Agenda and minutes

There were no apologies for absence.

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 Tim Inglefield and William Wallace

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 Nick Weeks declared a Personal & Prejudicial interest in Planning Application 14/04031/OUT, he would make his representation as a Ward Member and be available for any questions before the main debate, he would then leave the room during debate and voting.

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.

Cllr Nick Weeks reminded members that the next AEC meeting would be held at Ansford Academy next Wednesday 8^th April at 10.00am.

He also reminded members that due to the run up to the local and Parliamentary elections in May, SSDC were now in purdah.

Cllr Nick Weeks stepped down as chairman of this meeting due to his previously stated declaration of interest.

Cllr Mike Lewis took the position of chairman for this meeting and it was unanimously agreed that Cllr Anna Groskop be appointed to act as Vice Chairman.

Members are asked to note that the next scheduled meeting of the committee will be held at Ansford Academy, Maggs Lane, Ansford, BA7 7JJ on Wednesday 8^th April 2015 at 10.00 am.

Members noted that the date of the next scheduled meeting of the Area East Committee would take place on Wednesday 8^th April at Ansford Academy, Ansford, Castle Cary at 10.00am.

NOTED

Cllr Mike Lewis took his place as the Chairman for this meeting.

Cllr Nick Weeks reiterated the Personal & Prejudicial interest in Planning Application 14/04031/OUT, he would make his representation as a Ward Member and be available for any questions before the main debate, and he would then leave the room during debate and voting.

The Planning Officer presented the application as detailed in the agenda; he stated that since writing his report, the following updates had been received:

·         Two neighbour observations that raised concerns over the proposed changes to the road system which would have a detrimental impact on local children playing and living in the vicinity;

·         Yarlington Housing Group had indicated that the proposed pedestrian linkage to Remalard Court would not be wide enough to include a cycle way;

·         Landscape concerns regarding the cramped plots and layout, but members were advised that this application was currently only illustrative;

·         A request from the applicant that the application should be deferred due to the uncertainty regarding highway safety and the lack of a highway audit;

With the aid of a power point presentation the officer showed an aerial view of the site; an illustrative layout of the engineering required for the revised vehicular network; proposed traffic signage should the TRO (Traffic Regulation Order) be put in place, photographs of the roads and narrow lanes in the vicinity of the application site.

The officer highlighted what he felt were the key considerations:

·       Principle of Development

•       Background to this application

•       Remalard Court Pedestrian Link

•       Mill Lane Access

•       Design, Density and Impact on Residential Amenity

•       Impact on Conservation Area

•       Drainage

•       Play Provision

•       Ecology

•       Planning Obligations and Viability

•       Planning Balancing Exercise

He confirmed that as there was no Highway Authority support to refuse the application, and in the light of the recent appeal decision he had no alternative other than to recommend approval as detailed in full in the agenda report; however members may wish to consider the changes regarding the financial contributions since the last application and whether the reduction in benefits and the resulting pressures on services would undermine the community's interest in supporting the application. 

The Area Lead East addressed the committee and explained that the applicant had requested that consideration of the application be deferred due to the issue of a Highway Safety Audit (as identified by the SSDC Highway Officer) and the subsequent doubts raised about a TRO.  The officer explained that SCC had not drawn the planning officer’s attention to the issue and no Highway Officer had been available to attend the meeting in order to explain further. He also confirmed that Highways would not carry out a cumulative assessment of the area as they did not consider it necessary for this application of 29 dwellings, although they were aware that there were further applications in the pipe line for more development in the vicinity.

Discussion then ensued regarding the issue of deferring consideration of the planning application: there  ...  view the full minutes text for item 206.