Agenda and minutes

The minutes of the meeting held on 12^h August 2015, copies of which had been circulated, were agreed and signed by the Chairman.

An apology for absence was received from Cllr David Norris.

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.

There were no declarations of interest at this stage of the meeting.

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.

Mr P Trevethan addressed the committee with reference to the Charlton Mackrell and West Charlton Conservation Area Review that had been considered at the last Area East Committee meeting held on 12^th August 2015. He was unhappy with the members’ resolution at that meeting and the short consultation period. He read an extract from Section 71 of the Planning Act regarding Conservation Areas. He felt that AEC members had let him down.

In response the ADM explained that there was a duty to ensure that Conservation Areas were kept under review but for amendments there was no requirement to consult.  At the last AEC meeting Councillors had resolved to support the amendments to the designated area subject to confirmation of support from Charlton Mackrell PC at their next PC meeting. The decision then to be confirmed by the Conservation Manager in liaison with the Ward Member and, once approved, the changes would be advertised in accordance with the requirements of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

At the meeting of the Charltons PC held on 25^th August 2015 it had been unanimously agreed to approve the amendments to the designated Charlton Mackrell Conservation area.  With the agreement of the ward member the formal processes of notification and advertising of the extension to the conservation area were then put in place.  The ADM explained that this was a simple extension to the Conservation Area and not a new area or a fuller Conservation Area Appraisal which would be a more consultative process.

Cllr Anna Groskop, as a member of the Standards Committee, confirmed that that Committee had come to the conclusion that there had been no wrong doing with the process and they were content to abide with the resolution made by AEC.

In conclusion the Chairman replied that if the Charltons PC had not supported the recommendation regarding the extension, AEC would have reconsidered the matter.

Cllr Tim Inglefield reported that Mrs Lilian Elson, a local resident and regular attendee of AEC meetings had published a book about Montague Harriers.

Mrs Elson addressed the committee with reference to Agenda Item 10, the Streetscene Service.  She wished to thank the service for the help given with a long running problem in Holton but since a recent successful prosecution, there had been no further problems.

Cllr Tony Capozzoli wished it to be noted that Planning Application 15/03137/FUL, Agenda Item 14 was in the parish of Mudford.

Cllr Colin Winder asked for the Local Plan Conservation Strategy to be progressed as quickly as possible as there was currently no policy document.  During discussion it was decided that the document did need to be adopted as soon as possible and until it was, it could not form part of the policy; therefore the work needed to be carried forward quickly.  A letter would be sent to the Planning Service on behalf of AEC requesting that the work should be carried out as quickly as possible.  Ten members  ...  view the full minutes text for item 68.

There were no reports from Members representing the District Council on Outside Organisations.

There had been no recent meetings of the Regulation Committee.

There were no Chairman announcements.

Members are asked to note that the date of the next scheduled meeting of the committee will be at the Council Offices, Churchfield, Wincanton on 14^th October 2015. 

Members noted the date of the next meeting would be Wednesday 14^th October 2015 at 9.00am at Churchfield Wincanton.

Sergeant Dean Hamilton and Police Inspector Tim Coombe, the officers responsible for neighbourhood policing across Area East,and South Somerset attended Area East Committee.

Sergeant Dean Hamilton said that the team was very much the same as it had been a year ago when he had last attended AEC.  Comparing the statistics from April 2015 until September 2015 to those of last year it was noted that there was a very slight increase in crime from non-dwelling burglaries (sheds etc) and crime against the person, this was mainly due to the different way that crime was now being recorded, for example if a lock was broken but nothing taken in the process it would still have to be recorded as a crime having taken place.

In response to queries Sergeant Dean Hamilton and Police Inspector Tim Coombe both replied:

·         Although there was a general increase in population the number of calls to the service remained the same;

·         Crimes on businesses were included in the stats;

·         Response times were good;

·         On-line crime was particularly prevalent but there was not enough staff to cover most of those issues and in most cases it was minor on-line squabbles that would not warrant prosecution but would take up a lot of staff time;

·         The local office at Ilchester was not currently manned but was occasionally used by PCSO’s’

·         With reference to PCSO’s the community should give their support to ensure that there was an ongoing presence in the area.  There were no plans afoot to further reduce the number of PCSO hours once the reduction in flexible retirement hours had been taken into account;

·         It was policy to have single crewing in a police car, colleagues can be called upon quickly if necessary. Risk Assessments were made on certain premises and would be marked accordingly to warn if more than one officer would be required to attend;

·         As much detail as possible was taken when attending a reported crime but it was difficult if there was no knowledge of who the victim was;

·         Special Constables were still used in the force but they were volunteers and unpaid. At their requests they were used in the busier market towns during weekend periods as the ‘specials’ preferred that rather than the relatively quiet rural towns;

·         If any Councillors knew of any prospective candidates who would like to make up a mature community patrol team to let the police officers know.

The chairman thanked the officers for taking time out of their busy schedule to attend Area East committee.

The Streetscene Manager presented the report as detailed in full the agenda.

In response to questions he replied that:

·         Ward Members should contact the service if during their travels they found or heard of any Rights of Way that required maintenance work;

·         Councillors should contact him direct with any suggestions of what the Streetscene Service should focus on over the next 6 months;

·         He would enquire further into the report about offensive litter found in Wincanton particularly as both Ward Members had no knowledge of the matter;

·         He would speak to Cllr Capozzoli about his request to have some gulley’s cleared in Ilchester;

·         Because of the rural nature and geography of South Somerset it would not be prudent to use small road sweepers;

·         He was pleased with the response of help for the Clean-up Wincanton weekend and the youth of Ilchester who blitzed their village over one weekend.

The Streetscene Manager was thanked for the service he and his team provided.

RESOLVED: That members commented on the report

Cllr Tim Inglefield asked the ADM to find out when the update on Henstridge Airfield could be on the forward plan as he felt that a report should be presented to committee as soon as possible.

Cllr Anna Groskop asked for an update report from the Clinical Commissioning Group on the future provision of medical care in Area East.

The ADM would ask the Conservation Manager to include details of the process of Conservation appraisals and Conservation Area changes in his report due on the agenda next month.

NOTED

NOTED

It was noted that Planning Application 15/03070/FUL had been withdrawn.

NOTED

The Area Lead South presented the application on behalf of a colleague, as detailed in the report in the agenda.  With the aid of a power point presentation he showed details of the site and photographs of nearby properties and the Nissan hut that would be removed should the application be approved.

The Officer provided members with an update from Marcus Fysh MP who had been contacted by concerned residents who were worried about an increase in noise due to barking dogs housed in the kennels; Mr Fysh felt that a noise attenuation scheme was required before any decision was made on the application.

The Area Lead South confirmed that all matters had been addressed within the report and that a noise mitigation scheme was required by a condition.  He confirmed that the recommendation was to approve the application.

Mrs Boyd, a member of the Parish Council and a near neighbour to the application site but not mentioned in the report, objected to the application as she was concerned about the noise that would emanate from barking dogs, and she felt that it would destroy the current tranquillity of her home.

Mr T Jones spoke on behalf of Mrs Boyd in objection to the application.  He explained that at one time Mrs Boyd could often hear the sound from the radio of the previous occupiers of the application site; therefore it stood to reason that she would easily hear the noise from barking dogs.  If approved, several people living around the site would lose peaceful enjoyment of their homes due to the unpredictable noise of barking dogs.

Mrs J Williams, Mr H Wilkinson and Mrs L Matraves all spoke in opposition to the application and felt that the views of the Parish Council and the community should be taken on board, the area was currently peaceful and the noise of barking dogs would destroy that.

Mr Dance the agent addressed the committee and urged members to approve the application particularly as the Environmental Protection Officer could not substantiate an objection to the application and he had recommended a condition to develop an acoustic attenuation scheme.  The way the kennels were designed the dogs would. be unable to see each other and they would not be exercised together thereby limiting the amount of noise.

Ward Member Cllr Tony Capozzoli spoke in objection to the application; he was concerned that no mention had been made within the officer’s report regarding the diversification from a farm to dog boarding kennels. He also noted the application site was within the parish of Mudford and not Limington as described in the report.  He felt the application should be refused as the tranquillity of the area would be spoilt.

During the opportunity to correct a mis-statement Mr Williams pointed out that it would be preferable if the dogs (maximum of 22) were exercised together, as the time spent exercising them would be carried out over a shorter period.

During discussion several issues were raised, some  ...  view the full minutes text for item 78.

This application was withdrawn prior to committee.

The Area Lead South presented the application as detailed in the agenda; with the aid of a power point presentation he showed photographs of the different types and colours of shop fronts in the area.

The officer confirmed that the recommendation was to approve the application.

Ward Member Cllr Nick Weeks apologised for bringing this application to committee but he had failed to get his views to the planning officer within the timescale, however he was concerned that the applicant frequently put in retrospective applications at this location.

Ward Member Cllr Henry Hobhouse disagreed with Cllr Weeks in as much as he felt that the application should be considered by AEC members; the applicant had a history of retrospective applications and never consulted prior to putting a planning application into SSDC.  Cllr Hobhouse considered that this application should be refused.

During a short discussion mention was made of a previous application regarding the removal of a spiral staircase at the property; the Area Lead East agreed to revisit the files to check up on the current situation.

The majority of members expressed their support for the application but asked the case officer to express their concerns in a letter about repeated retrospective applications at these premises.

A proposal was made and seconded to approve the application and on being put to the vote the motion was carried by 10 votes in favour and 1 against.

RESOLVED: That Planning Application 14/04966/LBC be approved as per the officer’s recommendation:-

01.       The proposal is of a design in terms of materials, detailing and scale, which does not adversely affect the character of the Listed Building and its setting, in accordance with the aims and objectives of Policy EQ3 of the South Somerset Local Plan 2006-2028.

SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING:

01.       Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 18 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 this consent shall be deemed to have been implemented on 15 June 2015 as prescribed by Section 8 of the above Act.

            Reason - To comply with section 8 of the above Act

The Case Officer to send the applicant a letter to express the concerns of AEC about repeated retrospective planning applications at these premises.

(Voting: 10 in favour; 1 against)

Prior to consideration of this report the Legal Services Manager reminded District Councillors who were also Somerset County Councillors that although this item was only for discussion, members were being asked to agree which comments should be sent to SCC as SSDC’s formal response to the County’s planning application, and she advised that they should declare a personal interest in this item

Cllr William Wallace declared a personal interest as he was a Somerset County Councillor.

The Area Lead South explained that this application had been referred for Committee consideration, in order to deliberate the Council's response to this Somerset County Council planning consultation. With the aid of a power point presentation, details of the layout of the site were shown and drawings to show the levels of the proposed building and how it would be set into the landscape. He explained that the application was for a school with seven classrooms with the ability to extend to fourteen if necessary.

At the recent Area South Committee meeting Councillors had requested the following to be added to their response:

·         more available parking spaces at the school;

·         means of access via a new road off Lyde Road rather than through the Wyndham Park estate;

·         concerns’ regarding the white render material to be used on the proposed building.

Mr Tony Cavalier spoke as Vice Chairman of Mudford Parish Council who had suggested that the application should be refused and after taking advice had considered the application to be unlawful.  They also felt the application was premature; out of context with the Mudford site; and should not be considered in isolation.

Mrs L Elson representing the CPRE concurred with Mr Cavalier and felt that a school should not be built without the development of houses.

Ward Member Cllr Tony Capozzoli could not support the application, as he did not think the school should be built without planning approval for the houses; however he felt that SCC would implement the application no matter what Councillors said.

The Area Lead South said that SCC would take on board the comments of SSDC.

Cllr Mike Lewis a Divisional Member of SCC declared a personal interest in the application.  He shared the same concerns as Mudford PC.  He recommended that there should be more car parking spaces and that construction traffic should use a new access route off Lyde Road and not via Wyndham Park.  The issue regarding the access needed to be agreed before any school was built; he felt that the application was premature.

Members proceeded to discuss the application, comments and views were expressed including the following:

·         Were aware that as soon as the school with the 7 classrooms was built it would be full;

·         Parking spaces would be required for staff alone;

·         A permanent access road was required not a temporary one;

·         Was the site the best possible site for a school?

·         This application was a Trojan horse for a larger application;

·         Concern that there could be anthrax spores in the vicinity;  ...  view the full minutes text for item 81.