Agenda and minutes

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

Councillor Colin Winder requested an amendment to minute 138, to indicate that Members had noted the appeal decisions for Land OS 1445 Torbay Road, Castle Cary and noted the costs decision which had been allowed for Land rear of The Burrows, High Street, Sparkford where an officer had not attended the appeal site visit. Members strongly held the view that planning officers should attend all appeal site visits.

Members were content that the minutes of the meeting held on the 9^th December 2015, copies of which had been circulated, be approved and signed by the Chairman as a correct record, subject to the amendment being made to minute 138.

Apologies of absence were received from Councillor Henry Hobhouse and Councillor Tim Inglefield.

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.

Cllrs 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.

Cllr Sarah Dyke-Bracher declared that she was the programme manager of the Heart of Wessex Local Action Group.

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 concern that a meeting with the Development Control Manager and the Wincanton Ward Members had not yet been arranged to discuss the enforcement issues in Wincanton. The Area Development Manager agreed to arrange this meeting.

Councillor Sarah Dyke-Bracher expressed her thanks to the Streetscene team for the Christmas tree shredding which had occurred and hoped that this incentive would continue into the future.

She also informed Members that she was a member of the Access for All Solutions, a forum which works actively to promote opportunities for the disabled and invited Members to attend the next forum which was scheduled for Tuesday 26^th January at 9am.

Members are asked to note that the next scheduled meeting of the committee will be at the Council Offices, Churchfield, Wincanton on Wednesday 10^th February at 9.00 am.

Members noted that the date of the next meeting would be Wednesday 10^th February 2016 at 9.00am at The Churchfield Offices, Wincanton.

The Chairman reminded Members that the Annual Parish/Town Council meeting was to take place on Tuesday 26^th January at 7pm at The Council Offices, Churchfields, Wincanton and invited Members to attend.

He also reminded Members that there would be a Portfolio Holder Briefing meeting taking place that afternoon at 3.30pm at Brympton Way, Yeovil and that he hoped to see Members at this meeting.

At the time of the meeting, the Chairman decided to re-arrange the order in which planning applications were to be discussed. Agenda item 18 would be the first planning application to be discussed, followed by agenda items 14-17.

The Committee welcomed the Corporate Strategic Housing Manager to deliver his report to Members.

He explained that the report included details of two housing schemes which were completed in the previous financial year as well as schemes due to be completed in the current financial year. He pointed out that some schemes, although they had received planning permission, could take some time before they were implemented.

He updated the Committee on the progress of the South Cadbury scheme and advised Members that there were two affordable rent properties within the scheme which had not yet secured funding, however he was confident that this funding gap could be bridged.

The Corporate Strategic Housing Manager responded to questions from Members.

During the discussion, he pointed out that 35% of new dwellings created across the district should be affordable homes and as SSDC owns very little land, discussions had taken place with Somerset County Council to try to make development land available. He suggested that Members visit the Queen Camel development.

The Committee questioned where income raised by Yarlington Homes through rural home disposals had been used and would like to see these funds used in supporting replacement affordable homes in rural areas.

The Committee thanked the Corporate Strategic Housing Manager for attending the meeting.

RESOLVED: Members noted the report

The Committee welcomed Michael Bainbridge, Head of Primary Care Development and Sheryl Vincent, Primary Care Commissioning Manager of the Somerset Clinical Commissioning Group. Michael Bainbridge explained that the aim of the CCG was to improve quality of care.

He explained that a CCG Strategy was being delivered to help meet the increasing demand for Primary Care in Somerset.

Some of the points raised included;

·         The demand for care was increasing due to a growing population and a rise in complexity of issues, which was a national issue.

·         It is often unclear how much housing growth can occur in some places

·         There is an aging workforce of GPs. Staff retirements over coming years could impact the demand for Primary Care.

·         GPs are not coming forward to fill job vacancies, however there are schemes in place such as the ’Retainer scheme’ to encourage trained doctors to work a small amount of hours and also the ‘Returner scheme’ to encourage doctors to return to the NHS

·         New investment was being sought from NHS England to fund developments at premises in Bruton and Ilchester

·         Following a Patient Satisfaction Survey, published in July 2015, 91% of patients, at six practices in Area East, were able to get an appointment with a GP last time they needed one

As part of the strategy, the CCG will promote individuals taking more responsibility of their own health and well-being such as through careful alcohol use and exercise, both of which have large impacts on health service utilisation.

The Head of Primary Care Development responded to questions raised by Members.

During the discussion, he confirmed that the CCG promoted local delivery of Primary Care services and as housing growth/development was an issue, they consult with the District Council on large scale planning applications.

It was pointed out that the figures for Wincanton Health Centre may not take into consideration that a doctor had recently left the practice.

Councillor David Norris commented that he would like to see figures for the Somerton Surgery.

Members thanked them both for attending the meeting.

RESOLVED: That Members noted the report.

The Neighbourhood Development Officer presented his report to the Committee. He explained to Members he was pleased that there had been an increase in volunteers at the centres.

He pointed out that he was working closely with the centres at Bruton and Wincanton and was using best practice examples to develop these centres. Additional and new signage was also being considered to make existing centres more visible and there would be an increase in monitoring systems on all centres.

He hoped that additional centres would be created in South Somerset, to include a new centre in Milborne Port.

The Neighbourhood Development Officer responded to questions from Members.

Members thanked the officer for his report and for attending the meeting.

RESOLVED: That Members noted the report.

The Area Development Manager confirmed that the Streetscene update report would be deferred until the March committee meeting and that there would be additional report to follow at the next month’s committee meeting for a funding request for the Community Kids Centre in Bruton.

Councillor Mike Lewis suggested that a report on appeal decisions across the district, and specifically in Area East, should appear on a forthcoming agenda.

RESOLVED: That the Forward Plan be noted.

Members noted the report that detailed a planning appeal which had been allowed at Lavender Green, Verrington, Wincanton.

Members noted the Schedule of Planning Applications.

Proposed change of use and conversion of former equestrian building to form 4 no. dwellings

The Planning Officer presented his report to the Committee with the aid of a powerpoint presentation. He informed Members that the barn conversion was designed to an adequate standard of design and materials and preserved the character of the conservation area and presented no overlooking issues for adjoining properties.

He pointed out to Members that although Somerset County Council Highways department had not raised any concern over the access and were happy that the proposal would not cause severe harm to local safety, there were local concerns over the access and highways.

He confirmed to Members that the applicant had agreed to make affordable housing contributions and that he was recommending that the application be approved as per his report.

Councillor William Wallace, Ward Member, noted that there was a large amount of objection from the local residents. He suggested that he would like to see a landscaping condition added together with conditions restricting fragmentation and further development of the site.

Following the discussion, it was proposed and seconded to approve the planning application as per the officer recommendation, subject to conditions.

On being put to the vote, the proposal was carried 7 votes in favour, 0 against with 2 abstentions.

RESOLVED:

That planning application 15/03868/FUL be approved as per the officer recommendation, subject to;

a)         The prior completion of a section 106 agreement (in a form acceptable to the Council's solicitor(s)) before the decision notice granting planning permission is issued to:-

1)         Secure a contribution of £40 per square metre of internal floor space towards the provision of affordable housing in the district.

b) The following conditions:

Justification

01.  The proposal is considered to be acceptable in this location and, by reason of its size, scale and materials, respects the character of the area, and causes no demonstrable harm to residential amenity, visual amenity, protected species, or to highway safety in accordance with policies EQ2, EQ3, TA5, TA6, or EQ4 of the South Somerset Local Plan (Adopted April 2006) and the aims and provisions of the NPPF.

SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING:

01.       The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason:  To accord with the provisions of section 91(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

02.       The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: HIL/MAP/14/04B and HIL/MAP/14/06A received 26 August 2015 and HIL/MAP/14/02D received 03 November 2015

            Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

03.       No work shall be carried out on site until particulars of the following have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority:

a)         details of materials (including the provision of samples where appropriate) to be used for the external walls and roofs;

b)         a sample panel, to be prepared for inspection on site, to show the mortar  ...  view the full minutes text for item 161.

Approval of reserved matters for the erection of 40 dwellinghouses,  details of layout,scale, appearance and landscaping to include levels, external materials, and enhancement of biodiversity of outline planning permission 13/3593/OUT

The Planning Officer presented his report to the Committee with the aid of a powerpoint presentation. He highlighted that the red line had been reduced since the development was approved at outline stage and pointed out that of the 40 homes proposed, 14 would be affordable homes.

Barry Moorhouse, representing Castle Cary Town Council spoke in objection to the proposal. He expressed his concern over the extra traffic and the exit road onto Station Road which will become more dangerous once the 250-300 houses proposed opposite the site will be built. He objected to the proposal on the grounds of highway safety and questioned whether the access arrangements could be amended.

Pek Peppin, also representing Castle Cary Town Council spoke in objection to the proposal. She explained to the Committee that this proposal did not provide well designed homes, with a safe access and sufficient sized gardens and thought that the homes were boring in design and lacked any style or flare. She urged the Committee not to rush into approving this application.

Nigel Begg, a representative of Ansford Parish Council addressed the Committee to speak in objection to the application. He referred to an out of date SSDC publication around the design of residential areas and felt that greater efforts should be made to ensure a well-designed residential style and not to waste this valuable land. He expressed to the Committee that he was not opposed to development of the site, but opposed to the design of the development.

Colin Kay, a local resident and a member of Care for Cary criticised the developer for not providing sufficient information and described the development as unimaginative. It was his view that the design was not in-keeping with the area and local materials and stone should be used. He urged the Committee to reject this application and hoped that an alternative scheme could be developed with a more suitable design and new access.

Sally Snook spoke in objection to the application. She informed the Committee that she had supported the previous outline application as she site was larger and the houses were more widely spread across the site. She expressed her concerns over the density of the site, the sizes of the proposed gardens and the hammerhead end to the highway within the development.

Nick Weeks, Ward Member, expressed his disappointment at the substandard design of the planning application and felt that it lacked any imagination. He agreed with comments made relating to the design and density of the site and also raised concern over the water attenuation and drainage of the site and had hoped that the developers would have tried harder to link this site with the adjoining residential developments. For these reasons he did not support the planning application.

During the discussion, which  ...  view the full minutes text for item 162.

Change of use of redundant agricultural buildings to B1 (Business), B2 (General industrial) and B8 (Storage or distribution)

The Planning Officer presented his report to Members with the aid of a powerpoint presentation. He pointed out to the Committee that there had been local concern over volumes of traffic; however he considered that the amount of traffic would be reduced by this proposal.

He also pointed out that this was an amended, smaller scheme and that his recommendation was that the planning application be approved as his report detailed.

Lilian Elson, representing the Holton Heritage Trust, spoke in objection to the proposal. She urged the Committee to refuse the planning application as she felt that the roads were too narrow for the additional traffic.

Mr C Statham and Mr B Bryan spoke in objection to the application. They both raised concerns over the level of traffic on the single lane road and hoped that the application would be refused.

Other comments  included;

·         That there is no local need

·         An independent traffic assessment should have been carried out

·         Concern was raised over what may be stored on the site

·         The road is unsuitable for heavy goods vehicles

Mr G Garton addressed the Committee and spoke in support of the application. He pointed out to Committee that the access road was a wide and well-maintained stretch of road and considered that the proposal would not cause an issue as the traffic would not run through the village.

Mr L Wadman, applicant, addressed the Committee. He highlighted to Members that if the buildings remained as agricultural use, that the same level of traffic would use the wide road and that he was trying to regularise an existing use to diversify the farm to create an income.

Councillor William Wallace, Ward Member, informed the Committee that he had attended the Parish Council meeting with Councillor Tim Inglefield and that he was aware of the Parish Council concerns. He noted that a traffic assessment would have been useful.

Councillor Mike Lewis declared a personal interest as the proposal for rural industrial units had similarities to a business which he was involved with. 

At the end of the discussion, it was initially proposed to defer the planning application to allow an independent traffic assessment.

On being put to the vote, the proposal was not supported, 2 in support and 5 against.

It was subsequently proposed to approve the planning application as per the officer recommendation.

On being put to the vote, this was carried 6 in favour, 2 against with 1 abstention.

RESOLVED:

That planning permission 15/03372/COU be approved as per the officer recommendation.

Justification

01.       The proposed change of use by reason of its scale and location represents an acceptable that accords with Policy EQ2, TA5 and TA6 of the South Somerset Local Plan 2006 - 2028.

SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING:

01.       The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason:  To  ...  view the full minutes text for item 163.

The erection of a detached dwelling with garage (reserved matters approval with respect to appearance, landscaping, layout and scale)

The Planning Officer presented his report to Members with the aid of a powerpoint presentation. He asked Members to note an update to his report and pointed out that the wording on page 78 of the agenda should not include the reference to policy SS2 under the reason for approval, as this was not relevant on this reserved matters planning application. 

He confirmed to the Committee that he had visited the neighbouring property and that the application was considered to be in line with the proposal approved at outline stage and it was his recommendation that the planning application be approved.

Mr Cheesman, representing the Parish Council, pointed out to Committee that the objections of the Parish Council were based on the same reasons given at outline planning stage. He highlighted that that there had been no local support and that 14 new houses are being built within the village and expressed his concern that approval would set a precedent in the village.

Mr D Carpendale, the agent, addressed the Committee. He pointed out to Members that the access had already been approved and that the dwelling would be screened by an existing garage. It was his view that the proposed dwelling was well situated and would result in no loss of light to adjoining properties.

Councillor Nick Weeks, Ward Member, raised concern over a footpath which currently runs through the site and hoped the footpath could be diverted before works commenced on site.

During the discussion, it was suggested that a condition be included to ensure that temporary fencing be erected around the diverted footpath along the hedge to ensure that pedestrians were a safe distance from the building site.

Following a short discussion, it was proposed and seconded to approve the planning application as per the officer recommendation, subject to an amendment to the reason for approval to remove reference to SS2 and additional condition to ensure a temporary fence.

On being put to the vote, the proposal was carried unanimously in favour.

RESOLVED:

That planning application 15/04687/REM be approved as per officer recommendation with additional condition;

Justification

01.       The proposal, by reason of its location, represents an appropriate form of development adjacent to Galhampton that would not foster growth in the need to travel or be detrimental to highways safety. As such the proposal complies with policy EQ2 of the South Somerset Local Plan 2006- 2028.

SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING:

01.       The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 14013- 1 Rev B, -3  Rev C, -11 Rev D, -12 Rev B and -13 Rev B received 15 October 2015.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

02.       The hedge planting shown to the roadside and alongside the realigned public right of way shall be retained. To be maintained at a height above  ...  view the full minutes text for item 164.

Change of use from B1 to A1 retail sales, selling horticultural products, plants, composts, sundries to both trade and the general public

The Planning Officer presented his report to the Committee with the aid of a powerpoint presentation. He advised members of a significant update to the report and pointed out that he was now recommending that the Committee approve the planning application, subject to a condition restricting the items to be sold at the premises.

He informed the Committee that the application was for the loss of an employment unit which was not normally supported by the Economic Development team, however further information had been received which specified the nature of the proposed use class, which was namely bulky horticultural goods which are not best suited on the high street.

Howard Ellard, a representative of the Town Council addressed the Committee and spoke in favour of the application. He highlighted to Members that the unit had been empty for some time on what was a vibrant industrial estate.

Mr Andrew Cole, applicant, addressed the Committee. He informed the Committee that the items intended to be sold were horticultural garden centre items and crystals.

Councillor Colin Winder, Ward Member, spoke in support of the application as it was his belief that the goods to be sold were not suitable for Wincanton High Street.

Councillor Nick Colbert, Ward Member, spoke in support of the application and questioned the need for a condition to restrict the items which could be sold.

Following a short discussion, it was proposed and seconded to approve the planning application as per the officer’s revised recommendation with the omission of the restrictive condition, but subject to the following conditions;

·         Time limit condition

·         Approved plans conditions

·         Parking condition

On being put to the vote, the proposal was carried 8 in favour, 0 against with 1 abstention.

RESOLVED:

That planning application 15/04744/COU be approved as per the officers recommendation, subject to conditions.

Justification

01.       It is considered that the loss of empty B1 unit to A1 has been justified and would not be harmful to the ongoing provision of employment opportunities in Wincanton. As such the proposal complies with policy EP3 of the South Somerset Local Plan 2006-2028 and the policies contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.

SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING:

01.       The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason:  To accord with the provisions of section 91(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

02.       The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Location Plan and Car Parking Spaces Plan received 21 October 2016, and Site Plan and Floor Plan received 2 November 2016.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

03.       The area allocated for parking on the submitted Car Park Spaces plan received 21 October 2016 shall be kept clear of obstruction and shall not be used  ...  view the full minutes text for item 165.