Agenda and minutes

The minutes for the meetings held on 8^th April and 10^th June 2015, copies of which had been circulated were agreed and signed by the chairman.

An apology for absence had been received from Cllr Sarah Dyke-Bracher.

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 Sarah Dyke-Bracher, Tony Capozzoli and Nick Weeks.

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 Anna Groskop declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 9 as she is a director of SSCAT.

Cllrs William Wallace, Mike Lewis and Anna Groskop all members of SCC (Somerset County Council) would only declare a prejudicial interest in any business on the agenda where there was a financial benefit or gain or advantage to SCC which would be at a cost or to the financial disadvantage of SSDC. Cllr Anna Groskop was also a portfolio holder for Health & Wellbeing at SCC.

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)    Angela Barton addressed the committee in order to make AEC members aware of her views regarding Item 17, Henstridge Airfield the last item on the agenda, which would be discussed by members in a confidential session. She explained that she had represented Henstridge PC for a number of years and was fully aware of the historical issues of the airfield and its uses. All local residents wanted was to have their right to residential amenity respected, and on the advice of SSDC, residents had reported many breaches of conditions over the last 5 years.  She suggested that if no action was taken there was a possibility of obtaining prescriptive rights by virtue of continued breach of conditions and urged members to look to a Discontinuance Order.

Laura Courtney explained that in the 1990’s she had represented the area at an inquiry regarding the airfield and in her opinion the site had not continuously been used as an airfield.  She quoted the Opinion of the eminent Queens Counsel John Steel who offered a way forward to ‘resolve to grant planning permission with reasonable conditions as set out’.  Mrs Courtney asked members to act in accordance with his Legal Opinion and instruct him to draw up reasonable and precise controls.

b)    It was suggested that Cllr Colin Winder ask the Area East admin to contact the Streetscene Service to find out the whereabouts of the missing street lamp in Wincanton.

Due to members concern about the Planning Inspectors decision to allow an appeal and grant outline planning permission for the erection of up to 25 dwellings on land at Dancing Lane, Wincanton, it was agreed to ask the Development Manager to bring a report regarding the way forward to appeal this decision and the possibility of a judicial review of the Inspectors decision to AEC in September.

Further discussion ensued about the need for consistent decisions regarding the issue of sustainability and the grading of agricultural land when considering planning applications.

Cllr Mike Lewis informed AEC members that the scheduled meeting of the Rivers Authority had been cancelled and no rearranged date had yet been decided.

There had been no recent meeting of the Regulation Committee.

The Chairman advised that at a recent meeting with the area chairs it had been decided to hold a further meeting on 22nd July with the planning service, in order to discuss the way Planning Officers dealt with Policy SS2 as they wished to ensure there was greater understanding to help to achieve more consistency with planning decisions.

Members are asked to note that the next scheduled meeting of the committee will be held on 12^th August 2015 at 9.00am 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 12^th August 2015 at 9.00 am.

The SSDC Transport Strategy Officer updated members on the current work being undertaken to reflect South Somerset District Council’s corporate aims to help communities to develop transport schemes and local solutions to reduce rural isolation as detailed within the agenda report.

The SSCAT (South Somerset Community Accessible Transport) Manager Andy Chilton also updated members on the progress made last year and informed them how the scheme had continued to grow.

In response to questions the SSCAT Manager and Transport Strategy Officer confirmed that there was still a substantial sum in reserves for vehicle replacement, the priority for him next year would be to place bids for further revenue grants. It was confirmed that people from North Dorset did use the service which was primarily used to take them to their doctors, but if too far away the social car would be put to use rather than the mini bus.  As suggested in future any report regarding local transport would be copied to the relevant SCC Portfolio Holder.

The Area Development Manager agreed to follow up the request that had been made to SCC for possible S106 funding for sustainable transport on the Deansley Way development in particular, and ensure that SCC were made aware of the concern of AEC, she would also ensure that a letter was sent on behalf of AEC to propose that both authorities should confer when it came to making a decision about how and where S106 funds were spent on sustainable transport for key sites.

In conclusion the Chairman thanked both officers for the detailed reports and suggested that all AE councillors should make their constituents aware of and make use of the SSCAT.

RESOLVED: That members note the contents of this report.

The Neighbourhood Development Officer presented the report as detailed in the agenda she asked members to note the figures in the column May 2015 that had been missed from the agenda report and should read:

In response to a query the officer said that there was no direct follow up of active users and she recognised there was a need to increase awareness of the app.

During the short discussion it was felt that more effort should be put into ensuring that major attractions link into the facilities of the local market towns in order for visitors to have the opportunity to explore the area fully. Although it was noted that the number of active users had not increased significantly, any increase was good news.  Ward Members should encourage their constituents to spread the word about the South Somerset Market Town app.

The chairman thanked the officer for the report and suggested this could be discussed further during the area workshop due to be held after the Area East Committee meeting.

RESOLVED:

1)    To note and comment on the report

2)    To approach major visitor attractions in Area East and explore the potential for collaborative marketing of the Area.

Members were advised that the confidential report Buildings at Risk update would be moved to the meeting due to be held on 14^th October and the update on Wincanton Community Sports Centre would be on the agenda for the meeting due to be held 11^th November 2015. The report on the Endorsement of Parish plans would be on the agenda for next month’s meeting on 12^th August, and a report on the appeal at Dancing Lane Wincanton was added to the forward plan.

Cllr Tim Inglefield referred to Planning Policy SS2 and asked the chairman to bring up the issue of sustainability and the confusion surrounding the policy when he attends the next Area Chairs meeting.

RESOLVED: That members were content to note the forward plan as detailed in the agenda and the proposed changes.

NOTED

NOTED

The Planning Officer presented the report as detailed in the agenda; she updated members with comments from a near neighbour who was concerned about the size of the extension, access from the proposed driveway and poor visibility.  With the aid of a power point presentation the officer showed access on to Queens Grove, aerial views of the site, existing floor plans and proposed floor plans.  She confirmed that the recommendation was to approve the application as detailed in full in the agenda.

Mrs J Steadman the chairman of Pen Selwood PC addressed members in objection to the application due to concern regarding access close to the turning into Queens Grove; and considered the proposal would be out of proportion and out of character.

A letter of objection from Mrs L Elson representing CPRE Somerset was read out to members.

Ward Member Cllr Mike Beech was concerned about the access and the fact that the proposed vehicular access and driveway apparently came under permitted development and as such, that part of the proposal would not need to be considered in detail.

The Area Lead East explained that as the road was unclassified there would be no requirement to request any changes to the proposed visibility splay and would be up to SCC to deal with any relevant issues, it would not come under the remit of the Local Authority therefore there would be no justification to refuse this application on Highway grounds.

During the short discussion varying views were expressed some of which included:

·         The extension would improve the existing property;

·         Although concerned about the proposed access there was no justification to refuse the application on highway grounds;

·         The proposed access would alter the streetscene;

·         Members were asked to consider the extension only and if approved must agree the materials to be used;

·         Visual and residential amenity would be harmed by the provision of a parking area to the front of the house;

·         Concerned about the state of the hedge along the frontage that needed to be cut back.

In response to several queries the Area Lead East explained that a condition could not be used for the access as that was outside the scope of the application. Render was the suggested medium for the extension as the existing stone was hard to match.  Although details of the frontage could be conditioned, neighbours could not be controlled and told to cut hedges.

The Legal Services Manager advised that conditions regarding the access could not be justified; the General Permitted Development Order was covered by its own conditions, which did include a general prohibition against jeopardising highway visibility, but could only be enforced once the works were completed. 

A proposal was made and seconded to approve the application as detailed in the agenda report.

On being put to the vote the motion was carried by 6 votes in favour; 3 against and 1 abstention.

RESOLVED: that Planning application 15/01886/FUL be approved as per the officers recommendation for the following reason:

The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 43.

The Planning Officer presented the report as detailed in the agenda and with the aid of a power point presentation showed details of the proximity of the application site to Yeovilton Air Base.  A previous application had been refused due to concern about aviation safety; this application sought to remedy that by proposing an earth bund from 2.4 to 3 metres high. The officer’s recommendation now was to approve the application.

Mr R Cotterell the director of British Solar Renewables addressed the committee he explained that sheep would be allowed to graze underneath the solar arrays and the issues with the MOD had now been dealt with by this application which accorded with planning policy.

Ward Member Cllr Mike Lewis although supported the application as the MoD were now satisfied, was concerned about what would happen if a problem was found after the arrays had been erected, he now felt that in torrential rain any run off from the panels could cause flooding on consolidated land.  He questioned who would be responsible for any remedial work that may need to be carried out.

The Planning Officer confirmed that there were several conditions that addressed drainage concerns and the ongoing maintenance and monitoring of the bund

During discussion several comments were made some of which included the following:

·         The risk to radar would be very low and the bund would solve any potential issues;

·         This application would be a blot on the landscape and it was questioned when a decision would be made to advise when Area East had too many solar arrays in the vicinity;

·         Wished to ensure there were stringent conditions during the construction stage during which the process needed to be clear, as the problems that occurred during construction of the Hook Valley site should not be repeated;

·         The only reason members had rejected the last planning application on this site was because the MOD had raised objections to it.

In response to various queries the Planning Officer and Area Lead East explained that page 46 of the Conservation Consultation response gave information of the locations of arrays and proposed arrays, any cumulative impact would not be a reason to reject the scheme, consideration should be given to any possible harmful impact that could be triggered.  The Hook Valley application was different to this as that was alongside a main road and proposed Conditions 12 and 13 covered the issue of a traffic management plan. The bund would remain in-situ after the 25years; a planning application would be required to remove it.

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 and 2 against.

RESOLVED: that Planning Application 14/00215/FUL be approved as per the officers recommendation for the following reason:

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  ...  view the full minutes text for item 44.

RESOLVED: That Members passed a resolution to exclude the press and public during consideration of item 17 as the public interest in maintaining the exemption from the Access to Information Rules outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.

RESOLVED: That Area East Committee noted the contents of the presentation by the Development Manager.