Agenda, decisions and minutes

The minutes of the meeting held on 11^th February 2015 copies of which had been circulated, were agreed and signed by the chairman.

Apologies were received from Cllrs Mike Beech, Lucy Wallace and William Wallace.

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.

Cllr Mike Lewis advised that although he was a County Councillor, when financial matters were discussed at Area East Committee meetings, he would give priority to the needs of SSDC rather than SCC.

Cllr Anna Groskop, as a County Councillor reiterated the same comment as above.

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.

Mrs L Elson spoke about the adverse impact the hedge cutting programme was having on roads local to Holton as cuttings had been left on the road, several mature trees had been damaged during the process.

Mrs Elson advised the committee that the adverts that had been placed at Anchor Hill had finally been removed.

She was also concerned about HGV drivers who failed to observe the local traffic speed signs particularly at Blackford Gap, extra warning signs had been put up but some HGV drivers were still ignoring them

With reference to the comments a Planning Inspector had made regarding Cadbury Castle Mrs Elson wished to ensure that it was fully protected.

Cllr Mike Lewis said that County Highways had been out to Lower Woolston Road and had suggested a scheme to narrow the road in order to pinch point it but over £20,000 was required to carry out the work, as North Cadbury PC had already set the precept, they were understandably reluctant to put forward the funds.

Discussion then ensued regarding the bad state of some of the signs and the lack of information signs in the area.  The Community Development Officer agreed to send an E Mail highlighting the issues to SCC Highways.  

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

There had been no recent meeting of the Regulation Committee.

Members are asked to note that the next scheduled meeting of the committee will be held on 8th April 2015, the time and venue is to be confirmed.

Members noted that the date of the next scheduled meeting of the Area East Committee will be held on Wednesday 8^th April 2015 at Ansford Academy, Ansford, Castle Cary at 10.00am.

A special meeting will take place on Tuesday 31^st March 2015 at Caryford Community Hall Maggs Lane, Ansford, Castle Cary at 6.30pm to discuss the planning application for Foxes Run Castle Cary.

A special meeting to consider the planning application at Foxes Run, Castle Cary has been arranged for the evening of Tuesday 31st March 2015 at Caryford Hall, Ansford  at 6.30pm.

The next scheduled meeting of Area East Committee will be held at Ansford Academy, Castle Cary at 10.00 am on 8th April 2015.

As the Area Development Manger was off work it was agreed to defer Item 12 on the agenda as she had put a lot of hard work into the report.

The Housing and Welfare Manager presented the report as detailed in full in the agenda.  She gave a full explanation of the different band categories used on the Homefinder Somerset register.

In response to questions she replied that:

·         There were no 3 bedroomed properties currently empty within South Somerset although they do now take longer to let; people often struggle to afford a 3 bedroomed property, she had recently attended a meeting with YHG (Yarlington Housing Group) to address the issue;

·         The allocation process for local need was often different and was dependant on what had been agreed within a S106 obligation;

·         If there was a S106 obligation on a property and the registered partner had been unable to allocate to a family with a connection to the specific village or the neighbouring village the property would then be offered to someone living in South Somerset. The applicant would need to be on the Housing Register and this would be a last resort. The RP has to balance allocating the property to a local family and receiving an income stream,

·         YHG had a dedicated officer who dealt with mutual exchanges but it was not a quick process;

·         She would refer to the Strategic Housing Manager, the issue of the delivery of too many houses being made available in Wincanton all at  the same time;

·         She would feed back to the Homefinder Board the suggestion that preference should be given to keep extended families close together in order to be able to support each other;

·         She would obtain figures of the number of people classed as homeless in Area East and a breakdown of what housing need there is, particularly in Wincanton;

·         She would check that the S106 obligation had been adhered to when the properties were let at Sparkford. She explained that if there was a S106 obligation an applicant on the register in bronze band with a local connection as defined by the S106 obligation would take priority over an applicant in Gold with no local connection.

·         She could confirm that of the 20 new affordable homes that had been available in Queen Camel, only one had been allocated to a person without a local connection to the village, but they did have a connection to South Somerset

·         Members could rest assured that priority would not be given to persons living up North, all applicants would need a local connection to Somerset in order to allow mobility within the county.

In conclusion, members wished to ensure that local people were looked after and had the first choice of property, a review of the method used should be carried out in order to prioritise local need, suitable properties such as 1 bedroomed dwellings and bungalows were needed to enable local youngsters to remain in their locality and for the elderly and disabled.

The Chairman agreed that Cllr T Carroll could address the committee to explain that as the Local Plan had now been approved and the demand profile  ...  view the full minutes text for item 184.

This item was deferred until a time when the Area Development Manager was able to present the report.

The Young Peoples Officer presented the self-explanatory report as detailed in full in the agenda.

In response to questions he responded that:

·         Somerset Rural Youth was on a reasonably secure financial footing and contracts had been taken on to cover the next 3 years;

·         It had been disappointing that after a lot of advertising there had been very little take up to join the youth club at Wincanton, however it was not totally negative as new things were being tried out and it was appreciated that a different approach was needed.

During discussion it was acknowledged that good volunteers, able to inspire the youngsters, were often the key to successful youth projects, however support from the professional staff of SSDC was also important and needed to continue.  It was suggested that other organisations could be involved, although young people do not really want to be organised by adults.

The officers were thanked for their hard work in this field.

RESOLVED: That Members note and comment on the report.

RESOLVED:

(1)       To allocate £8,000 from the Members Discretionary Budget ring fenced to support the development of work hubs in Area East, pending the bringing back of a worked up proposal to the Committee in June 2015.

(Voting: Unanimous in favour)

Reason: to allocate funds to support the development of a work hub in Area East.

The Neighbourhood Development Officer (East) presented the report.  She explained that as a building hosting public sector organisations, Churchfields was not necessarily an ideal venue to house a work hub.  Although details of a scheme were still in the initial stages, members were asked to safeguard the funding of £8,000 until a more comprehensive report could be presented to the committee.

During discussion members were supportive of the recommendation at this stage and felt that the more people who could utilise the vacant space at Churchfield the better; however it was felt that the use of the building should be reviewed as a whole. They were advised that it was being actively marketed by an agent on behalf of SSDC but not advertised on Rightmove or other similar platforms.

In response, the Neighbourhood Development Officer said that at this stage the £8,000 should be used for the development of a work hub with the provision of some hot desking space within available accommodation at Churchfield offering the opportunity to test the potential demand. If a strong enough proposal could be developed corporate funds may also be sought.

In response to a request for an update on the future use and the marketing of Churchfield the Neighbourhood Development Officer confirmed that this would be provided together with a comprehensive report about Work Hubs to the June Committee.

Members unanimously approved the recommendation.

RESOLVED:

(1)       To allocate £8,000 from the Members Discretionary Budget ring fenced to support the development of work hubs in Area East, pending the bringing back of a worked up proposal to the Committee in June 2015.

(Voting: Unanimous in favour)

Reason: to allocate funds to support the development of a work hub in Area East.

It was agreed to defer this report for further discussion regarding marketing and work hubs in a report to be presented to members in June 2015.

Members noted that the reports on Work Hubs, Marketing of Area East and an update on the future use and the marketing of Churchfield should be presented to members in June/July 2015.

NOTED

NOTED

The Area Lead East presented the report as detailed in the agenda and gave several updates including:

·         A comment that had been received from Sparkford PC to say there were no comments to the amended plans;

·         An additional condition that was to be added to the report regarding a programme of archaeological work/investigation;

·         An amendment to the figures quoted on page 30 of the report that should now read:

Leisure Policy: seek a contribution of £152,455 (£5,445 per dwelling) towards towards the increased demand for outdoor playing space, sport and recreation facilities should the scheme be approved as follows:

•           £94,973 for local facilities, to go towards enhancing off-site equipped play provision and youth facilities at Sparkford Playing Field  and changing room provision at Sparkford Cricket Club and towards the enhancement of Sparkford Village Hall;

•           £39,929 for strategic facilities, to go towards theatre provision and an indoor tennis centre in Yeovil, , artificial pitches and swimming pool provision in Wincanton and a new sports hall;

•           £17,553 as a commuted sum towards local services;

With the aid of a power point presentation the officer showed the plans and amended layout, he explained that policy SS2 of the emerging local plan was relevant to Sparkford and his recommendation was to approve the application.

Mr J Crawford of Sparkford PC explained that while there was support for the commercial unit there was concern about the impact the extra dwellings would have on the local sewage system and felt that there was no identified need for more housing in Sparkford.

Mr Piper spoke in support of the application; he explained how the business needed more space to be able to continue, and by having a larger business unit they would be able to expand and add to their staff and take on apprentices

The agent Mr C Winter urged members to approve the application which would include low cost home ownership and maintain job opportunities.

Ward Member Cllr Mike Lewis said housing should be secured for local people now that the Local Plan had been adopted. He was concerned about the sewage that currently came down from the local private school once it re-opened after the long summer holiday closedown and effected local residents. Wessex Water had been unable to resolve that situation.  Cllr Lewis suggested that a letter should be sent to Wessex Water on behalf of AEC highlighting concerns about the sewage system in Sparkford.  In conclusion he welcomed the expansion of the business and he felt that it would be unreasonable to object to the application.

During discussion varying views were expressed including:

·         Concerned about the impact any additional noise from the commercial unit would have on the nearby dwellings;

·         A lower level of social housing was required;

·         Affordable dwellings should be split into rented and shared ownership to help local young people

·         Supported the expansion of the local business.

A proposal was made and seconded to approve the application as per the officer’s recommendation, to include  ...  view the full minutes text for item 192.

On behalf of his colleague, the Area Lead East presented the report as detailed in the agenda.  He provided members with several updates including:

·         A letter from the owner of the nearby caravan park regarding the close proximity of proposed plots 1 & 2 to their private residence and proposed Plot 8 which would leave the caravan park vulnerable to the elements during the winter months due to lack of screening; and concern that access to the caravan park would be obstructed.

·         Sparkford PC raised concerns about highway and safety issues and access between the site and the High Street; drainage issues in particular sewage in the village, the site was also considered unsuitable for development because of noise from the nearby A303.

The Area Lead East stated that at least 35% of the dwellings would be affordable homes; that detail had been missed from the planning report. It was proposed that the terrace of four would probably be affordable.  With the aid of a power point presentation the officer showed the site and proposed plans, he confirmed that the recommendation was to approve the application as detailed in the report and to include at least 35% affordable dwellings.

Mr J Crawford of Sparkford PC informed the committee that Sparkford did not need any more low cost housing, there was concern regarding flooding, screening from the site and, access to the High Street.  He suggested that if approved the S106 obligation should include funding for the bus service, a new footpath and pavement to the public house.

Mr Ryan and Mr Allan both spoke in opposition to the application and raised concern that by building more properties the sewage /drainage problem would become worse, the development would be contrary to SS2, there was no local support for this application and no benefit to the community

The agent Mr Sinclair advised that included in the development would be a water scheme to alleviate run off from the site, there would be various dwelling types and local materials would be used.

Ward Member, Cllr Mike Lewis advised that although SCC Highways had considered there were no traffic impact grounds to refuse the application, local residents were very concerned about the traffic and the effect the parked cars along the High Street would have . Cllr Lewis was concerned about the access and egress into and out of the site, he also felt the footpath should be enhanced and the issues raised regarding drainage needed to be dealt with.

During discussion varying views were expressed, including:

·         Wessex Water should advise the developer regarding the drainage system which was currently of concern to local people .and they  should be accountable and address the issues;

·         It appeared that there were currently no local applicants for social housing in Sparkford;

·         Local people with local knowledge should be able to decide on an application rather than an inspector making a decision as a result of an appeal.;

·         The drainage issues should be addressed before any decision was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 193.

The Planning Officer presented the report as detailed in the agenda.  He provided members with the following updates

·         The Landscape Officer who with, additional landscape evidence considered the impact was now less than moderate adverse;

·         A slight amendment to the wording of proposed condition 09 approved planting to be carried out in the immediate planting season following commencement of development;

·         Additional conditions to agree where concrete bases for panels were to be used and a requirement for additional offsite planting.

With the aid of a power point presentation the officer showed the site layout, a drawing from the agent showing additional planting to break up the views form the site and an. overhead map showing the cumulative sites. He confirmed that the recommendation was to approve the application.

Mr B Jackson and Mrs L Elson both spoke in objection to the application, if this was approved Mr Jackson would be able to see all 3 solar parks from his house he considered it better to put solar panels on the roofs of dwellings rather than agricultural land. Mrs Elson was concerned on behalf of CPRE (Campaign to Protect Rural England) that the unique view of the area would be spoilt, and walkers would be upset that the park would cross the footpath.

The agent Mr Carpendale said that metal spikes would be used instead of concrete bases; there was no public footpath across the site and the land was Grade 4.  The other sites were unobtrusive and the views to this site were limited, a mix of trees would be planted.

Ward Member Cllr Nick Colbert was concerned about the cumulative impact and would prefer to see hydro-electric power.

Ward Member Cllr Colin Winder had visited the site and did not think the park would impact the view he also confirmed that Wincanton Town Council were not quire unanimous in favour of the application. He proposed to approve the application.

During discussion varying views were expressed including:

·         Would prefer to see panels on dwellings with energy direct to users;

·         Preferred this application as opposed to one for wind turbines.

In response to queries the Area Lead East replied that there was no reason to doubt proposed condition 02 that the land would be restored to its former condition within 25years of the date of permission.  If the ground was poor some panels may need to be placed on concrete for stability and a condition would be added to cover that. Another additional condition could be added to ensure extra offsite planting.

The proposal to approve the application was seconded and on being put to the vote the motion was carried 4 votes in favour and 3 abstentions.

RESOLVED:That Planning Application 14/05472/FUL be approved as per the officer’s recommendation for the following reason:

01.       Notwithstanding local concerns it is considered that the benefits in terms of the provision of a renewable source of energy, which will make a valuable contribution towards cutting greenhouse gas emissions, outweigh the limited impact  ...  view the full minutes text for item 194.

The Area Lead East presented the report on behalf of his colleague as detailed in the agenda report. He explained that the application was for AEC members to consider because the government had removed the tariff based contributions from small developments and the applicant was not agreeable to making the contributions.

Ward Member Cllr John Calvert proposed that this application should be deferred for further negotiation to ask the applicant to retain the local component of the sports, arts and leisure contributions.

The motion was seconded and on being put to the vote was carried by 6 votes in favour and 1 against.

RESOLVED:That Planning Application 15/00407/DPO be deferred for a formal request to be put to applicant to retain the local component of the sports, arts and leisure contributions.

(Voting:6 in favour; 1 against)

The Planning Officer presented the application as detailed in the agenda with the aid of a power point presentation showed drawings and levels of the height of the proposed bund compared to the roadway.

The office advised that there was a slight amendment to proposed condition 02 which should now read: The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the

following approved plans numbered 2088-1B Revision B received 08/01/2015, DLA.1621.L001.01 Rev D received 23/02/2015 and Sections Plan received 27/02/2015.

In response to a query the Area Lead East replied that if there was concern regarding the material used to form the bund a condition could be added that all additional materials imported to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.  This application was one to vary the configuration of the acoustic barrier and conditions should not be more onerous than the original application.

During discussion varying views were expressed including:

·         Only earth should be used to form the bund;

·         The (Environment Agency) EA should be notified if tarmac had been used to infill the bund;

·         Could not understand the need to raise the height of the bund;

·         The right of way would be unaffected by this application;

·         The footprint was not altered;

·         This bund would be preferable to concrete pillars;

·         If approved, trees should be planted to mask the bund.

The planning officer explained that the bund was to protect the property from noise from the nearby A303, the EA was satisfied with the revised scheme.

It was proposed and seconded to approve the application as per the officer’s recommendation plus the amendments to conditions 02 and 07 and an additional condition 13 that all additional materials imported to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

Development Control was requested to take up the issue with the EA regarding the tipping of unauthorised materials.

On being put to the vote, the motion was held by 3 votes in favour and 3 against.  The Chairman used his casting vote, with reservations, in favour of the application, therefore the motion was carried.

RESOLVED: That Planning Application 15/00070/FUL be approved as per the officers recommendation for the following reason:

The acoustic barrier, by reason of its form, scale and accompanying landscaping scheme, is considered to respect the characteristic pattern and features of the surrounding landscape, to cause no demonstrable harm to residential amenity or the rural amenities of the area or to adversely affect highway safety or the structural stability of the adjacent A303. The associated planting, which will provide enhanced habitat to the benefit of local ecology. The proposal therefore accords with the aims and objectives of saved policies ST3, ST5, ST6, EC1, EC3, EC7, EC8, EP1, EP3 and EP9 of the South Somerset Local Plan 2006, the policies of the emerging South Somerset Local Plan 2006-2028 as well as the National Planning Policy Framework.

Subject to the following:

01.       The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 196.

The Planning Officer presented the report and explained that the application had been deferred at the February  AEC meeting in order to negotiate with the applicant to seek their agreement to paying the contributions sought for local sports, arts and leisure facilities only and to omit the strategic contributions. The applicant had now agreed to this request.

Ward Member Cllr John Calvert proposed to approve the application as per the officer’s recommendation, the motion was duly seconded and on being put to the vote was carried unanimously in favour.

RESOLVED: That Planning Application 41/02896/OUT be approved as per the officers recommendation

Subject to:

09.  The prior completion of a S106 planning obligation (in a form acceptable to the Council’s solicitor(s)) before the decision notice granting planning permission is issued, the said planning obligation to cover the following issues:-

(09)        financial contributions towards offsite recreational infrastructure of £30,217 broken down as:

·           £19,333 for local facilities;

·           £485 for the new 3G AGP at Huish Episcopi Academy; and

·           £3,385 as a commuted sum towards local services;

For the following reason:

Keinton Mandeville by reason of its size and provision of services and facilities is considered a sustainable location in principle for appropriate development. The erection of six dwellings on this site, immediately adjacent to settlement limits would respect the character of the locality with no demonstrable harm to residential amenity or highway safety. As such the proposal complies with saved policies ST2, ST5, ST6, EC3, EC7, EC8, EH12 and EP1 of the South Somerset Local Plan, the provisions of the emerging local plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING:

09.Details of the appearance, landscaping, layout and scale (herein called the “reserved matters”) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before any development begins and the development shall be carried out as approved.

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

02.       Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the local planning authority before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission and the development shall begin no later than three years from the date of this permission or not later than two years from the approval of the last “reserved matters” to be approved.

Reason: As required by Section 92(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

03.       The site hereby approved for development shall be as shown on the submitted combined site plan and site layout (drawing number 1389/01) received 21/10/2013.

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

04.       The development hereby permitted shall comprise no more than 6 dwellings.

Reason: To ensure that the level and density of development is appropriate to the location and commensurate with levels of contributions sought in accordance with policies ST5, ST6, ST10 and EC3 of the South Somerset Local Plan.

05.       No development hereby approved shall take place unless the applicant,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 197.

The Area Lead East presented the report as detailed in full in the agenda.  He confirmed that the officer’s recommendation was to approve the application for a change of use.

The chairman advised members that this application was to consider the change of use only.

Cllr Tim Carroll addressed the committee on behalf of the Board of Trustees to the Balsam Centre who currently run a well organised children’s nursery. The demand for children’s nursery places would rise in the area, there was already a waiting list and this proposal would be to run a wrap-around nursery all year round for children aged from 0 years to 4years.

Ward Members Cllr Colin Winder and Nick Colbert had no objection in principle to the application.

The Planning Officer confirmed that any other future use would have to be considered by AEC members.

A short discussion ensued regarding the costing of the alterations to the building and the apparent under estimation of the costs to install additional toilets. Both Ward Members were annoyed as they felt that they had not been included in discussions, they also wanted to have more information about the use of Churchfield as a whole.

The Neighbourhood Development Officer advised the meeting that there would be an opportunity to share all the available information with ward members at a later date but this application was to enable a preferred end user to come to an agreement.  A full report would be presented to AEC members regarding Churchfield later in the year.

The chairman again advised members that this application was to consider the change of use only. 

A proposal was made and seconded to approve the application as per the officers recommendation. On being put to the vote the motion was carried by 6 votes in favour and 1 abstention.

RESOLVED: That Planning Application 15/00084/COUbe approved for the following reason:

01.       The proposed use is considered to be acceptable in this location, and causes no demonstrable harm to residential amenity or highway safety in accordance policies EH1, ST5 and ST6 of the South Somerset Local Plan, emerging local plan policies SD1, SS1, TA5, TA6, and EQ2, and the aims and objectives of the NPPF.

SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING:

01.       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.

02.       The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 1289-60 received 22 December 2014 and 1289-61 received 06 January 2015

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

03.       The area marked in pink on the submitted floor plan, 1289-60 received 22 December 2014, shall be used as children's day nursery and for no other purpose (including any other purpose in Class D1 of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order  ...  view the full minutes text for item 198.

The Area Lead East presented the report as detailed in the agenda which was to invite members of Area East Committee to provide a response to Somerset County Council regarding the application made to them for ‘the construction and operation of a waste transfer station (including retention of glass bays, garage/workshop, water tanks, weighbridge, parking and staff welfare facilities)” at the Dimmer landfill site.

The officer provided members with several updates that included:

·         A response from the SSDC Landscape Officer who felt that a condition should be added to mitigate the minor impact to the landscape;

·         The SSDC Ecologist  considered that there would be no adverse impact to the nearby Carymoor wildlife centre;

·         A letter regarding the lack of satisfactory road access;

·         A representation from the occupier of the mobile home on the site.

Ms V Nobles, Mr K Knight, Mr D Bryce, Mr A Gibbons, and Mr M Roberts all spoke in objection to the proposal to set up a permanent Waste Transfer Station at Dimmer in place of the temporary landfill site, mainly due to the adverse impact on the local highway, HGV’s entering and exiting from Dimmer, concern regarding the already narrow roads of Clanville and the proposed extended operating hours.

Ward Member Cllr Henry Hobhouse considered that SCC had broken promises about the closure of the site once landfill had ceased.  There was no economic justification for the proposal.

Ward Member Cllr Nick Weeks was concerned that if approved HGV’s would now be full whilst going in and out of the site.  Viridor should honour the agreement to close the existing site.

In response, members were advised that there would be some empty lorries exiting the site and the 1987 approval had been given for ‘Bad Neighbour Use’

During discussion varying views were expressed including:

·         The B3153 was now  a lot busier than it was when the approval was first given, it was far too narrow to accommodate large vehicles;

·         The local roads surrounding the site should either be changed to restrict the size of vehicles, or the business should be restricted and reclassified;

·         There should be no open ended use once the landfill permission ends in 2016;

·         SCC have strategic sites and non-strategic sites with differing levels of requirements this was a strategic site in the wrong location;

·         Do not agree with SCC highways statement and suggest that relevant SCC members visit the B3153 to see the issues for themselves;

·         Concerned about the cumulative highway impact other developments in the area would have on the local roads.

Members were unanimously in agreement to object to the applicationfor the following reasons:-

•           Site should close as per previous permissions/understandings. Temporary permission should be enforced;

•           Use by bigger lorries not appropriate;

•           Additional traffic cannot be accommodated by local road network;

•           Dimmer appeal established highways capacity issues;

•           Road not suitable for HGV movements on this scale;

•           Do not accept highways statement;

•           Cumulative highways impacts with other developments;

•           County members need to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 199.