Agenda, decisions and minutes

The Conservation Officer, with the aid of photographs, detailed the historic buildings at risk in Area East and provided Members with an update on the current position of each building.

The Conservation Officer and Conservation Manager responded to members’ questions on points of detail regarding specific cases. 

NOTED.

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the previous meeting held on 9^th September 2015.

The minutes of the meeting held on 9^th September 2015, copies of which had been circulated, were agreed and signed by the Chairman, subject to the following addition (in bold) to the Ward Members comments on Agenda item 14: Planning Application 15/03137/FUL Woodhouse Farm Limington - Boarding Kennels:-

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 officer’s report.  He felt the application should be refused as the tranquillity of the area would be spoilt.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Sarah Dyke-Bracher, Anna Groskop 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 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.

Councillor Michael Lewis declared a personal interest in Agenda item 15/02347/OUT: Land Os 1445 (part) Torbay Road, Castle Cary, as a member of Somerset County Council, who would be responsible for the primary school allocated to the site. 

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.

There were no questions from members of the public present.

Councillor Colin Winder reported that following receipt of the letter of 29^th September from the Assistant Director (Economy) regarding the Area East Committee’s enquiry as to the status of the Heritage Strategy in the Local Plan, he would be proposing a Motion at Council the following week relating to the completion and early adoption of the Heritage Strategy as part of the Local Plan documents.

Councillor Michael Lewis reported that survey work was being undertaken on the A303 at the current time.

Councillor Nick Weeks reported that he had attended a tour of the rivers Axe and Brue Drainage Boards and had seen their flood prevention works at first hand.

Councillor Henry Hobhouse reported that he had attended a Viridor/Dimmer Liaison meeting during September where they had discussed the possible water pollution of the river Cary from the Dimmer site.

Councillor Tim Inglefield reported that he was part of the working group looking at various District Councils in the area as suitable for partnership working and a report would be presented to Full Council the following week.

Councillor Colin Winder reported that he had attended a meeting of the South West Employers group in Taunton where it had been reported that local government pay increases would be set by the Government and the pension liabilities remained quite high.

It was noted that there had been no recent meetings of the Regulation Committee.

The Chairman advised that the Community Asset Transport Bus would be in the car park at 1.00pm for Members to view. 

The next scheduled meeting of Area East Committee will be held at The Council Offices Churchfield Wincanton on Wednesday 11^th November 2015 at 9.00am.

Members noted the date of the next meeting would be Wednesday 11^th November 2015 at 9.00am at Churchfield, Wincanton.

The Section 106 Monitoring Officer introduced his report to Members.  He advised that there had been two major changes in legislation affecting S106 obligations since his last report.  The first was that S106 obligations could not be sought from developments of 10 dwellings or less and the second was that no contributions could be sought for specific infrastructure projects if 5 or more obligations had already been entered into, and, the infrastructure was capable of being funded through Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL).

In response to questions from Members, the Section 106 Monitoring Officer advised:

·         The development recently given planning permission in Ilchester did not yet have a signed S106 obligation, so was not yet listed in the report.

·         He was awaiting a response from Wincanton Town Council on their plans for the S106 funding of £150,000 from the Deansley Way development.

·         |S106 funding had only been collected since 2006/07 by the District Council; prior to this the funding had gone to Somerset County Council for specific projects.

·         Once S106 money had been received from a developer, then the Ward Members and the Area Development and Sport, Arts and Leisure teams discussed the local projects it could be allocated to.

·         The choice of projects to allocate S106 funding towards was restrictive, however, CIL funding allowed more flexibility to choose local priorities like cycle paths. 

At the conclusion of the debate, the Chairman thanked the Section 106 Monitoring Officer for attending and Members were content to note the report. 

The Welfare & Careline Manager introduced her report and advised Members that the Careline service had over 2,000 customers across South Somerset who paid a weekly charge of £3.81 for the service.  She drew Members attention to their other services which included telecare, smoke detectors and epilepsy sensors.  She also noted that they assisted with hospital patient discharges by providing a free service for a limited period on discharge.  She said that they had 376 clients within Area East and she asked Members to promote the service to residents. 

In response to questions from Members, the Welfare & Careline Manager advised:

·         That Yarlington Homes operated their own lifeline service for their residents, however, the Careline service was also available to them. 

·         The service was promoted in Doctors surgeries.

·         There was a comfort call service available where an operator would call a client on a daily basis to check their well-being. 

During discussion, Members voiced their support for the service which allowed independence, comfort and security for elderly residents.  At the conclusion of the debate, the Chairman thanked the Welfare & Careline Manager for attending and providing an informative update report. 

(Voting: unanimous in favour)

The Neighbourhood Development Officer (Economy) reminded Members that they had received a report on Work Hubs in March 2015 where they had ring fenced £8,000 to progress the project.  She advised that there was vacant office space in Churchfield and elsewhere in town.  The research would explore demand for easy access hub facilities in the area.  The project was in its early stages and the allocated funding would only be spent if required. 

During a brief discussion, the Neighbourhood Development Officer (Economy) confirmed that a detailed proposal would be presented later, and, allocating the ring fenced funding would not restrict other projects. 

At the conclusion of the debate, Members unanimously agreed to allocate the funding as recommended. 

(Voting: unanimous in favour)

The Area Development Manager (East) advised that a confidential report on the Henstridge Airfield would be presented to the Committee in November.  Also a report on the powers available under Section 215 of the Town and Country Planning Act would be added to the Forward Plan.  She noted that the LEADER programme had only just commenced and so that report would be deferred until April 2016, when projects would be coming forward.

NOTED

The Chairman noted that the planning appeal at Dimmer had failed. 

NOTED

Members noted the Schedule of Planning Applications.

The Planning Officer presented the application as detailed in the agenda and with the aid of a powerpoint presentation showed the site and proposed plans.  He updated members that no further objection had been received from Milborne Port Parish Council on the amended scheme, although there is concern regarding the potential visual impact on the local surroundings.

He confirmed that the key considerations included:

·         Principle of Development

·         Landscape Character and Visual Appearance

·         Impact on Heritage Assets

·         Highway Safety

·         Residential Amenity

The Planning Officer told members that the original scheme had now been amended to reduce the area covered by the solar array and therefore made for a more compact site.  His recommendation was therefore to approve the application as detailed in the agenda report. 

Pamela Alexander, Representative of Milborne Port Parish Council, addressed the committee.  She confirmed that the Parish Council had no further objections to the amended scheme, however she requested that concerns be noted including:

·         The proposed development is adjacent to a relatively new housing estate.

·         Proposed access is located on a sharp bend in the road.

·         Considerable visual impact on the millennium view point.

·         If application approved requested that direct financial community benefit is guaranteed and that the adjacent site is not used for future development.

Sally Phipps spoke in objection to the application. She voiced her concerns regarding the visual impact the scheme would have on the surrounding countryside including tarnishing the beautiful views from many view points in the area.

Lilian Elsa also spoke in objection to the application.  She expressed her concern regarding the use of what is excellent agricultural land and the wildlife benefits of the current land use.  She felt that covering farmland with Solar Parks was not acceptable and should simply be kept to brownfield sites.

Mr Wai-Kit Chung, the applicant addressed the committee.  He reported that they were offering local people the chance to invest in the scheme and that this would financially support local projects.  He also explained that a suitable landscape scheme would be undertaken and that the land would continue to be used for agricultural use including the grazing of sheep on the land.  He said there would be direct feed to the nearby sub-station therefore reducing the need for lengthy cabling and concluded that all statutory consultees had raised no objections to the application.

Mr Gregory Evans the agent, explained that the scheme would produce electricity for over 900 local homes each year and that this was a small scheme offering financial community benefit to the local area.  He explained the scheme was temporary and therefore the land would return to normal use after the solar term had ended.  He referred to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) where clear advice states that renewable energy projects be supported where possible.  He concluded that no other viable land is available for this area.

Councillor Tim Inglefield spoke on behalf of Councillor Sarah Dyke-Bracher (Ward member) in her absence to express her concerns on the application.  These  ...  view the full minutes text for item 98.

The Planning Officer presented the application as detailed in the agenda and with the aid of a powerpoint presentation showed the site and proposed plans.  He referred to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) where clear guidance states that renewable energy projects be supported where impact on the surrounding area is proved acceptable.

He confirmed that the key considerations included:

·         Provision of Renewable Energy

·         Landscape Impact

·         Highway Safety

·         Impact on Amenity

·         Impact on Heritage Assets

The Planning officer also understood that there were some Archaeological remains on site which required Condition 15 to ensure further investigation work is carried out prior to commencement of works.  He also clarified to members that the NPPF states that there is not a requirement for the applicant to prove the need for the development as long as the impact is or can be made acceptable.  His recommendation was therefore to approve the application as detailed in the agenda report. 

Lilian Elsa spoke in objection to the application as representative of the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE).  She said this development would be contrary to the NPPF where decisions should look to protect areas of significant amenity value and raised concern where electricity cannot be stored with possible leakage from nearby sub-station.

Mr Richard Pelet spoke in support of the application.  He explained as Trustees of the land it carried heavy responsibility of heritage land which required constant upgrading.  It included Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSi) nearby and includes several long term tenanted farms. He said farming was currently in crisis and therefore there was a need for outside income from diversification to provide stability.  He concluded he had rejected larger proposals in the last 15 years including installation of windmills due to the massive impact these would have for miles around and that this was a small scheme which was out of the way but within proximity of the line of electricity.

Mr Rupert Cotterell, the applicant explained this scheme was an excellent way to utilise the land to supply green energy.  He said new hedgerows would be planted, there had been no objections from the statutory consultees and felt the impact on the landscape was minimal which caused no demonstrable harm to local residents and provided local financial benefit.  He therefore concluded the benefits of the provision outweighed any impact on the character of the land and accords with Planning Policy.

Councillor Tim Inglefield, Ward member raised concern regarding the increasing amount of these proposed schemes could have in the area.  He considered the location in this instance to represent an ideal site for such schemes being on top of a hill and bounded by hedgerow, and therefore considerably hidden from the roadside and general public view. He would therefore accept and support the application.

At this point of the discussion Dr Ewan Jones wished to correct a mis-statement in regard to comments made on both this and the previous application which opinion indicated Area East had more than delivered enough  ...  view the full minutes text for item 99.

The Planning Officer presented the application as detailed in the agenda and with the aid of a powerpoint presentation showed the site and proposed plans.  

He considered the proposed area to be a natural break between the general ‘ribbon’ arrangements to the east and singular cluster of building to the west.  He referred to the history of planning appeals within the area that had recently been dismissed on similar grounds and advised that should members be minded to approve the application the area could be subject to further infill and would expect a precedent to be set for further applications in this area. 

He considered the character and appearance would be detrimental to the area as perceived as a natural break between housing and therefore his recommendation was to refuse the recommendation for reasons as set out in the agenda report.

Janet Montgomery the Agent addressed the committee.  She advised members that the two single storey dwellings were for the elderly owners and that the other property for a member of the family.  She said this would allow the applicant and family to remain living locally and that this application has substantial amendments from the previous refused application.  She confirmed the applicant would be happy with the planting of an orchard should this be conditioned and the decision of the previous appeal decision on this site should be given little weight due to the recent changes in Planning Policy.  She concluded the development would provide social development where the Council fail to provide a five year land supply, aid economic growth and considered the development to be in keeping with the local area with a gradual easing along Lily Lane.

Councillor Tim Inglefield Ward member believed consideration should not be given to previous appeal decisions as policy had since changed and did not believe Policy SS2 to be strong enough to refuse the application.  He noted the local Parish Council had made no objection and considered that further development had already been established further along the lane.  If assurance was given to ensure orchard planting and exact residential area he would support the application.

During members’ discussion, several comments were made including the following:

·         Understood government guidance should aid the elderly were possible to downsize.

·         Each application should be considered on its own merits.

·         Should look to support local housing need.

·         Considered the proposal would not be detrimental to the character or appearance of the local area.

During a short debate, members led by the Area Leads North/East discussed and suggested reasons for approval.  It was then proposed and subsequently seconded that planning permission be approved, contrary to the officer’s recommendation for the following reasons as read out by the Area Leads North/East.

‘The proposal for 2 bungalows would meet a local need without detriment to the character of the locality, highways safety or residential amenity. As such the proposal complies with policies SS2, SD1 and EQ2 of the South Somerset Local Plan 2006-2028 and the policies contained within  ...  view the full minutes text for item 100.

Councillor Mike Lewis confirmed that as a Somerset County Councillor and although did not have a prejudicial interest in application 15/02347/OUT he would abstain from voting.

The Area Lead East presented the application as detailed in the agenda and with the aid of a powerpoint presentation showed the site, proposed plans, photos of the vicinity and coloured plan of the proposed schemes within the area and relationship with each. 

He proceeded to provide members with several updates including:

·         Clarified positon of support from Castle Cary Town Council with request for conditions to take account of:

o   Traffic management to ensure residential traffic exits onto Station Road with employment/industrial traffic exit onto Torbay Road. 

o   No ransom strips be contained within the site. 

o   Somerset County Council (SCC) consider the expansion of the existing primary school

o   Ensure Section 106 contributions remain in the community. 

·          ‘Care4Cary’ comments had also been received which included:

o   That SCC commit to expansion of the existing primary school.

o   Limit employment/commercial use onsite.

o   All residential traffic including construction traffic to be via Station Road with all residential traffic exit onto north of site Station Road with employment/industrial traffic exit to Torbay Road.

o   Preclusion of link road through the proposed site.

In response to these comments the Area East Lead clarified to members that:

·         Traffic management issues and layout can be established at reserved matter stage should members be minded to approve the application.

·         Ransom strip control is not typically recognised through planning condition.

·         Careful consideration should be given at this stage to restrict employment land use as any restrictions could prevent a local employer occupying the land.

·         A provision for modest construction traffic off Torbay Road for first 25 dwellings could be considered and restriction can be made should members be minded to approve the application.

The Area Lead East then proceeded to update members that:

·         The Area Development Team raised concern regarding the cumulative development and overall plan of all schemes within the area.  They welcomed the employment provision but were concerned over the expansion of such sites.

·         Somerset County Education had now revised and increased the cost of education per place to £14,007.00.

·         SCC as flood authority raised no objection to drainage subject to detail.

The Area East Lead also referred to the key considerations which included:

·         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 for reasons as detailed in the agenda report.

Mrs Liz Stokes Chair of Castle Cary Town Council addressed the committee.  She confirmed support for the proposal and recognised the need for new housing close to the town centre.  She referred to the draft Neighbourhood plan which would help and allow development in the town to grow appropriately and maintain the character of the town.  She confirmed positive negotiations had taken place with the applicant’s agent and therefore in this instance the Town Council would look to support  ...  view the full minutes text for item 101.

The Area Lead East presented the application as detailed in the agenda and with the aid of a powerpoint presentation showed the site, proposed plans, photos of the vicinity and a plan showing the relationship with the other proposed schemes in the area.

He proceeded to provide members with several updates including:

·         Clarified positon of support from Castle Cary Town Council whereby the same conditions were specified as in the previous application 14/15/02347/OUT with the exception of the no through route as does not apply in this case.  Comments also included that the access link onto Station Road be completed before work begins onsite and a detailed landscaping plan provided.

·         The Area Development Team echoed comments from the previous application 14/15/02347/OUT to include lack of overall plan, risk of sites coming forward in isolation and the overall cumulative effect for the area.

·         Applicant confirmed and content with the SCC education increase in the cost education per place to £14,007.00.

·         SCC as flood authority raised no objection to drainage subject to detail.

The Area East Lead also referred to the key considerations which included:

·         Principle of development

·         Cumulative impact

·         Local landscape and visual amenity impact

·         Residential amenity

·         Highway issues

·         Planning Obligations

The Area Lead East accepted that this application would put the housing figure marginally over the accepted level but as this is specified as a minimum number it was considered acceptable.  His recommendation was therefore to approve the application for reasons as detailed in the agenda report.

Mrs Liz Stokes Chair of Castle Cary Town Council addressed the committee.  She confirmed positive negotiations had taken place with the applicant and therefore in this instance the Town Council would look to support this application as only way to defend other applications and agree the best outcome for the local community.

Mrs Pek Peppin Chair of planning on Castle Cary Town Council addressed the committee.  She believed the Neighbourhood Plan was a legitimate way to planning and safeguarding development for the area and hoped that the two developers would work together to ensure a single access route onto Station Road and maintain road safety for local people.

Ms L Johnson, Ms V Noble, and Mr C Kay all spoke in objection to the application, their comments included:

·         Inadequate traffic assessments.

·         Reluctantly support the application but with strict conditions as specified by the Town Council.

·         Disappointed in the lack information and support from the Highway Authority.

·         Considered the proposed roundabout as indicated by the Neighbourhood design statement as simply the best means to serve the developments in the area.

Mr Barry Lane also addressed the committee.  He believed the site ought to have required a Masterplan to negate any issues from the scheme and make certain the precise location of the roundabout on Station Road.  He felt consideration should be given to include B1 employment provision on site and hoped the developer will work with the local people to establish an acceptable scheme.

Mr Kevin Bird the applicant then addressed the committee.  He  ...  view the full minutes text for item 102.

The Area Lead East presented the application as detailed in the agenda and with the aid of a powerpoint presentation showed the site, proposed plans and photos of the vicinity. 

He informed members of various updates including:

·         That Area Development comments reiterated concerns raised as per the two previous applications such as cumulative impact and also the possibility that these outline sites may come forward first resulting in isolated development.

·         Applicant confirmed and content with the SCC education increase in the cost education per place to £14,007.00.

·         SCC as flood authority raised no objection to drainage subject to detail.

The Area East Lead also referred to the key considerations which included:

·         Principle of development

·         Cumulative impact

·         Local landscape and visual amenity impact

·         Residential amenity

·         Highway issues

·         Planning Obligations

The Area Lead East concluded the proposal to have a lack of joined up planning with no way of safeguarding the possibility of leaving an isolated scheme.  He also raised concern regarding the remote point of access from the town and the lack of links to local community facilities and therefore questioned the sustainability of the scheme.  His recommendation was therefore to refuse the application as for the reasons as set out in the agenda report.

Mr Alan Gibbons from Ansford Parish Council addressed the committee.  He confirmed that the Parish Council did not support the application as considered this application was a ‘step too far’ and located in an isolated area with no links to the town centre and its facilities. 

Mr K Knight, Mr C Kay, Mr W Vaughan and Ms V Noble all spoke in objection to the application, their comments included:

·         Loss of greenfield/agricultural land.

·         Previously approved schemes should be developed first.

·         Cumulative impact of well over 450 houses which would be considerably above the housing requirement for this area.

·         Isolated site located well away from the town centre and its facilities.

·         Felt consideration should be given to the impending Neighbourhood Plan indicating this area to be a Greenfield site.

·         Would require yet another access onto Station Road impacting once more on the traffic within the area.

Mr Kevin Bird the applicant then addressed the committee.  He reminded members that this application was currently at appeal for non-determination and countered the reasons for refusal of this application.  He felt this application was no different from that of the previous application 15/02388/OUT that members had just approved.  He believed the scheme to be in no way detrimental to the area, was in the direction of growth and located opposite land already approved for development.   He confirmed that SSDC had accepted they did not have a five year land supply and that the housing figures for the area were merely an indication of the minimum requirement.  He confirmed a travel plan had been agreed with SCC, only three letters of objection had been received and believed this to be of little difference from that of the previous application.

Councillor Henry Hobhouse, Ward member raised concern regarding the isolated location  ...  view the full minutes text for item 103.

The Area Lead East presented the application as detailed in the agenda and with the aid of a powerpoint presentation showed the site, proposed plans and photos of the vicinity. 

He informed members of various updates including:

·         That Area Development comments reiterated concerns raised as per the previous applications such as lack of comprehensive planning and the possibility that these outline sites may come forward first resulting in isolated development.

·         SCC as Education Authority confirmed that 25 places would be required with the cost education per place of £14,007.00 equalling a total of £350,171.00.

·         Applicant content and in agreement of the requested housing and leisure contributions.

·         Castle Cary Town Council raised concerns which included; road safety issues, additional access point onto Station Road, in excess of the local plan housing requirement for the area and the lack of employment opportunity within the scheme.

·         SCC as flood authority raised no objection to drainage subject to detail.

·         Confirmed no objection raised from SCC Highways Authority subject to detail of Travel Plan.

The Area East Lead also referred to the key considerations which included:

·         Principle of development

·         Cumulative impact

·         Local landscape and visual amenity impact

·         Residential amenity

·         Highway issues

·         Planning Obligations

The Area Lead East concluded this proposal, although in the direction of growth, would be situated outside the area for development as indicated in the draft Neighbourhood Plan although reiterated limited weight should be given to this at this time.  He understood that should this development be approved it would take the housing requirement along with the other already approved developments to be over 60% of the requirement for the area and believed such excessive growth would be at odds with the town’s status in the District’s hierarchy.  His recommendation was therefore to refuse the application as for the reasons as set out in the agenda report.

Mr Alan Gibbons representative from Ansford Parish Council addressed the committee.  He considered this application was a ‘step too far’ and raised concern regarding the sloping levels of the site.  He concluded the scheme did not follow the requirements of the South Somerset Local Plan, raised concern regarding the traffic safety along Station Road and confirmed that for these reasons the Parish Council could not support the application.

Mrs Penny Steiner representative from Castle Cary Parish Council addressed the committee.  She confirmed the Parish Council unanimously opposed this application believing the local road network to already be under severe pressure especially as two additional developments had been approved.  She said the application exceeded the housing requirement for the area as indicated by the Local Plan and no employment opportunity had been identified.

Mr B Lane and Mr K Knight then spoke in objection to the application, their comments included:

·         No employment opportunity specified within the development.

·         Felt consideration should be given to the impending Neighbourhood Plan which had been prepared by hugely knowledgeable local people.

·         Local people’s views should be taken into account.

·         Loss of greenfield/agricultural land.

Councillor Nick Weeks, Ward member questioned the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 104.