Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the previous meeting held on Wednesday 13^th April 2016 and the meeting held on 9^th March 2016.

The Chairman informed members that a minor amendment had been made to minute Item 197- point ‘v’ to read ‘No ab initio circuit training’ as a replacement to ‘No ab initio flying/training instruction’.  There being no further debate, the minutes of the meeting held on 9^th March 2016, copies of which had been circulated, were agreed and signed by the Chairman.

The minutes of the meeting held on 13^th April 2016, copies of which had been circulated, were also agreed and signed by the Chairman.

Apologies for Absence were received from Councillors 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.

At the time the item was discussed Councillor Henry Hobhouse declared a Personal and Prejudicial interest in Agenda Item 15- Planning Application 16/00381/S73 as he is the owner of neighbouring land. He left the room whilst Item 15 was being discussed.

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.

Mrs Angela Barton, a member of the public addressed the committee and wished it be recorded that she believes the draft minutes of the meeting held on 9^th March 2016 were inaccurate with regard to Minute 197 15/04069/FUL – Henstridge Airfield,  on two procedural issues.  Firstly she considered local residents were prejudiced from the late submission of information from the applicant which was accepted and incorporated into the officer’s powerpoint presentation and that as the public were not aware of these changes, and it outside the 72 hour rule, there is a prejudicial procedure issue when dealing with the application.

She also believed the minutes fail to show that the officer made only partial reference to his powerpoint presentation before then presenting all the suggested changes that the applicant requested.  She therefore felt that members of the public were unable to have time to respond and that although the minutes suggest they were in support of the application this was not the case once the changes to conditions were presented.

David Seeker a member of the public also addressed the committee referring to Minute 197 15/04069/FUL – Henstridge Airfield of the meeting held on 9^th March 2016.  He believed the public had no opportunity to respond to the applicant’s varied proposed conditions as revealed for the first time at committee on 9^th March 2016.  He wished that consideration be made regarding the impact on public amenity and in particular the cumulative impact of the noise nuisance. 

He asked that a number of factors to be taken into account including various noise levels, frequency of noise, repetitiveness of noise and duration of events.   He felt it vital that all these issues need to be considered cumulatively and asked that an environmental impact assessment be carried out to evaluate the cumulative impact on the public amenity of the conditions imposed before a final decision can be made.

Laura Courtenay addressed the committee.  She referred to the minutes of the 9^th March 2016 Minute 197 Henstridge Airfield (Agenda Item 14) and believed that the Location of the 4^th paragraph be incorrect.  This information (the applicant’s suggested amendments to conditions) was presented later in the meeting, after members of the public had been given an opportunity to speak.  To accurately reflect the chronological order of events at that meeting the 4^th paragraph should have been recorded after Public participation, when the meeting had been reconvened. 

In addition she believed the minutes fail to record the following matter of fact:

The Area Lead Officer verbally reported that recent advice indicated that a requirement that all aircraft using the airfield be fitted with ‘approved’ exhausts/silencers would be a more appropriate form of control in conjunction with a 3,500 kg weight limit, over the noise from individual aircraft and later referred to this in connection with proposed condition 16.

She requested that the members of the public, present at the meeting held on 9^th March 2016 ask that this statement  ...  view the full minutes text for item 218.

Councillor Mike Lewis informed members that should anyone have an issue regarding poor functioning sewerage works within their area to contact the Wessex Water Authority who would look to carry out survey work should there be a problem.

Councillor Tim Inglefield informed members that Parish Councils were focusing on the Community Infrastructure Levy which was currently out for consultation.

Councillor David Norris summarised to members of the current situation regarding the Wincanton Sports Ground and the problems arising from the current structure and management of the site including the various options to be considered and the need for a change in policy regarding the details of recent changes to business rates for charities.

Councillor Nick Weeks who recently attended a SWADA meeting informed members that due to the new Eel and Fish Legislation most pumps at low land level may have to be renewed in order to help protect the eel stock to allow a safe and harmless flow through.

Members are asked to note that the next scheduled meeting of the committee will be at the Council Offices, Churchfield, Wincanton on Wednesday 8^th June at 9.00 am.

Members noted that the date of the next meeting would be Wednesday 8^th June 2016 at The Council Offices, Churchfield, Wincanton at 9am.

There were no Chairman’s Announcements.

The Assistant Director Communities presented the report as set out in the agenda and outlined to members the areas of work and priorities for Area East.

She explained to members the recent changes to staff resources due to her additional responsibilities across all four areas in her role as Assistant Director Communities.  She informed members that Tim Cook, Neighbourhood Development Officer Area East had recently been appointed to act as Team Leader to deal with the extra workload and responsibility within Area East and asked that members contact him direct should they have any non routine queries or problems within their wards.

The Assistant Director Communities then proceeded to refer to the Area East Development Plan as set out in the agenda and highlighted the key priority areas including:

·         Workspace hub.

·         Support of neighbourhood plans and community plans.

·         Section 106 annual statement in update of Ward Profiles.

·         Front desk services at Wincanton Offices

·         Supporting communities to improve access to local services and facilities in rural areas

During a short discussion, members made several comments including:

·         Appreciated support from officers in relation to Neighbourhood Planning and hoped that Policy Planning would offer same support in order to insure the work undertaken is in accordance with the local plan.

·         Requested support regarding possible funding for Defibrillator for Limington Parish.

·         Required support and possible review on the recent decision made by Council regarding business rates and the emphasis and impact this may have on the rural areas.

In response the Assistant Director Communities informed members of the possible ways to acquire a Defibrillator within the parish of Limington by grant funding or specialist agency.

There being no further debate members were happy to approve the Area East Development Plan 2019/17. 

The Housing and Welfare Manager presented the report as detailed in the agenda and highlighted to members:

·         Banding criteria used for ‘Homefinder’. Gold band – high need, Silver Band – Medium need and Bronze Band – Low need

·         Snapshot of the Housing Need in the Parishes of Area East and preferential parishes of first choice including the increase in Bruton and Henstridge.

·         Number of households and their bedroom requirements by band.  Demand still remains high for one and two bedroom properties.

·         The number of properties let between 1^st April 2015 and 31^st March 2016 in Area East.

·         A Scrutiny Task & Finish Group has been set up to look at local housing for local people and discussions taken place with local partners to look at local connections. A short report will be released on this at a later date.

During the ensuing discussion, the Housing & Welfare Manager noted the comments of members and responded to comments regarding issues within the delivery of social housing. 

She noted the request from members for information regarding clarification of the Rural Exception Site Legislation and the contact details for Yarlington Housing Group including a contact for Local Housing Stock and the Housing Standards Team and agreed to inform members direct.

Members congratulated the Housing and Welfare Manager and her team for their excellent work and noted the report.

                                                                        NOTED

The Community Health and Leisure Manager summarised the agenda report, which provided members with an update on the work of the Community Health and Leisure Service in Area East.  With the aid of a powerpoint presentation she highlighted the following:

• The services provided by the Community Health and Leisure Team including healthy lifestyles, sports development, play and youth facilities, support for young people, leisure facility development and management.
• Healthy Lifestyles development including the success of the district weight loss programme and CLICK into Activity a project to target diabetes and high blood pressure to reduce the dependence on drugs.
• Health Walks in South Somerset, 6569 attendances, 454 new, 23 walking groups and 17 leaders trained.
• £163,294 had been secured from Sport England for ‘In It Together’, a 3 year district female sports participation project;
• 10,000+ people had enjoyed Play Days in 20 communities across the district;
• Youth Days had been rolled out across the district for the first time;
• Success of the Gold Star event where 600+ people attended to celebrate the contribution of volunteers and young people in South Somerset;
• Play area transformations/improvements including Barton St David and Abbas & Templecombe.
• £690,334 of S106 received for sport and play and youth facilities across the district which supported many projects including Henstridge Rec, Barton St David and Abbas & Templecombe Play Areas.
• S106 projects in the pipeline included Sparkford recreation ground improvements, Castle Cary Cricket Club training facilities, Babcary recreation ground and Henstridge pitch improvements.
• Area East highlights included 10 new leaders from Area East Flexercise training session, Sport50 continues to run in Bruton and Mudford and new session planned for Ilchester, Wincanton Health Centre continuing to run the weight loss programme and schools tennis coaching programmes delivered with Wincanton and Queen Camel Tennis Club.

During the ensuing discussion, the Community Health & Leisure Manager noted the comments of members and responded to concerns regarding the Wincanton Sports Ground indicating the Council’s support and help regarding the future management of the site.  In response to a member request she agreed to forward her powerproint presentation for information. 

The Chairman thanked the Community Health and Leisure Manager for her informative report.

The Assistant Director, Communities advised members that additional reports for the Village Design Statement for Brewham, Financial Outturn Report and Grants Annual Update Report would be brought to the June meeting. 

She advised that the Workspace Progress Report would be now brought to the July committee. 

During the ensuing discussion, members raised comments regarding the resistance to provide information from Section 106 agreements including what monies have not been used or been paid for within their wards and requested that a full view of Section 106 information be available to members concerning schemes within their wards. 

Comments were also raised regarding the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) and the impact that it would have on local communities.

(Voting: Without dissent)

Members noted the Planning Appeals.

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 showed the proposed site and local surrounding area.  He explained to members that this was an outline application and brought to committee to allow local views to be debated.  He had no further updates to the report.

Malcolm Hunt representative of the Parish Council addressed the committee. He reported that when the Parish Council had discussed this application no information had been received from the Conservation Unit or the Highways Authority. He considered however there to be no major concerns regarding the impact on the character of the area and although the Highways Authority raised concern regarding safety due to existing substandard access, he felt this unfair, as this will always be the case with other residents using the same access. 

David Stockley spoke in objection to the application.  He considered the area to be of special character and the proposal would disrupt and have an impact on the character of the conservation area.

Tom Love spoke in objection to the application.  He raised concern regarding the highway safety issues which would only exacerbate due to residents already using the existing substandard access.  He also believed it would have detrimental impact on the character of the area and set a precedent for future development.

Frank Grenier also spoke in objection to the application as he believed there was a responsibility to maintain the character of the conservation area.

Matt Williams the agent addressed the committee.  He informed members that the applicants did not wish to look to harm the character of the area but merely downsize in order to retire and stay within the hamlet that they have lived in for many years.  He believed it was a sustainable location as North Cadbury was approximately 1.2km away and that the current access had been used on a daily basis for the last 22 years without incident.

Councillor Henry Hobhouse, Ward member explained that living locally he knew the road through the hamlet, which although considered substandard, included two major access points onto the highway and used frequently by farm traffic without incident.  He did not consider the proposal would have a detrimental impact on the area and although in a conservation area this was not set in perpetuity.  He said consideration should be given at reserved matter stage regarding the detail of the proposal and appreciated the applicants desire to downsize and stay within their local area.

Councillor Nick Weeks, Ward member expressed his disappointment that this application had not been submitted as a full application.  He felt this would have given additional information and details to include the materials of the proposal and the situation of the boundary hedge.   He did not consider this would set a precedent and appreciated the applicants wish to retire in their local area.

In response the Area Lead Officer confirmed the boundary hedge could be cut down at any time and advised that a condition  ...  view the full minutes text for item 228.

(Having declared a Personal and Prejudicial Interest Councillor Henry Hobhouse left the room during consideration of this item).

The Planning Officer presented the application as detailed in the agenda and with the aid of a powerpoint showed the proposed site and surrounding area.  He informed members that a further 6 letters of support had been received to support the removal of the occupancy condition in order that it allows the applicants the ability to raise capital and allows the business to continue to develop and thrive.  

He informed members that no additional information to support the removal of the application had been submitted by the applicant and his recommendation was to refuse the application as for the reasons set out in the agenda report.

Mr John Knight Chairman of Pitcombe Parish Council addressed the committee.   He spoke in support of the application and referred to the local support given to this application.  He referred to the recently published Parish Plan which looks to support and encourages local businesses and small scale industry on the acceptance that it does not have an impact on the character of the surrounding local area.   He believed this application does not compromise this position.

Mrs Lucy Comer the applicant’s wife addressed the committee and provided several comments on behalf of a local resident who was unable to attend the meeting.  These included the need for flexibility in order for the business to succeed, referred to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which heavily advocates sustainability and that the Quarry was an asset to the local area and therefore voiced support for the application.

Mr Robert Comer the applicant then addressed the committee.   He informed members that the non-fragmentation condition had already been removed and believed there was a resistance to remove any further conditions although attempts were made to undertake pre-application discussions.  He said the business was expanding rapidly and he had already invested heavily with an increased workforce.   It was therefore believed the removal of the condition would allow him to raise additional monies to invest further in the business with the full market value allowable.

Councillor Mike Beech, Ward member appreciated the owner’s position but respected that these conditions were imposed for a reason.  He felt that further information was required from the application at this stage in order to satisfy the reasons for the removal of the condition.

During discussion members appreciated the need to support local businesses and help them to continue to develop and expand.  However they raised concern regarding the lack of information or detailed business plan submitted with the application in order for a decision to be substantiated.   

The Area Lead Officer also considered additional information in the way of a business plan was an acceptable way forward and although had no reason to doubt the application or guarantee approval, it would give assurances and detail an investment strategy for the business in the next 3-5 years to bring the business forward.  

Following a short debate, it was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 229.