Agenda, decisions and minutes

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the previous meetings held on 29^th October 2019, 13^th November 2019, 11^th December 2019 and 15^th January 2020.

The minutes of the meetings of the Area East Committee held on 29^th October 2019, 13^th November 2019, 11^th December 2019 and 15^th January 2020 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

An apology for absence was received from Councillor Sarah Dyke.

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 Henry Hobhouse, Paul Rowsell and William Wallace.

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.

There were no declarations of interest.

Members are asked to note that the next scheduled meeting of the committee will be held on Wednesday 11^th March 2010 at 9.00 am.  Venue to be confirmed.

Members noted that the next scheduled meeting of the Committee would be held on Wednesday 11^th March 2020 at 9.00am.  Venue to be confirmed.

Questions and comments from members of the public were taken at the time the agenda item was discussed.

The Chairman announced that Somerset County Council’s Regulation Committee had approved the use of land for composting of green waste to remain at Dimmer Landfill Site until 2030.

There were no reports from members.

The Case Officer (Service Delivery) and a representative from Magna Housing gave a short presentation on affordable housing in South Somerset.  With the aid of a powerpoint presentation, members were informed about the following:

·      Housing Need and how it’s established within the District.

·      The role of Homefinder Somerset.

·      Housing Needs Surveys were also used to establish the hidden need in a parish which could be used to support a planning application on a rural exception site.

·      725 homes were needed in South Somerset of which 206 would be for affordable housing as outlined in the Local Plan.

·      There were currently 2016 people registered on Homefinder Somerset looking for affordable accommodation in South Somerset.  290 of those people were looking for affordable accommodation in Area East.

·      The Countywide Somerset Housing Strategy was adopted in March 2019 and was the overarching strategy that looked at affordable housing. The Homelessness and Rough Sleeper Strategy sat underneath the Housing Strategy.  The Initial plan that was submitted with the Housing Strategy when it was adopted at District Executive linked in with the priorities of the SSDC Council Plan.

·      The Rural Lettings Framework applied to rural dwellings to ensure that parishes with very few affordable homes were prioritised to those people living within the parish or within an adjoining parish.

·      There were six Community Land Trusts (CLTs) within South Somerset which included Charlton Horethorne and Queen Camel in Area East.  The service supported CLTs and also worked closely with Wessex Community Assets.

·      There was grant funding still available for housing needs surveys, planning feasibility studies, a revolving land fund and small grants for Community Land Trusts.

·      Magna Housing provided approximately 300 homes in South Somerset.  A target of 200 new homes were provided on a yearly basis providing a mixture of shared ownership and social rented and affordable rented.

·      Collaborative approach to affordable housing provision through partnership working with other organisations.

·      Modern methods of construction were being looked at, Magna had a partnership with Rollalong, who were based in Dorset.

·      The current development programme for 2020/21 included provision for 275 affordable dwellings comprising:

     Social Rent - 59    

     Affordable Rent – 115

     Affordable Rent to Buy - 7

     Shared Ownership/ Intermediate – 74

·      Myths regarding the need and allocation of affordable housing was also discussed.

Following the presentation, the Case Officer responded to members’ questions on points of details.

At the conclusion of the item, the Chairman thanked the officers for attending the meeting.

Members agreed to reconsider the report under Part 4 of the Council’s Constitution – Rules of Procedure (Standing Orders) following a motion to rescind a previous decision.

The Committee was addressed by the Vice-Chairman of Wincanton Town Council.  He advised that Wincanton Town Council had entered into a compensation scheme with SSDC in 2012 and that in 2016 notice was given to cancel the agreement.  He informed members that a survey was undertaken with local residents and the majority of people who responded were supportive of an increase in council tax to keep car parking free.  Wincanton Town Council had informed SSDC that they were willing to enter into a new compensation agreement.  He said that Wincanton Town Council had already budgeted and set its precept and would have no means of repaying residents if the car park was sold.  Members were informed that the car park was well used by parents of children attending the school, various businesses including the dances studio, dental surgery who all rely on the car park.  With reference to the regeneration programme, it was hoped that there would be a greater footfall within the town and a greater need for car parking spaces.

The Committee was addressed by sixteen members of the public in objection to the disposal of the public car park at Churchfields.  Comments made included the following:

·         The loss of the car park would have a huge impact on the businesses and residents in Wincanton.

·         Wincanton had a lot of flats with no parking spaces.

·         There was limited public transport therefore parking needed to be provided.

·         The car park was well used on a daily basis and important for bringing new vitality to the town and keeping Wincanton sustainable.

·         The church was well supported, had a large regular congregation and was popular for weddings and funerals and people would require parking for more than an hour.

·         There was already a vast amount of new housing and services were stretched to the limit.

·         Closure of the car park would threaten the vitality of the town centre and the quality of life of the people that live in Wincanton.

·         Closure of the car park would lead to chaotic parking in other areas of the town.

·         People would decide to shop out of town because of lack of parking.

·         Wincanton was embarking on a regeneration programme to encourage visitors who would need all the parking available and probably more not less.

·         There was no practical alternative parking available.

·         Residential areas in parts of Wincanton had restricted parking or double yellow lines so visitors often had to use Churchfields car park as overspill.

·         The streets were already full with parked vehicles and there was no room for anymore.

·         Wincanton voted for free parking and this should remain.

·         Support for less regeneration and the car park to be kept.

·         Installing electric charging points in car parks would encourage people with electric cars to visit and help support Wincanton.

·         Concerns over an increase in illegal parking  ...  view the full minutes text for item 138.

Reason: To agree a contribution towards the provision of a new nine seat, fully accessible mini bus for community transport and to support capacity building/feasibility work that would aim to make SSCAT a sustainable community transport service.

The Locality Officer introduced the report and explained that South Somerset Community Transport were seeking funding towards the purchase of a new nine seater fully accessible minibus.  Members were also asked to support officers exploring capacity building/feasibility work that would aim to make SSCAT a sustainable community transport service in the future. 

The Committee was addressed by the Chairman of South Somerset Community Transport (SSCAT) who advised that SSCAT were requesting funding towards 30% of the cost of a new minibus and that SSCAT were providing 20% of their own funds.

During the discussion, members commented that SSCAT provided a valuable service and expressed their support for the project. 

In response to questions, members were informed that the minibus was designed for two wheelchair spaces and that advertising of the service would be one aspect to be covered as part of the capacity building work.

At the conclusion of the debate, Members unanimously approved the recommendations of the report.

Reason: To agree a contribution towards the provision of a new nine seat, fully accessible mini bus for community transport and to support capacity building/feasibility work that would aim to make SSCAT a sustainable community transport service.

Reason:  To agree a grant towards exterior improvements at 14 Market Place, Wincanton.  

The Specialist (Economy) introduced the report.  She explained that members were being asked to consider a request for funding in relation to a property in Wincanton that had been empty for some time and qualified for the higher level funding.  The application was being considered as an exception to policy under the Retail Support Initiative’s operating criteria due to the assessment score because of the future use of the premises by the Police.

In response to questions, members were informed of the following:

·         The project costs related to the front façade of the premises.

·         The Police would contribute towards the interior refurbishment of the building.

·         The Retail Support Initiative was unique to Area East and promoted across the area and a number of applications had been supported.

·         The application met the existing criteria.

·         The annual review of the operation of the scheme would be brought to members at the April Area East Committee meeting.

At the conclusion of the debate, members unanimously supported the recommendations of the report.

Reason:  To agree a grant towards exterior improvements at 14 Market Place, Wincanton.  

The Committee was addressed by a member of the public who expressed the view that he would prefer to see meetings of the Area East Committee held in village halls throughout Area East.

The Locality Team Manager advised that the other Area Committees were held in one main venue which was mainly due to resources and consistency of quality of halls.

During the discussion, members made the following comments:

·         Expressed support for moving to the Memorial Hall

·         Favourable to hold meetings in a fixed place rather than go to different locations

·         The venue should be consistent for members of the public

·         Disappointed that Wincanton Town Hall was not an option

·         Adequate car parking was essential

In response to a member comment, the Locality Team Manager advised that it was not possible to use Wincanton Town Hall for meetings as it currently operated a stair lift but if in future a lift was installed the premises could be considered as a suitable option.  He explained that following the closure of Churchfields, there would be a Customer Access point located at the Balsam Centre which also provided remote access to an officer if required.  Officers would still have a presence with touch down spaces located in Wincanton and throughout the area and would be able to offer a home visiting service to customers who were unable to access the Customer Access point.

At the conclusion of the debate, the majority of members supported the recommendation of the report to hold future meetings of the Area East Committee at the Memorial Hall, Wincanton.

Members noted the Area East Committee Forward Plan as outlined in the agenda.

Members noted the planning appeals which had been received, allowed or dismissed by the Planning Inspectorate.

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

Application Proposal:  Demolition of existing part side and part rear extension, demolition of existing garage, erection of new two storey side extension and single storey rear and side extensions

The Case Officer (Service Delivery) presented the application as detailed in the agenda.  He explained that the site was located within a rural setting with open fields surrounding the area and that the dwellings on Middle Ridge Lane were predominately built of reconstituted stone.  The site was not within an area of special designation or within the immediate setting of any listed buildings.  Members were shown the existing layout of the property including areas where the development would take place and advised that timber cladding would be used on the exterior of the development which would be left untreated to weather naturally.  The design of the two-storey extension would incorporate a hip roof to mitigate any loss of sunlight to the neighbours to the north.

The Case Officer (Service Delivery) outlined the key considerations which were residential amenity and visual amenity.  He advised that concerns had been raised by neighbouring properties to the north and south regarding the use of timber cladding and loss of light.  The use of timber cladding was supported by the Parish Council and was quite typical in modern development as it showed a clear divide between the existing property and new development and left to weather naturally was considered to be acceptable.  A study had been conducted to show that the hours where the sunlight would be blocked was late in the day and very limited to the winter months. 

The Committee was addressed by an objector who raised concerns in the relation to the following:

·         The north wall of the proposed development would be 4 metres from the neighbouring property which would worsen the existing tunnel affect between the two properties.

·         Concerns over loss of light and shadowing and possible damage to floating slab foundations.

·         Building of the extension and future maintenance may have to occur from the neighbouring property.

·         The front west facing lounge window of the adjoining property would also be affected in addition to the window located on the south.

·         Hedgerow reduction at The Ridings had not made any difference to the overshadowing on Broadfields side wall.

·         Concerns over the close proximity of the extension to the boundary fence due to the steep gradient height increase there would be clear views from the rear extension into the neighbouring garden.

·         Proposed extension overly wide and 60% of original house width residential amenity would be significantly affected by overshadowing, loss of light, significant dominance and loss of privacy.

Ward Member, Councillor William Wallace questioned whether there were any legal measurements in terms of overlooking that should be complied with when considering a planning application.

In response, the Specialist – Development Management confirmed that there were no planning laws in relation to loss of light or overbearing.  He encouraged members to look at the relationship between the proposed development and the neighbouring property and consider  ...  view the full minutes text for item 145.

Application Proposal: Outline application with all matters reserved save for access for residential development for up to 49 dwellings including landscaping, drainage and new vehicle access from West Street

Members noted that the application had been 2-starred under the Scheme of Delegation and that if the Committee were minded to refuse the application, whilst it would be able to debate the issues and indicate grounds for refusal, the final determination would be made by the Regulation Committee.

The Planning Consultant gave a detailed presentation on the application which covered the following:

·         The access was for detailed consideration.  All details in relation to appearance, landscaping, layout and scale were reserved for consideration at the reserved matters application stage.

·         The application site was located on the south-western edge of Templecombe and be would accessed from West Street.

·         The site was undeveloped and was located to the south-west of an existing residential area.

·         The site was not located within any landscape designation.

·         Traffic calming measures incorporated along the main A Road to control speeds.

·         Access to the application site and exit route.

·         On-street parking located in the surrounding area and lack of parking restrictions.

·         Illustrative layout of the proposed development.

·         Pedestrian routes located within the site and links to existing pavements.

·         Intention to provide woodland buffers to the south-west and north-west boundaries and an attenuation pond to the northern part of the site.

·         Part of the hedgerow would be removed to create the necessary width of access.

·         Location of existing pavements and where there were no pavements in the surrounding area.

·         Distances from the site centre to various services i.e. bus stop.

·         Updated that the public house was now closed and being redeveloped.

·         Photographs were shown outlining Vine Street, Westcombe, West Street and egress routes along Bowden Road.

·         The Council did not have a 5 year housing land supply.

·         Policies SS1, SS2 and SS5 were considered to be out of date and permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.

·         The proposal would be of benefit in helping to address the shortfall of housing land supply.

·         There was a particular acute need for affordable housing and the proposal would make a contribution.

·         The site was reasonably accessible to local services and facilities and well located in terms of accessibility by sustainable means.

·         The application would be of economic and social benefit.

·         The key considerations were Highway Safety, Visual amenity, Flooding and drainage, Ecology, Residential amenity and Loss of agricultural land.

·         Summary of the Henstridge appeal decision for 130 dwellings.  The application had similarities to this application.

·         The application was recommended for approval subject to a S106 agreement and conditions.

The Committee was addressed by seven people in objection to the application.  Points raised related to the following:

·         Lack of public transport at appropriate times.

·         Access road narrow and dangerous.

·         No pedestrian footpath at the top of Bowden Road.

·         Significant impact on existing residents and infrastructure.

·         Parked cars along West Street reducing the road to a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 146.

Application Proposal:  S73A Application for the installation of a secure storage container (without complying with condition 3 of planning permissions 19/01020/FUL, to extend operational life span of secure storage container to 40 years).

The Planning Consultant presented the application as outlined in the agenda and referred to the key considerations.

Ward member, Councillor Charlie Hull expressed his support for the application.

It was proposed and seconded to approve the application as per the officer’s recommendation as set out in the agenda report.  A vote was taken and Members unanimously approved the application.

Application proposal: S73A Application for the erection of a solar farm comprising the erection of solar arrays, inverters, transformers, equipment housing, security fencing, internal tracks and ancillary equipment (without complying with Condition 7  of planning permission 12/01055/FUL, to extend operational lifespan of Solar Farm to 40 years)

The Planning Consultant presented the application as outlined in the agenda and referred to the key considerations.

Ward member, Councillor Charlie Hull expressed his support for the application.

It was proposed and seconded to approve the application as per the officer’s recommendation as set out in the agenda report.  On being put to the vote this was carried by 9 votes in favour, 0 against and 1 abstention.