Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the previous meeting held on Wednesday 10^th February 2016.

The minutes of the meeting held on 10^th February 2016, copies of which had been circulated, were agreed and signed by the Chairman.

An apology of absence was received from Councillor Henry Hobhouse. An apology was also received from Councillor William Wallace who would be arriving late to the meeting.

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 Mike Beech declared that he had spoken to the applicant for planning application 15/04069/FUL (agenda item 14), however had no personal or prejudicial interest.

Councillors William Wallace, Mike Lewis and Anna Groskop all members of SCC (Somerset County Council) would only declare a personal 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.

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 raised his concern over the Ombudsman report for Balsam Park which had been an ongoing dispute for several years. He pointed out there had been three appeals for the decision and that final report blamed the District Council for some failures in procedures.

It was suggested that the ADM arranged for the report and actions required within it to be discussed with relevant members, the Assistant Director (Legal and Corporate Services) and the Portfolio Holder for Development Management to ensure that the actions and any redress were implemented and to put procedures in place to ensure that this problem did not occur again.

Members are asked to note that the next scheduled meeting of the committee will be at the Council Offices, Churchfield, Wincanton on Wednesday 13^th April 2016 at 9.00 am.

Members noted the date of the next meeting would be Wednesday 13^th April 2016 at 9.00am at the Council Offices, Churchfield, Wincanton.

The Chairman informed Members that the roofing materials for the repairs at Tolbury Mill had been approved, however they were different to the tile type he had hoped for. Works would commence later that month and should be completed before the nursery children return after the Easter break.

The Environmental Health Manager presented his report to the Committee with the aid of a PowerPoint presentation.  He provided a brief overview of the service teams and the work which they carry out. He also provided an update on the work of the team in the last 12 months.

The points raised included;

·         There were over 2,000 food premises across South Somerset, which the Food Safety Team carried out food inspections. These included large businesses that required export certificates for food produce.

·         The Food Safety team worked with businesses and safety advisory groups in preparation for public entertainment events and monitors noise and other issues to minimise customer complaints.

·         The Food Safety team were continuing with the National Food Hygiene Rating Scheme.

·         The Environmental Protection Team had recently merged with the Streetscene team to assist with problems such as fly-tipping, littering and abandoned vehicles.

·         The team provided water sampling to many schools that had private water suppliers.

·         Due to housing pressure more HMOs (houses in multiple occupation) were being created in Area East.

The Environmental Health Manager responded to questions from Members.  He clarified that the National Food Hygiene Rating Scheme was a national scheme which meant that the Food Safety Team had no discretion over the legislation. He pointed out that advice was available online to help owners of food premises.

The Chairman thanked the Environmental Health Manager for attending.

RESOLVED: That Members noted the report.

The Welfare Advice Team Leader presented her report to Members with the aid of a PowerPoint presentation.  She advised that their clients were referred by either word of mouth or from other agencies and help was given to these clients up to tribunal hearing level. She pointed out to Members that the additional welfare benefit income which they helped clients to claim was more than 10 times the cost of the service to the Council.  She advised that the team were heavily partnered with other agencies such as Citizens Advice South Somerset.

Following the discussion, the Welfare Advice Team Leader responded to questions from Members.

During the short discussion, the Area Development Manager (East) informed members about the ‘Yeovil One’ multi agency team approach which was targeting people at risk at an early stage and very successful in Yeovil, however it was noted that there were far more cases in Yeovil which require help.

Members thanked the team for their continued hard work.

RESOLVED: That Members noted the report.

The Play and Youth Facilities Officer presented his report to the Committee.  He provided an update on the work which had been carried out across Area East. He informed members that progress in Castle Cary, the Charlton parishes, Ilchester and Henstridge had been good. He also made reference to the very popular flood-lit multi-use games area in Keinton Mandeville. He said that after being closed for several months, volunteers were now being sought for Bruton youth group and that Wincanton Town Council had been very forthcoming with assistance to the Wincanton youth centre, including contributions towards a climbing wall.

The Play and Youth Facilities Officer informed members that he provided assistance and ongoing support to members of the public who required DBS checks to enable them to work with children and that he did all he could to try to make this a simple and quick process.

The Play and Youth Facilities Officer responded to questions from members.

Councillor Anna Groskop thanked Tim Cook for his voluntary work at Bruton Youth Club and to the Play and Youth Facilities Officer for his work across the Area.

RESOLVED: That Members noted the report.

The Area Development Manager (East) referred to the forward plan report and confirmed that she had no amendments or additional reports to add to it.

Councillor Anna Groskop suggested that it would be useful to arrange an event for town/parish councils to help understand the declining resources available to local government and how they could use their precepts and other means to support people who require help in their parish more directly. The ADM agreed that she would look into arranging this.

She also confirmed that arrangements were in hand for looking at options for providing assistance to the Wincanton Sports Grounds.

RESOLVED: That the forward plan be noted.

Members noted the appeals which had been received.

Members noted the Schedule of Planning Applications.

The Area Lead Officer presented his report to Members with the aid of a PowerPoint presentation. He confirmed to Members that this application was for the continued use of the airfield, subject to conditions and a section 106 agreement. He indicated the application site on a powerpoint slide and confirmed that this excluded the Air Ambulance site.

He provided several updates to his report to include a letter of support from North Dorset District Council and a further letter of representation from a local resident supporting the condition detailed on the report which would prohibit aerobatic flying.

He also advised Members that he had received correspondence from the applicant suggesting that the application be deferred to a future committee to allow him to develop a management plan alongside planning officers and also to provide his suggested amendments to proposed conditions within the officer report.

The Area Lead Officer (North/East) confirmed to Members that the applicant’s suggested amendments to conditions were clearly shown in red on the powerpoint presentation and suggested that it might be useful to consider each condition individually. He continued to explain to Members the proposed conditions in turn, as detailed in his report, and also the revised conditions as suggested by the applicant.

It was pointed out that the applicant did not want a condition added to prohibit both aerobatic flying and aircraft able to perform aerobatic flying at the airfield as he had suggested that, as worded, this would be over 90% of the aircraft that use the airfield.

Anthony Jenner, Chairman of Buckhorn Weston and Kington Magna Parish Council, spoke in support of the application, subject to the conditions proposed. He thanked the District Council for instructing Mr Steel Q.C for his advice. He raised his concern over the comments made by the SSDC Environmental Protection team. He added that he supports the airfield, but felt that restrictions were needed to protect the residential amenity of local residents. He informed Members that it was also the view of Dorset Ward Member, Councillor Ridout that aerobatic flying should be protested.

David Redwood, Chairman of Fivehead Magdalen Parish Council spoke in support of the application and the proposed conditions. He questioned the lack of data contained in the noise report and explained that the noise created by aerobatic flying was a nuisance.

David Sekers, Colin Mann and Brian Darcey spoke to offer support to the proposed conditions. Their comments included;

·         That they were opposed to aerobatic flying and that it was hoped this would remain banned.

·         The noise could be heard in Marnhull.

·         The section 106 should include the ban on aerobatic flying.

·         It was hoped that the noise condition does not allow an increase in noise levels

·         Other events involving motorbike racing at the airfield are a nuisance and are increasingly difficult to live with.

·         Out of the 66 letters of support, only 19 of these were local, however all 29 of the letters of objection were from local residents.

Steve Scott, Laura Courtenay  ...  view the full minutes text for item 197.

RESOLVED:  that the following item (agenda item 16) be considered in Closed Session by virtue of the Local Government Act 1972, Schedule 12A under Paragraph 3: “Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information)” and 6: “Information which reveals that the authority proposes (a) to give under any enactment a notice under or by virtue of which requirements are imposed on a person; or (b) to make an order or direction under any enactment”.

The Legal Services Manager advised Members that following the decision to defer the decision for planning application 15/04069/FUL (agenda item 14; Henstridge Airfield), subject to revised conditions and a S106 agreement, the Committee had several options to consider.

She advised that, in the light of their earlier decision, Members may feel that the report no longer needed to be considered, and they could consider it at this meeting or they may wish to defer their consideration to a later meeting.

Following a short discussion, it was proposed and seconded to defer the report for 2 months to allow the Section 106 agreement and revised conditions to be agreed.

On being put to the vote, this was carried 8 votes in favour, with 1 abstention.

RESOLVED: That the confidential report for Henstridge Airfield be deferred for 2 months

(Voting: 8 in favour, 1 abstention)