Agenda and draft minutes

Venue: Committee Room (Area East) - Churchfield. View directions

Contact: Democracy Case Officers - 01935 462148  Email: democracy@southsomerset.gov.uk

Items
No. Item

87.

Minutes of Previous Meeting

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the previous meeting held on X date.

Minutes:

The minutes of the previous meeting held on Wednesday 9th October 2019, copies of which had been circulated, were agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

88.

Apologies for absence

Minutes:

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Hayward Burt.

89.

Declarations of Interest

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, Henry Hobhouse, Paul Rowsell, William Wallace 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.

Minutes:

Councillors Mike Lewis and William Wallace declared that they were also Somerset County Councillors.

90.

Date of Next Meeting

Members are asked to note that the next scheduled meeting of the committee will be at the Council Offices, Churchfield, Wincanton on Wednesday 11th December 2019 at 9.00 am.

Minutes:

Members noted that the date of the next scheduled meeting of the Committee would be at the Council Offices, Churchfields, Wincanton on Wednesday 11th December 2019 at 9am.

91.

Public Question Time

Minutes:

There were no questions from members of the public.

92.

Chairman Announcements

Minutes:

The Chairman informed members of the public that the meeting was being filmed.   He  asked that should anyone not wish to be filmed to please make it known.  No members of the public raised any concern.

93.

Reports from Members

Minutes:

Councillor Sarah Dyke wished to congratulate Milborne Port on their silver award at the recent Horticultural Society awards.

94.

Planning Appeals (for information only) pdf icon PDF 76 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Members noted the Planning Appeals.

95.

Area East Committee Forward Plan pdf icon PDF 72 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Members noted the Forward Plan.

96.

Schedule of Planning Applications to be Determined by Committee pdf icon PDF 85 KB

Minutes:

Members noted the schedule of planning applications.

97.

19/01133/FUL - Land North of Stoke Farm, Barrow Water Lane, Charlton Musgrove pdf icon PDF 617 KB

Minutes:

Application Proposal: The erection of a single dwelling, access, landscaping and ancillary works.

 

The Planning Consultant presented the application as detailed in the agenda and with the aid of a powerpoint presentation showed the site and proposed plans.  He explained that the application was for a replacement dwelling with the existing dwelling on site to be demolished.

 

He also informed members that the original application had included the proposal of a new driveway and access but this has since been removed.  It is therefore proposed to make use of the existing access which currently serves the existing house and farm buildings.

 

The Planning Consultant confirmed the application site was not within a conservation area or area of outstanding beauty and that the proposed new dwelling would be approximately 400 metres north of the existing dwelling. 

 

He suggested the main key consideration is the principle of development and the Local Plan Policy HG8 referring to replacement dwellings.  With the aid of slides explained in further detail the policy position and that members consider whether this proposal is deemed acceptable in terms of visual amenity and character of the area.

 

He also clarified that no objection had been received from the Garden Trust as the site is close to Redlynch Park a Grade II registered parks and gardens.  He said that high quality materials were to be used and that a comprehensive strategic landscape scheme had been submitted which included a great deal of reinstatement of hedgerows and new woodland in keeping with the character and surrounding land. 

 

He also highlighted the importance of the S106 legal agreement which would include:

·         Rescind the extant permission.

·         Ensure that if permission is granted that within 3 months the existing dwelling must be demolished in its entirety.

·         Ensure permanent closure of the accesses onto the B3081.

 

The Planning Consultant also updated members that since the report had been written he had received legal advice regarding clause ‘E’ within the S106 legal agreement preventing further applications be submitted for new agricultural dwellings.  Legal had advised that this would be difficult to enforce as everyone has the right to submit new applications for development, each application would of course be looked at on its own merit.

 

He therefore concluded that after considering all of the responses and advice, as outlined in the agenda report, his proposal was to approve the application as set out in the agenda report, subject to the deletion of Clause ‘E’ within the S106 agreement.

 

In response to questions, the Planning Consultant advised members that the current access points were in private ownership and that there are no agricultural ties on any of the buildings within the site.

 

Councillor Roger Bastable, Ward member believed the proposed dwelling was in open countryside and sited along way from the existing farm buildings.  He would have no objection for development of the original site but if approved this application would set a precedent for building within open countryside.

The applicant then addressed the committee.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 97.

98.

19/01462/FUL - 11 Balsam Fields, Wincanton BA9 9HF pdf icon PDF 762 KB

Minutes:

Application Proposal: The erection of an attached dwelling and formation of associated parking.

 

The Planning Consultant presented the application as detailed in the agenda and with the aid of a powerpoint presentation showed the site and proposed plans. He updated members that the proposal was for a two-bedroom dwelling and not three-bedroom dwelling as stated in the agenda report. 

 

He referred to the key consideration being the principle of development, the impact on visual and residential amenity and Highway safety.  He clarified that there had been other ‘infill’ development within the vicinity, the proposal was in line with the current building line, that there was sufficient additional associated parking and that the highways authority had not raised any objections. 

 

He updated members that one additional letter of objection had been received reiterating concerns already raised including traffic congestion and the imposing nature on the neighbour to the east.

 

The Planning Consultant therefore concluded that after considering all of the responses and advice, as outlined in the agenda report, his proposal was to approve the application.

 

In response to questions, the Planning Consultant said that each application must be considered on its merits but there must also a consistency in decision making.

 

A member of the public then spoke in objection to the application.  She believed that this proposal would de value her house as it would now become an end of terrace and not semi-detached as it now stands.  She also raised concern regarding the parking issues already in the area and that this proposal would only exacerbate the issue.  She also raised concern regarding location of refuse bins and the unsightly problem this would have on the streetscene.

 

The applicant then addressed the committee.  He said the site was within walking distance of the town and that there were ‘infill’ developments already permitted in the area.  The proposed associated parking would take existing vehicles off the road and that the proposed materials were in keeping with the character of the houses already in the area.  He believed the proposal to be a modest two-bedroom home that would benefit first time buyers and add to the housing supply. 

 

Both Ward members Councillor Nick Colbert and Councillor Colin Winder could see no policy reasons to refuse the application and therefore on balance would support the application.

 

During a short debate the majority of members voiced their support of the application and it was therefore proposed and subsequently seconded that the application be approved, as per the officers recommendation as set out in the agenda report.  On being put to the vote this was carried by 10 votes in favour, 0 against and 2 abstentions.

 

 

RESOLVED:  That planning application 19/01462/FUL be approved as per the officer report, subject to conditions, for the following reason;

 

01.       The proposal, by reason of its design and layout, represents appropriate infill that is responsive to the established built form and character of the area, and does not cause demonstrable harm to visual amenity or residential amenity  ...  view the full minutes text for item 98.