastating for the town.

Councillor Nick Colbert, the Ward Member, explained that he had felt that an anchor business in the town centre could solve some of the problems in Wincanton however felt that the strategy was good.

Councillor Colin Winder, also Ward Member, agreed that car parking needed to be free in order for the town to survive and hoped that the project could progress. He stated that there are a lot of Listed Buildings within the Town Centre which are a problem for owners in terms of letting

During the discussion, members were pleased with the strategy and there was support for free parking should remain in the town centre.

The Neighbourhood Development Officer advised that a distict-wide review of car-parks would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 105.

DECISION:     that members

                        1) noted the service issues that have affected the line

2) noted the work undertaken by the Partnership in 2017/18 and that a similar report had been taken to Area South Committee

3) approved a funding contribution of £2,000 from the Members’ Discretionary budget for 2018/19

Reason:          To receive a summary of the work undertaken by the Heart of Wessex Rail Partnership during 2017/18, and to consider making a partnership contribution for 2018/19.

(voting: 7 in support with 1 abstention)

The Communities Lead presented her report to members. She advised that this was an annual report to provide an update on the work undertaken by the partnership and that a similar report had been taken to Area South Committee. She also hoped that members would approve a funding contribution of £2,000 from the Members’ Discretionary budget.

She explained that it had been a difficult year for the rail industry and that details were contained within the report. She explained that the Chief Executive of SSDC had met with senior staff at Great Western Railway to discuss some of these concerns.

She explained to members that GWR had provided assurances that there would be improvements next year and that they were aspiring to provide an hourly service.

During the discussion, members commented that there had been a disappointing service, however were keen to see improvements and hoped that additional train services could be provides.

Following the discussion, it was proposed and seconded that members agreed to approve the funding of £2,000 towards the partnership.

On being put to the vote, this was carried 7 votes in support and 1 abstention.

RESOLVED:   that members

                        1) noted the service issues that have affected the line

2) noted the work undertaken by the Partnership in 2017/18 and that a similar report had been taken to Area South Committee

3) approved a funding contribution of £2,000 from the Members’ Discretionary budget for 2018/19

(voting: 7 in support, 1 abstention)

The Democratic Services Specialist presented her report to members. She explained that following a review of the Councils electoral arrangements in 2017, the Local Government Boundary Commission for England confirmed that the 60 councillors to serve across the district should be retained. However, the ward boundaries were also considered. The findings were largely as expected, however a new three member ward had been proposed which crosses the north and east committee boundaries. 

She explained that it was proposed that the new ward be represented within the boundary of Area East for the purpose of Area Committees. She further clarified that the same report would be considered by Area North Committee and that once agreed, would require a change to the constitution which would require final agreement by Full Council in the New Year.

One member commented that he was disappointed that there had been little consultation, however agreed that the new ward should be included within Area East.

The Democratic Services specialist agreed to arrange a meeting with the Chairman of Area East Committee and the Chairs of the relevant parish councils within the new ward.

It was proposed and seconded that the newly created Northstone/Ivelchester/St Michaels Ward be represented by Area East.

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

RESOLVED:  that members agreed that the newly created Northstone/Ivelchester/St Michaels Ward be represented wholly by Area East Committee working from May 2019. 

(voting: unanimous)

The Communities Lead advised that there would be a report to update members on the Community Grants in February. There would also be an update report on the delivery of the Area Council plan in June.

The Chairman requested that members were given an update on the revised Local Plan.

RESOLVED:   Members noted the amendments to the Area East Committee Forward Plan.

Members noted the new appeals, which were being considered, and any appeals, which had been determined.

The Case Services Officer agreed to circulate the appeal decisions, which had been omitted from the printed agenda in error.

The Senior Planning Advisor referred to the recent decision by The Planning Inspectorate to approve the appeal for Land in Henstridge for up to 130 dwellings. He explained that the Council Officers fought very hard at the appeal inquiry and advised that traffic measures will need to be in place before the development can go ahead.

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

The Chairman advised that the applications on the agenda would be discussed in reserve order i.e 18/02738.. would be discussed first, followed by …..

With the agreement of the Committee, Agenda item 17: planning application 18/02738/FUL - Land at Slades Hill, Templecombe was discussed and determined prior to Agenda item 16: planning application 18/02739/OUT** - Land at Slades Hill, Templecombe

Application Proposal: Outline application for residential development comprising up to 70 dwellings and associated open space, landscaping works and area for school expansion, together with new access and drainage infrastructure.

The Area Lead Officer presented his report to members. He advised members that the application had been two-starred in line with the scheme of delegation and would be referred to the Regulation Committee should the application be refused. He also advised that since the report had been published, there were no further updates.

He explained to members that the application was an outline application for up to 70 dwellings.

Using a PowerPoint presentation, he provided photographs of the site as well as images to show the indicative layout and proposed access.

He explained to members that there was an extant permission approved on the site for a mixed use of up to 75 dwellings and business use. He advised that the proposed access was virtually identical to the approved access and pointed out that 5 homes and the employment buildings had been removed from the scheme. He explained that the residential and visual impacts of the proposal were similar to those of the approved extant permission.

He pointed out a 3-meter maintenance margin between the proposed development and the existing home on Blackmore Vale Road, however he advised that this was only an indicative drawing.

He explained that the community would benefit from additional playing field land as well as an extension to the cemetery should the application be approved. The application would also provide affordable homes. He felt that the development would provide benefits, which would outweigh any adverse impacts and suggested that the scheme was no worse than the previously approved extant scheme. He recommended that the application should be approved.

A local resident addressed the Committee and spoke in objection to the application. She explained that the Parish Council no longer supported the application and explained that she had concerns over the gabion wall between her property and the development site. She also hoped that a bungalow would be constructed close to her home, rather than a two-storey dwelling. She was also concerned about drainage on the site and the access. She commented that the landscaping was not in keeping with the village and that the plot sizes were disproportionate. She also added that it would be good if the land for the playing fields could be fenced off and contributions could be made towards school playing.

The agent addresses the Committee. He informed members that the plans which they had been shown, were indicative and that final minor details would be clarified at the reserved matters stage. He explained that concerns, such as light and noise, would be taken on board by the applicant when looking at  ...  view the full minutes text for item 111.

With the agreement of the Committee, Agenda item 17: planning application 18/02738/FUL - Land at Slades Hill, Templecombe was discussed and determined prior to Agenda item 16: planning application 18/02739/OUT** - Land at Slades Hill, Templecombe

Application Proposal: Erection of manufacturing building (Use Class B2) and associated development including construction phase access/roadway (temporary), car park/yard area, perimeter security fencing, external plant, and landscaping works

The Area Lead Officer presented his report to members. He advised members that the application had been two-starred in line with the scheme of delegation and would be referred to the Regulation Committee should the application be refused. He recognised that this had had not been indicated within the printed agenda.

The Area Lead Officer advised members that since the report had been published, the Parish Council had raised further concern over the highways advice, which had been received from Somerset County Council. These comments from the Parish Council had been referred to the Highways Department at SCC.

The Area Lead Officer explained that there were two applications being considered by members, however advised that although the sites were adjoining and within the same ownership, that the applications were being considered as two separate applications. He also advised that the adjoining site benefitted from an extant planning permission for up to 75 dwellings. 

He explained that as part of the proposal, a temporary access through the wider site was proposed, however once construction was complete, the access to the site and new building would be through the existing access to the Thales site.

Using a PowerPoint presentation, he provided plans to show the location of the planning application site, as well as the separate application, which was being considered as the next agenda item. He also used the PowerPoint presentation to show the temporary and future access to the site as well as detailed plans to show the proposed building.

He provided photographs of the site and plans to show the significant planting, which was proposed around the site and elevation/section drawings to indicate the relative height of the proposed buildings. 

He explained that the applicant had worked hard at pre-application stage to ensure that there was minimal harm to visual and residential amenity and had provided a detailed landscaping proposal.

He explained that there would be a modest increase in vehicle movements; however SCC Highways Department had not raised an objection to the scheme. He further advised that the Lead Local Flood Agency had not raised concern, subject to an appropriate condition, which had been included within the recommended list of conditions.

He also advised members that the SSDC Ecologist was satisfied with the proposal and that the applicant was taking steps to divert the footpath.

Several local residents spoke in objection the application. Their comments included;

·         Another entrance should be provided. There are 1,300 traffic movements each day – all of which go through the village and past a primary school.

·         Traffic calming scheme through village isn’t adequate and makes access  ...  view the full minutes text for item 112.