Agenda and minutes

The minutes of the meeting held on 10^th December 2014, copies of which had been circulated, were agreed and signed by the chairman subject to a slight amendment to paragraph 5 of minute 137- Planning Application 14/04342/FUL to read ‘Mr M Brownlow, although a member of Bruton TC gave his personal view as a supporter of the application’.

An apology for absence was received from Cllr Henry Hobhouse.

In accordance with the Council’s current Code of Conduct (adopted July 2012), 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.  A DPI is defined in The Relevant Authorities (Disclosable Pecuniary Interests) Regulations 2112 (SI 2012 No. 1464) and Appendix 3 of the Council’s Code of Conduct.  A personal interest is defined in paragraph 2.8 of the Code and a prejudicial interest is defined in paragraph 2.9. 

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.  As a result of the change made to the Code of Conduct by this Council at its meeting on 15^th May 2014, 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.  If you have a prejudicial interest you must comply with paragraphs  2.9(b) and 2.9(c) of the Code.

In the interests of complete transparency, Members of the County Council, who are not also members of this committee, are encouraged to declare any interests they may have in any matters being discussed even though they may not be under any obligation to do so under any relevant code of conduct.

Planning Applications Referred to the Regulation Committee

The following members of this Committee are also members of the Council’s Regulation Committee:

Councillors Tim Inglefield and William Wallace

Where planning applications are referred by this Committee to the Regulation Committee for determination, in accordance with the Council’s Code of Practice on Planning, 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 relevant to any items on the agenda.

a)     Questions/comments from members of the public

b)     Questions/comments from representatives of parish/town councils

This is a chance for members of the public and representatives of Parish/Town Councils to participate in the meeting by asking questions, making comments and raising matters of concern.  Parish/Town Council representatives may also wish to use this opportunity to ask for the District Council’s support on any matter of particular concern to their Parish/Town. The public and representatives of Parish/Town Councils will be invited to speak on any planning related questions later in the agenda, before the planning applications are considered.

4b) Cllr Tony Capozzoli asked the ADM if she could find out who was responsible for a badly overgrown hedge that was spreading on to the highway along a footpath between Ilchester and Limington which needed attention. He had been unable to find out the information himself.

Cllr Capozzoli also pointed out that the agenda index incorrectly addressed Planning Applications 14/00925/FUL and 14/00926/LBC as Hainbury Mill instead of Hainbury Farm

Cllr Colin Winder had been disappointed that an operator on the emergency telephone service on Christmas Day had given incorrect information to the caller and attributed responsibilities to the Wincanton Town Clerk regarding the lamp in the Market Place.  The ADM explained that the out of hours operators from Taunton Deane staffed the telephone system and would not have had all the relevant local knowledge for all eventualities.  She would follow up the error to ensure it was not repeated.

In response to questions from Cllrs Colin Winder and Nick Colbert, about the Planning Application for SSDC for a single storey extension and the possible occupation of part of Churchfield Wincanton by a children’s nursery, the ADM would contact the Property Service Manager to ensure the correct procedure had been carried out. A briefing would be arranged for members of AEC regarding the costs to SSDC of the extension and the alterations to that part of the building. 

There were no reports from members representing the District Council on Outside Bodies.

There had not been a meeting of the Regulation Committee recently.

Members are asked to note that the next scheduled meeting of the committee will be held at the Council Offices, Churchfield, Wincanton on 11^th February 2015 at 9.00am.

Members noted that the next scheduled meeting of the Area East Committee will be held at the Council Offices, Wincanton on Wednesday 11^th February 2015 at 9.00am.

The Chairman brought members attention to the following:

After the AEC meeting there would be a briefing over sandwiches with Dave Norris and Martin Woods

Reminder that the Area East Annual meeting for Parish and Town Councils, is to be held on Tuesday 27th January 6.30 pm for 7.00pm.

With reference to a proposed planning application for a large number of houses in Mudford, including a school, he had been advised that the process for considering the application would take place over the course of day with AEC members giving their views and recommendations first, followed by Area South members giving their views and recommendations then the final decision would be made by members of the Regulation Committee. Once a date had been arranged all relevant bodies would be informed.

Several members of AEC were unhappy that the decision would be taken out of their hands.  Members wanted to ensure that the whole process would be clear and open, allowing residents of affected communities to express their views.

The ADM explained that several other similar planning applications had been dealt with in this way. The process only had been decided.  The issue would be raised further at the briefing after the committee meeting.

The Environmental Health Manager presented the report as detailed in full in the agenda, he made particular reference to:

·         The Food and Safety Team and the change to the Consumer’s Rights Bill that now allowed EHO’s to visit food premises unannounced;

·         The EP (Environmental Protection) Team and the new anti-social behaviour legislation that had been introduced;

·         The Housing Standards Team who help bring back empty homes into use, two Landlord Forum events that had been held and the fact that the ‘flood grants and loans’ claim deadline had been extended to June 2015.

In response to questions the Environmental Health Manager replied that:

·         There were no controls within SSDC legislation to cover noise issues such as those at Henstridge Airfield. The EP Team were consultees and could only give their views to Development Control’

·         With reference to the latest allergen advice, the EH Service were obliged to inform the public of any new legislation;

·         Dog fouling was an ongoing issue although dog wardens were regularly out and about.  He would take on board the comment that some countries had now introduced obligatory DNA registers for dogs;

·         He noted the suggestion that offenders of littering and dog fouling etc should be named and shamed where possible;

·         He noted the suggestion that gullies should be numbered in order to identify particular problems;

·         Unoccupied flats above shops in Wincanton had been surveyed recently but he would investigate the suggestion that there were several still not in use;

·         The Service do not charge event organisers for advice given when large events are planned.

The officer was thanked for the in depth report which members were content to note.

RESOLVED:

That Members noted the report.

The Community Safety Co-ordinator gave an overview of the specific legislation changes and new tools (that officers are now working with), to protect individuals and communities from Anti-social behaviour and crime

During the ensuing discussion, the Community Safety Co-ordinator, responded to comments and questions raised by members.  Points mentioned included the following:

·         He would produce a simplified explanation of the Community Trigger for Parishes and community groups;

·         All relevant complaints and issues should be reported either via the SSDC web site or by ringing 01935 462462, events not reported could not be logged or remedied;

·         With reference to fly posting he confirmed that once the culprits were identified they were requested to remove the flyers;

·         He would take up the issue of Development Control not removing planning application notices once the date had passed;

·         Social landlords were the most likely to be the users of Absolute Ground for Possession  but it would also be available to private landlords;

·         A relevant SSDC committee would have to consider a  Public Spaces Protection Order before any order could be issued;

·         Before an abandoned car could be removed the car tax and insurance would be checked and depending on the result of that search and the condition of the car it could be removed almost immediately;

·         The list of key SSDC Officer contacts would be recirculated to members by the Area Development Team with up to date contact details.

In conclusion the Community Safety Co-ordinator reiterated the importance of reporting issues/crimes and he suggested that members should look at the public website WWW.Police.uk for information on the type of crimes in particular areas. The current trend does show a reduction of crime in every police authority area. The ADM reminded Councillors that an up to date list of Beat Managers & PCSOs, with email contact details, had been circulated to them electronically and in hard copy format.

RESOLVED: That the report be noted.

A report was requested regarding the response from the Clinical Commissioning Group about the provision of minor injury services in the Wincanton area. The ADM suggested that a report could be brought back to AEC members after the multi-agency meeting due to be held in late January concerning Deansely Way.

A request was made to include additional information about the future funding of village halls (due to the withdrawal of DEFRA funding) in the annual update on Village Halls in Area East

A request was also made for a briefing on the costs to SSDC of the extension and the alterations to the lower ground floor at Churchfield Wincanton. 

NOTED

NOTED

The Planning Officer presented the application as per the agenda report he also stated that since writing his report he had received 3 additional letters of support and a letter from the tenant of the existing retail unit regarding the comment, within the report, made by the SSDC Economic Development Officer. With the aid of a power point presentation the officer showed the site and photographs of the vicinity, he confirmed that his recommendation was to approve the application.

Mrs P Peppin of Castle Cary Town Council spoke in objection to the application as it stood; she wanted to ensure that Castle Cary remained a vibrant town and was concerned at the potential loss of a retail unit.

Mr G Stockman spoke in support of the application as he considered that the existing retail unit was an eyesore.

The agent Mrs V Russell considered the current retail unit to be no longer fit for purpose there were also no other shops along Lower Woodcock Street. The current tenancy was due to end in March/April 2015 however the current tenant had apparently now agreed to another tenancy locally. She urged members to approve this application.

Ward Member Cllr Nick Weeks was unhappy with the comments made by the SSDC Economic Development Officer within the report and felt they were irrelevant to this application. An application for a shop with accommodation above would have been preferable to this application.  He wished to show his support for local town centres.

During discussion, varying views were expressed. Some members felt the application was acceptable whilst others expressed concern about the loss of a retail unit, lack of adequate parking; the proposed roof height and two dwellings would have been preferable to the proposed three.

In response to questions from Members, the Area Lead East replied that:

·         County Council had a parking standard generally of 2.5 spaces per dwelling but departure from this could be justified as this site was located within a town centre location or if it was felt that the redevelopment brought such benefits as to justify relaxing the standards;

·         It was thought the unit had been used as retail for the past 15 years or so;

·         The application site was not in the core of the town centre, evidence would have to be provided to show that the loss of a retail unit in this location would damage the vitality and viability of the town centre;

·         The roof height would be higher than Dunster House but would be lower than the building on the other side of the site;

·         This application was for three dwellings and should be determined as such at this meeting.

The Regeneration Officer confirmed that having carried out an audit of the town centre car parks at different times of the day, there was adequate parking within the town centre, an extension to one had recently been approved and part funded by AEC. She would prefer to see the retail unit preserved if at all possible as  ...  view the full minutes text for item 152.

The Planning Officer presented the application as detailed in full in the agenda report. He updated members regarding an E mail that had been received since the report had been written, supporting the proposal, as it was felt that the proposal would enhance the lane to the church.  With the aid of a power point presentation the officer showed details of the site and the proposed plans. He confirmed that his recommendation was to approve the application.

Mr P Warren, Mrs A Hopkins and Mrs J Mitchell all spoke in objection to the application on behalf of themselves and others unable to attend the meeting. They asked members to refuse the application for a variety of reasons but mainly due to overdevelopment of the site; the size and height of the proposal, the proposed use of block and render, the close proximity and impact on the nearby Listed Building; the possibility of the future use as a guest annexe and the nearness to the neighbouring dwelling.

Mr H Davies spoke in support of the application which he considered would be an improvement on the existing garage.

Mr J Heaton, the agent, addressed the committee and explained that a lime render and timber would be the materials used in the build, he also confirmed that there was no intention to use the proposal as a guest annexe.

Ward Member Cllr Mike Beech was undecided about the application, he understood that the existing garage needed replacing but he felt the proposal was too high, if members of AEC voted to approve the application he suggested that conditions should be imposed to tie the garage to the house, permitted development rights should be removed and it should only be for the use of the occupants of the house.

No-one wished to respond to the opportunity to correct any mis-statements.

During discussion varying views were expressed, including:

·         Concern about the proposed materials;

·         The application needed to be dealt with sympathetically, SSDC had been punished  once for lack of sensitivity in a listed area;

·         The proposal would be an improvement on the existing garage and would fit into the landscape;

·         The proposal was too big.

In response to queries the Area Lead East confirmed the size of the proposal which would be smaller than an average double garage and 4.8 metres longer than the current garage, the lime render would not be out of keeping with the area and he asked members to consider whether the proposal would have a severe or significant impact.  The officer confirmed that the conditions suggested by the ward member had been included in the proposed conditions and further planning permission would have to be sought to give the garage another use.

A proposal was made to refuse the application as overdevelopment of the site but the motion was not seconded.

A proposal was then made and seconded to approve the application as per the officer’s recommendation. On being put to the vote, the motion was carried by 6  ...  view the full minutes text for item 153.

The Planning Officer presented this application and Planning Application 14/00926/LBC in conjunction; she explained that a previous application had been approved with a S106 obligation but since this approval, the Government had decided to remove S106 obligations for small developments of 10 homes or less.  The principal of this agreement had been agreed but this application was now minus a S106 obligation.

Mr P Horsington from Limington PC confirmed that the Parish Council supported the application but regretted the change of rules.

In response to a query the Area Lead East explained that the legal agreement had never been signed, but even if it had been signed an application could have been submitted to lift the obligation given the change regarding planning obligations.

After a short discussion, a proposal was made and seconded to approve application 14/00925/FUL as per the officer’s recommendation.  On being put to the vote, the motion was carried by 8 votes in favour and 2 abstentions.

RESOLVED: That Planning Application 14/00925/FUL be approved as per the officers recommendation for the following reason:

 01.      It is considered that the proposed development is acceptable in principle and in relation to: the character and setting of the listed buildings; the landscape character; bats and birds; highway safety and parking; residential amenity; flood risk and noise pollution.  As such, it is in accordance with saved policies ST3, ST5, ST6, EC3, EC8, EH3, EH5, EH7, ME7, CR3 of the South Somerset Local Plan (adopted 2006) and the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING:

01.       The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans (except where directed otherwise by the conditions below):

            3312/SP06, date-stamped 03/03/2014;

            3312/ABE01, date-stamped 03/03/2014;

            3312/BAE01, date-stamped 03/03/2014;

            3312/BBE01, date-stamped 03/03/2014;

            3312/BCE01, date-stamped 03/03/2014;

            3312/BDE01, date-stamped 03/03/2014;

            3312/BEE01 A, date-stamped 13/05/2014;

            3312/BFE01, date-stamped 03/03/2014;

            3312/PO1 A, date-stamped 13/05/2014;

            3312/PO2 A, date-stamped 13/05/2014;

            3312/PO3, date-stamped 03/03/2014;

            3312/PO4 A, date-stamped 13/05/2014;

            3312/PO5 A, date-stamped 13/05/2014;

            3312/PO6, date-stamped 03/03/2014.

            Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

            02.       The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

            Reason:  To accord with the provisions of section 91(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

            03.       The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a scheme of hard and soft landscaping, which shall include indications of all existing trees and hedgerows on the land, and details of any to be retained, together with measures for their protection in the course of the development, as well as details of any changes proposed in existing ground levels; all planting, seeding, turfing or earth moulding comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding season following the occupation of the building or the completion of the development, whichever is the sooner; and any trees or  ...  view the full minutes text for item 154.

The Planning Officer presented this application in conjunction with Planning Application 14/00925/FUL.

A proposal was made and seconded to approve the application as per the officer’s recommendation.  On being put to the vote the motion was carried by 8 votes in favour; 1 against and 1 abstention.

RESOLVED: That Planning Application 14/00926/LBC be approved as per the officers recommendation for the following reason:

01.       The proposal by reason of its size, scale, design, materials and position, and its limited/informed intervention into the historic fabric of these listed buildings, is considered to respect the historic and architectural interests of the buildings and is in accordance with the saved policies EH3 and EH5 of the South Somerset Local Plan (adopted 2006).          

SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING:

01.       The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans (except where directed otherwise by the conditions below):

                        3312/SP06, date-stamped 03/03/2014;

            3312/ABE01, date-stamped 03/03/2014;

            3312/BAE01, date-stamped 03/03/2014;

            3312/BBE01, date-stamped 03/03/2014;

            3312/BCE01, date-stamped 03/03/2014;

            3312/BDE01, date-stamped 03/03/2014;

            3312/BEE01 A, date-stamped 13/05/2014;

            3312/BFE01, date-stamped 03/03/2014;

            3312/PO1 A, date-stamped 13/05/2014;

            3312/PO2 A, date-stamped 13/05/2014;

            3312/PO3, date-stamped 03/03/2014;

            3312/PO4 A, date-stamped 13/05/2014;

            3312/PO5 A, date-stamped 13/05/2014;

            3312/PO6, date-stamped 03/03/2014.

            Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

            02.       The works hereby granted consent shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this consent.

            Reason:  As required by Section 16(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

            03.       The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a scheme of hard and soft landscaping, which shall include indications of all existing trees and hedgerows on the land, and details of any to be retained, together with measures for their protection in the course of the development, as well as details of any changes proposed in existing ground levels; all planting, seeding, turfing or earth moulding comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding season following the occupation of the building or the completion of the development, whichever is the sooner; and any trees or plants which within a period of five years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation.  It shall also include details of surfacing and boundary treatments, including work to the gate piers.

            Reason: In the interests of the setting of the listed buildings, in accordance with saved policy EH5 of the South Somerset Local Plan (adopted 2006).

            04.       No work shall be carried out unless a full building by building schedule has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The schedule shall include all building repairs including repointing, details of new floors, treatment and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 155.

The Planning Officer presented the application as detailed in full in the agenda report. He explained that the report was before AEC members as his recommendation to approve the application did not accord with the Highway Authority Standing Advice.  With the aid of a power point presentation the officer showed details of plans and photos of the site, he confirmed his recommendation was to approve the application.

In response to a query from Ward Member Cllr Mike Lewis, the officer confirmed that the Parish Council had not commented on the application, he confirmed that the proposed condition 05 referred to visibility splays.

It was proposed and seconded to approve the application as per the officer’s recommendation.  On being put to the vote the motion was carried unanimously in favour.

RESOLVED: That Planning Application 14/05009/REM be approved as per the officers recommendation for the following reason:

The proposal, by reason of its size, scale and materials, respects the character of the area, and causes no demonstrable harm to residential amenity or highway in accordance with the aims and objectives of Policies ST6 and ST5 of the South Somerset Local Plan (Adopted April 2006) and the aims and provisions of the NPPF.

SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING:

01.       The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 14110-5C received 07 November 2014 and 14110-1C received 24 November 2014.

                        Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

02.       The landscape planting shown on the drawing 14110-5C hereby approved, shall be carried out in the first planting season following the commencement of the development hereby approved.  For a period of five years after the completion of the planting scheme, the trees and shrubs shall be protected and maintained in a healthy weed free condition to the satisfaction of The Local Planning Authority and any trees or shrubs that cease to grow shall be replaced by trees or shrubs of similar size and species, or the appropriate trees or shrubs as may be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

            Reason:   In the interests of visual amenity in accordance with saved policies ST5 and ST6 of the South Somerset Local Plan.

03.       No work shall be carried out on site until particulars of the following have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority:

a.         details of materials (including the provision of samples where appropriate) to be used for the external walls and roofs;

b.         a sample panel, to be prepared for inspection on site, to show the mortar mix and coursing of the external walls;

c.         details of the recessing, materials and finish (including the provision of samples where appropriate) to be used for all new windows (including any rooflights) and doors;

            d.         details of all hardstanding and boundaries

            e.         details of the rainwater goods and eaves and fascia details and treatment.

            Once approved such details shall be fully  ...  view the full minutes text for item 156.