Agenda and minutes

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

There were no apologies for absence.

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.

a)    Mr J Jeremiah who attended most of the AEC meetings, thanked committee members for defending his bit of Somerset, and wished them all luck in the forthcoming elections.  He also thanked the Area East Development Manager (ADM) and her staff for their hard work covering the area.

Mrs L Elson wished to raise some issues with the Streetscene Manager but she was content to speak to him after his presentation.

b)    Cllr Mike Beech informed members that there would be a meeting on Friday 10^th April at 7.00 pm entitled ‘Save the Vale;

Cllr Anna Groskop said that there would be a meeting held in the Bruton Community Hall regarding the issue of trains stopping at Bruton.

’Cllr Colin Winder understood that a meeting regarding the Health Service was due to be held on 28^th April in Wincanton but he had no further details.

The ADM understood that the meeting was a Health and Social Care Forum intended for patient representatives and staff, she would check the terms of reference to see if it was appropriate for ward members to attend and inform them accordingly.

There were no reports from member’s representing the District Council on Outside Bodies.

There had been no recent meeting of the Regulation Committee.

The Chairman read a thank you letter from The Religious Society of Friends of Wincanton thanking AEC for their support by way of a grant towards the garden.

The chairman passed his good wishes to all those members intending to stand in the forthcoming local elections.

Members are asked to note that the next scheduled meeting of the committee will be held on 10^th June 2015 at The Council Offices, Churchfield, Wincanton.

Members noted that the date of the next scheduled meeting of the Area East Committee would be held on Wednesday 10^th June 2015 at 9.00 am

Cllr Mike Lewis thanked Cllr Nick Weeks for his time and effort spent as Chairman of AEC this term.

The Streetscene Manager summarised the agenda report, which informed members of the performance of the Streetscene Service in Area East for the period April 2014 – March 2015.

During the ensuing discussion, the Streetscene Manager noted the comments of members and responded to questions on points of detail: 

·         SSDC contributes to litter picking on roads within South Somerset from their budget but litter picking on motorways comes from the Highway Agency budget;

·         Environmental Health are now responsible for enforcement regarding fly tips;

·         Hidden cameras, although useful, do have limitations;

·         It cost approximately £60,000 a year to employ the Streestcene response team and 60 – 70% of their time is spent on flytip collections. (he would provide Cllr Tony Capozzoli with full details);

·         Although more flytips were reported nowadays, the quick response to clearing them meant that South Somerset currently looked very tidy;

·         If faced with snow fall, the quad bikes would be deployed to clear High Streets and crossing areas in the first instance but Councillors were encouraged to contact him should there be other area of concern;

·         Missing litter bins were an ongoing issue and a puzzle, however if Parish and Town councils decided to replace them the Sreetscene Service would empty them;

·         He suggested that he would produce a report on the issue of litter and dog waste bins which would include options for a strategy on distribution of bins.

·         He would take note of the comments and pass them on to the Waste Board regarding the Dimmer Recycling Centre being shut on a Thursday and in particular will pass on the suggestion of letting those who turn up with rubbish allowing them to leave it in a designated area near the entrance to the centre;

·         With reference to the Community Payback Scheme the Streetscene Manager was able to state what work needed priority but as it was a new scheme time would be required to see what worked best;

·         There was an idea in hand regarding litter picking along the B3153 caused by waste falling from the recycling lorries on their way to the recycling centre.

The chairman thanked the Streetscene Manager for the excellent work he and his team had carried out.

The (ADM) Area East Development Manager, with the aid of a power point presentation provided members with an overview of Area East progress and achievements during 2014/15. The following themes were highlighted

Priority Theme 1: Town centre and neighbourhood management: -

·         The Market House, Castle Cary where a full programme of activities in had been organised

·         Market Towns Investment Group:

·         A total of £32,155 had been secured for Market Towns in Area East:£16,000 towards improving the Riverside Walk in Bruton; £12,500 towards extending Millbrook Gardens Car Park in Castle Cary; £10,000 towards Moor Lane cycleway and footpath and £3,645 towards the transport interchange improvements in the Memorial Hall Car Park;

·         Support and develop Town Team type work in market towns:

·         Deanesly Way - a short life action group: a new residents’ Welcome Pack was printed and distributed; Pressure maintained on developer to progress play, education and highways infrastructure. Opportunities to integrate new families with existing facilities explored eg: free membership at Wincanton Sports Ground, Investigation into emergency health care provision and close links were developed with MoD and Housing Associations.

Priority Theme 2: Economic Development, job creation and regeneration schemes HoW Leader Programme will be formally launched in June 2015 and £1.4 million of funding over 5 years has been secured.

·         Investigate work hubs

·         Invest in Wincanton High Street – enhanced RSI (Retail Support Initiative)

·         Seven RSI grants had been awarded this year against works to the value of £12,320;

·         Marketing of Area East an Inward investment website and brochure had been produced and the Market Town app was now available which features 9 market towns including Wincanton, Bruton and Castle Cary, and the re-launch of the Heart of Wessex Rail website;

·         Other regeneration projects included the Ilchester travel plan and Limington to Yeovil cycle path and the long awaited sign for the Wincanton Business Park;

·          Business led regeneration of which a good example was Hauser and Wirth in Bruton;

Priority Theme 3: Community-led planning and development the Queen Camel Neighbourhood Plan draft was complete, and the final formal consultation was set for May 2015 prior to the Test of Conformity and then a Referendum.

Other neighbourhood and community planning included:

·         Neighbourhood Plan in Wincanton;

·         Area Designation agreed;

·         Project Group gathering baseline data with support;

·         Neighbourhood Plan in Castle Cary;

·         Consultation on designation of area.

Support Parishes with Parish Plans; the draft Henstridge plan was complete; the Consultation phase for the Charltons parish plan was underway and an update of Parish profiles showing local infrastructure would be given after the elections. 

Support for Community Groups: 27 community groups had been funded and supported including 2 start-up grants for new organisations.  A report regarding community groups would be produced in the summer.

Priority Theme 4: Improve access to services and facilities to reduce inequality. A high quality access point and advice service is run for the public at Wincanton reception where there were a total of 4,454 enquiries of which 2,342 were for core services.

A creative  ...  view the full minutes text for item 216.

The Area East Development Manager summarised the agenda report, which informed members of the current situation with regard to the provision of minor injuries services in the Wincanton area.

During discussion, members felt that they needed the backing of SSDC as a whole in order to ensure that the Somerset Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) understood the concerns of AEC members and the local community.

With reference to the provision of school places to meet the growing needs of the town the issue should soon be alleviated by the expansion of the primary school by 30 places for September 2015 which should be achieved by the pre-school being relocated to a new building.

RESOLVED:

That the Committee

1.         Noted and commented on the report

2.         Request SSDC to make further representations to the CCG, as part of the current redesign of the urgent and emergency care system. 

(Voting: Unanimous in favour)

Reference was made to the cumulative impact of the substantial number of solar parks within Area East, and it was questioned whether the distribution/ cumulative impact of these developments was being monitored and whether there would be a policy to identify when the quota had been reached.

When members had been briefed last year about Henstridge Airfield they understood that a report would be presented to them in the spring, but it was noted that there was nothing timetabled in the Forward Plan. 

The ADM would make enquiries regarding both issues.

NOTED

NOTED

NOTED

Cllr Mike Lewis said that although he was a Somerset County Councillor he confirmed that he did not have a prejudicial interest in Planning Application 14/02020/OUT

The Area Lead East presented the application as detailed in the agenda report. He provided members with several updates including:

·         Confirmation that the Environment Agency had no further concerns;

·         Letters from 3 local residents: 2 worried about the level of development and traffic concerns and 1 regarding the badger set on the site that had recently been interfered with;

·         There had still been no objection from County highways;

·         Although an officer from County highways had been invited to attend the meeting no Highway officer was in attendance.

With the aid of a power point presentation the officer showed details of the site, proposed indicative layout, and photos of the vicinity.

The officer confirmed that the key considerations were:

·         Principle of development

·         Cumulative impact

·         Local landscape and visual amenity impact

·         Residential amenity

·         Highway issues

·         Planning obligations

He confirmed that his recommendation was to approve the application as detailed in full in the agenda report.

Mr N Begg, Mr A Gibbons, P Peppin, Mr R Antell, Mr C Kay, Mr M Bainbridge, Mrs C Bainbridge, Mrs C Sharley, V Nobles, K Boland, Mr W Vaughan, Ms L Johnston, Mr D boxer, S Lane, B M Lane, A Cleaveland and S Knapman all spoke in objection to the application ther comments included:

·         There was no real demand for new houses;

·         Wished to prevent over development;

·         A neighbourhood plan and design statement was in progress;

·         Concerns about road safety issues;

·         Anxious about the increase in traffic along the B3153;

·         Worried about the 3 Wessex Rail crossing points;

·         Understood the need for housing but if these were built out all at once only 53 new dwellings would then be required by 2028;

·         Phased development would be preferred;

·         Concern about the narrow roads in the vicinity;

·         The proposed link to the industrial site was not what had been intended locally;

·         Children and people with special needs would need a safer route into the town rather than that shown on the proposed plan;

·         If approved all monies from the S106 obligation should be used towards facilities in Castle Cary;

·         Existing brownfield sites should be developed first;

·         Would prefer that the neighbourhood plan was finished before any decision on the applications was made;

·         There would be more houses in the area than recommended in the Local Plan;

·         This application was piecemeal and inappropriate;

·         Concerned about the impact on the existing badger sets and if approved a buffer would be required and a condition regarding badger mitigation;

·         Disappointed that the badger group had not been invited to the meeting;

·         The existing school should not move out of the town centre;

·         Castle Cary did not need a new primary school, there was potential to extend the existing one;

·         There would be a huge impact on the community if all the planning applications pending, in the area were approved;

·         The application  ...  view the full minutes text for item 221.

The Planning Officer presented the application and with the aid of a power point presentation she showed details of the site etc.  She confirmed that her recommendation was to refuse the application to vary a planning condition regarding extending the shooting hours as detailed in the report.

The committee were then addressed by Mr P Horsington of Ilchester PC opposed to the application, he had received 15 letters of objection.  Concern was raised about the noise impact to residents of Podimore, due mainly to the change of the direction of shooting. The PC did not wish to destroy a local business but it did have a duty to the local residents.

Mr P White spoke in opposition to the application on behalf of villagers of Podimore who were affected at the weekends due to shooting activity. There had also been an increase in traffic along the single track access.  Mr White had tried to negotiate with the applicant to cease firing on Easter Sunday for a short while during the church service but the applicant had not complied.

The committee were then addressed by Mr S Travers, the agent, in support of the application.  He explained that the applicant employed 5 local employees and the club had a membership of 150 which helped with tourism.  He asked members to approve the application which he did not think made much of a noise impact to an already noisy corner of the district due to the close proximity of the nearby Naval Base at Yeovilton.

Ward Member Cllr Tony Capozzoli felt that the needs of residents in the vicinity should be given priority and proposed that the application be refused per the officers recommendation.

During discussion, varying views were expressed, including:

·         Residents living in Charlton Mackrell were also affected by the increased noise;

·         If this was not a commercial venture anyone could shoot as much as they liked;

·         Suggested not allowing shooting to take place on Sundays but to allow the other proposed times;

·         This was a retrospective application, the extended opening hours had been in operation illegally for over a year.

The Senior Environmental Protection Officer explained that he had investigated the noise issue on this site a year ago and had worked with the applicant.  He had found that there was no issue with shooting on a Wednesday due to activity from the Air Base at Yeovilton, but the weekends were quieter therefore the noise impact from the shooting was more noticeable to residents.  The officer felt that it was a shame that the applicant had not submitted a noise assessment to determine the likely impact on surrounding settlements and nearby dwellings.

It was proposed and seconded to refuse the application as per the officer’s recommendation and to proceed with enforcement action.

On being put to the vote the motion was carried by 7 votes in favour; 3 against and 1 abstention.

RESOLVED: That Planning Application15/00425/S73A be refused as per the officer recommendation for the following reason:

The application has  ...  view the full minutes text for item 222.

The Planning Officer presented the application as detailed in the agenda.  He provided members with several updates including the following revised planning obligations which differed to those that were printed in the agenda report:

Sports Arts and Leisure – Local Facilities

·         Contribution towards enhancing existing Town Hall in Ilchester - £78,328

·         The provision of play equipment in a centrally located LEAP of 681m2 with 30m buffer zones, provision of 170m2 youth facility space located adjacent LEAP with 30m buffer and their on-going maintenance through a management company to the satisfaction of the Assistant Director (Wellbeing).

Sports Arts and Leisure – Strategic

·         Contribution towards provision of new 3G pitch in Wincanton - £12,114

·         Contribution towards learner pool at Wincanton Sports Centre - £27,583

·         Contribution towards the enhancement of existing sports halls in Yeovil - £57,408

·         Total including admin fee of £1,754 is £177,188 or £1,181 per dwelling

·         Affordable Housing – 35% with tenure mix of 67:33 in favour of rented accommodation over other immediate types

·         Travel Planning measures

·         School – Contribution of £232,883 towards primary school places in Ilchester.

With the aid of a power point presentation the officer indicated the proposed site including the current fields, indicative plans, play facilities and access details plus relevant photos. He confirmed that his recommendation was to approve the application.

Brigadier N Knudson the chairman of Ilchester PC addressed the committee on behalf of several local residents who had reservations about the proposal and some concerns that included apprehension about the capacity of the existing Ilchester Surgery and the possibility of re-locating it; lack of employment opportunity; limited capacity at the local schools; a lack of facilities in the area; limited parking in the village centre and concern about the extra traffic that could potentially use the current no through road.

E Fowler the agent explained that housing need had been identified and this application was of an appropriate scale due to be phased and completed by 2020. The location was the best for development in the area. She understood the concerns regarding highways but the Highway officer had confirmed the proposed access was safe. Further trenching should begin soon but no archaeological issues were anticipated.

Ward Member Cllr Tony Capozzoli was concerned about the traffic issues although he welcomed further development, he would have liked to see the old Fosseway used by site vehicles and did not understand why a planning obligation contribution was to go towards Wincanton Sports Centre when Ilchester needed additional facilities.

In response to a query the Planning Officer confirmed that a detailed drainage solution had been included and was shown on the indicative layout.

During discussion, varying views were expressed including concern about the disparity between education provision in this application and a similar application for Castle Cary. Concern was raised about the proposed access to the new development through an existing housing estate and about surface water run-off.

The Development Manager explained that Development Control relied on SCC for information regarding education need. 

With reference to the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 223.

The Planning Officer presented the application which was deferred at the Area East Committee meeting on 11^th March 2015 as detailed in the agenda. The applicant had since agreed to retain a component of the local contributions sought.

Ward Member Cllr John Calvert had recently attended a meeting of Keinton Mandeville PC who were now happy with the application.

Cllr Anna Groskop said that she felt that once a S106 obligation was agreed no further changes should be made

It was then proposed and seconded to approve the application per the officer’s recommendation.

On being put to the vote the motion was carried unanimously in favour.

RESOLVED: That Planning Application 15/00407/DPO be approved as per the officer recommendation

To allow a variation to the Section 106 Agreement dated 19 January 2015 made between South Somerset District Council and Eric Mackenzie Limited. Such a variation to reduce the contributions from £5,036 per dwelling to £1,363.13 per dwelling. £6,912 of the contributions to be used towards enhancing the equipped play area at Keinton Mandeville Playing Field together with a sum of £3,993 as a commuted sum towards the long term maintenance of those facilities.

2.         To instruct the Council's Legal Services of the need to complete a deed of variation.

(Voting: Unanimous in favour)

Cllr Colin Winder left the meeting as he declared an interest because he had once worked on behalf of the applicant.

The Planning Officer presented the application, and with the aid of a power point presentation showed photos of the site and existing dwelling. He confirmed that his recommendation was to refuse the application as detailed in the report.

Mike Williams the agent addressed the meeting he described the history of the property which started off as a single storey barn; the proposed simple extension would be of a balanced proportion and would not be out of place in the countryside and would cause no harm.

Ward Member Cllr William Wallace, although appreciated the comments of the Conservation Officer, did not think the application would have an adverse impact on the local amenity.

Ward Member Cllr Tim Inglefield did not think the proposed changes were enough to warrant a refusal of the application.

Following a short discussion, members expressed their support for the application and it was proposed and seconded to approve the application contrary to the officer’s recommendation, as the size, scale and materials, respects the character of the area and causes no demonstrable harm to residential amenity. On being put to the vote the motion was carried unanimously in favour.

RESOLVED: That Planning Application 15/00113/FUL be approved contrary to the officer 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 in accordance with the aims and objectives of policy EQ2 of the South Somerset Local Plan 2006-2028, and the NPPF.

SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:

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

approved plans: 6450-02 received 12 January 2015.

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

(Voting: Unanimous in favour)

Cllr Colin Winder returned to the meeting.

The Planning Officer presented the report as detailed in the agenda; he explained that the Condition 2 (Agricultural Occupancy) of approved planning permission 791810 dated 30^th August 1979 had in effect, become a ‘dead letter’ and had outlived its usefulness, therefore his recommendation was to allow removal of the condition.

Ward Member, Cllr Colin Winder could not understand the reasoning behind this application and proposed to refuse it.

Ward Member Cllr Nick Colbert also wished to refuse the application and seconded the proposal.

During discussion, varying views were expressed: some members felt the application was just a formality and should be approved whilst others referred back to the issue of the certificate of lawfulness that had favoured continued occupancy without compliance to condition 2.

The Senior Legal Executive explained that the certificate of lawfulness had been granted because the applicant had provided sworn evidence to prove a breach of the condition and the Council had no contrary evidence of the same weight to contradict this, therefore following the legislation the determination had to be made in the applicants favour.  This certificate is granted in relation to the applicant’s occupation; however the condition could still bite on any subsequent occupier.

The proposal to refuse the application, as contrary to policy HG10, was put to the vote and the motion was carried by 6 votes in favour; 3 against and 1 abstention.

RESOLVED: That Application 15/00162/S73A, the removal of condition 2 of planning consent 791810 be refused as contrary to policy HG10.

(Voting: 6 in favour: 3 against;1 abstention)