Agenda, decisions and minutes

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the previous meetings held on Wednesday 11^th May 2016 and Thursday 19^th May 2016.

The minutes of the meetings held on Wednesday 11^th May 2016 and Thursday 19^th May 2016, copies of which had been circulated, were agreed and signed by the Chairman.

Apologies of absence were received from Councillors Anna Groskop and Sarah-Dyke Bracher.

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.

There were no declarations of interest however; Councillor David Norris advised that he was a member of the Regulation Committee.

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.

There were no reports from members representing the Council on outside organisations.

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 July at 9.00 am.

Members noted that the date of the next meeting would be Wednesday 13^th July 2016 at The Council Offices, Churchfield, Wincanton at 9am.

The Chairman suggested that members read the Appeal Decision for the Gainborough site in Milborne Port where the appeal had recently been dismissed by The Planning Inspectorate.

He advised members that he would be attending the next Regeneration Board meeting and would be discussing plans for the Wincanton Sports Ground.

He informed members that he had discussed the members request to view planning appeal statements at the Area Chairman’s meeting and further advised that they would be available for members to view on request to the Planning Department.

The Assistant Director (Communities) confirmed that she would clarify the notification process of planning appeals with the Development Control Manager, to ensure that members were aware of new appeals which were received.

The Assistant Highways Service Manager, Somerset County Council, addressed the Committee and presented the report as detailed in full in the agenda.

He informed Members of several updates to the report;

·         Grass cutting on A and B roads had been completed early and cutting of grass on C roads and unclassified roads will begin early.

·         The drainage works to Coopers Ash Lane have been completed.

·         Soil samples will be taken from Bridghampton to check contamination levels.

In response to questions, the Assistant Highways Service Manager, advised members of the process for reporting pot-holes as detailed in the agenda report.

Lilion Elson, a resident of Holton, addressed the Committee to raise some concerns which she had experienced with the highways around Holton. Comments included;

·         Potholes west of the layby.

·         Trees have been damaged by contractors and she would like to see them replaced.

·         She requested that service vehicles refrain from parking on the verges.

During a short discussion, the Assistant Highways Service Manager responded to questions from Members. A member questioned the recent white-lining of the A371 which was due to be re-surfaced and road closures were discussed.

The Assistant Highways Service Manager agreed to look into the problem of potholes on the A37 between Yeovil and Ilchester.

The Chairman thanked the officer for attending.

RESOLVED: That members noted the report.

RESOLVED: that the committee

(1) noted the spending and balances for the Area East Capital Programme and Reserve for 2016.

(2) Agreed to transfer a sum of £25k from the Capital Reserve to the Community Capital Grants Budget for awards during 2016/17.

(3) Reconfirmed allocations of £12,500 to Galhampton Village Hall and £3,000 to Hadspen Village Hall.

(4) Recommended that £1,500 awarded to Barton St David towards the installation of speed cameras is returned to balances.

(5) Noted the budgets available for 2016/17 to address priorities for the coming year.

REASON: to replenish the Community Capital Grant allocation for 2016/17.

(Voting: 8 in favour, with 1 abstention)

The Assistant Director (Communities) presented her report to members as detailed in the agenda. She gave an overview of spending from the Area East budgets for the year 2015/2016 and Community Grants which had been awarded.

She advised members that a further more detailed report would follow later in the year to provide updates on the progress and to highlight benefits of Community Grants which have been awarded. 

She recommended that a sum of £25k be transferred from the Capital Reserve to the Community Capital Grants Budget for awards during 2016/17 and that the Committee re-confirmed the allocations awarded to Galhampton Village Hall and to Hadspen Village Hall as detailed in her report.

She responded to questions from members. Following the discussion, she pointed out that the Community Grant Budget was available for funding applications, providing that the criteria were met, and encouraged good projects to come forward. She further advised that where the criteria could not be met for community projects, that the Neighbourhood Development Officers would be able to assist in finding funding.

It was proposed and seconded, that the Committee agree with the recommendations as detailed in the report.

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

RESOLVED: that the committee

(1) noted the spending and balances for the Area East Capital Programme and Reserve for 2016.

(2) Agreed to transfer a sum of £25k from the Capital Reserve to the Community Capital Grants Budget for awards during 2016/17.

(3) Reconfirmed allocations of £12,500 to Galhampton Village Hall and £3,000 to Hadspen Village Hall.

(4) Return the  £1,500 awarded to Barton St David towards the installation of speed cameras is returned to balances.

(5) Noted the budgets available for 2016/17 to address priorities for the coming year.

REASON: to replenish the Community Capital Grant allocation for 2016/17.

(Voting: 8 in favour, with 1 abstention)

RESOLVED: that up to £1689.31, as a 50% contribution, is awarded to Bootmakers, 5 Market Place, Wincanton.

- £1,453 from the Community Development budget revenue element ring-fenced for the RSI

- £236.31 from the Community Development budget, Wincanton top-up, revenue element ring-fenced for the RSI

Subject to the following standard conditions;

(a)  The grant award may be used by SSDC for promotional/publicity purposes

(b)  Grants are paid for approved works/purchases on production of receipted invoices

(c)  Awards are subject to an interim report (within 9 months) and final report being submitted

(d)  Applicants will normally be expected to draw down the grant within 6 months of the offer

(e)  That appropriate consents are obtained

(f)   Works requiring listed building/planning consents or building regulations will be required to be signed off by the appropriate officer prior to the release of funds

(g)  If, within 3 years of a grant award, the business ceases to trade, the District Council reserves the right to reclaim the grant on the following basis: year one – 100%; year 2 – 75%, year 3 – 45%

REASON: towards shop front improvements and signage, which includes an additional top up to assist with business equipment.

(Voting: Unanimous)

The Community Support Assistant presented her report to the Committee. She summarised the self-sustaining scheme for the property which used to be a bootmakers and explained that the new owners were looking to retain the old name of Bootmakers.

Councillor Nick Colbert supported the scheme and was pleased that the building would be brought back into use. He questioned the additional funding for the purchase of equipment, however was satisfied that it met the current criteria.

Councillor Colin Winder also offered his support to the scheme.

It was proposed and seconded that the application be approved as detailed in the officer report.

On being put to the vote, this was carried unanimously.

RESOLVED: that up to £1689.31, as a 50% contribution, is awarded to Bootmakers, 5 Market Place, Wincanton,

·         £1,453 from the Community Development budget revenue element ring-fenced for the RSI

·         £236.31 from the Community Development budget, Wincanton top-up, revenue element ring-fenced for the RSI

Subject to the following standard conditions;

(a)  The grant award may be used by SSDC for promotional/publicity purposes

(b)  Grants are paid for approved works/purchases on production of receipted invoices

(c)  Awards are subject to an interim report (within 9 months) and final report being submitted

(d)  Applicants will normally be expected to draw down the grant within 6 months of the offer

(e)  That appropriate consents are obtained

(f)   Works requiring listed building/planning consents or building regulations will be required to be signed off by the appropriate officer prior to the release of funds

(g)  If, within 3 years of a grant award, the business ceases to trade, the District Council reserves the right to reclaim the grant on the following basis: year one – 100%; year 2 – 75%, year 3 – 45%

REASON: towards shop front improvements and signage, which includes an additional top up to assist with business equipment.

(Voting: Unanimous)

RESOLVED: that members agreed that the maximum sums for Retail Support Initiative and Retail Support Initiative Wincanton top up would be retained for 2016/17. The operating criteria for the Wincanton top up would exclude up to £300 previously available for business improvement to give more focus on shopfront improvement.

REASON: To support and help to improve the retail offer in the towns and villages across Area East.

The Community Support Assistant and the Neighbourhood Development Officer presented the report to members and provided an update on the progress of the scheme.

She explained the proposed change to extend the qualifying elements to include up to £500 towards the cost of setting up a website.

During the discussions, members raised concern over the proposed grant towards website costs and suggested that grant money should be used to improve the buildings externally. It was suggested that members vote on the Wincanton top-up scheme separately to the area wide RSI scheme.

It was proposed and seconded that the criteria for the RSI scheme be approved as detailed in appendix 1 of the report, with the exception of the website element detailed in the report which will not be approved.

On being put to the vote, this was carried unanimously.

It was proposed and seconded that the Wincanton £1,000 top-up would be retained as per appendix 1; with the exclusion of the £300 business improvement grant and that the additional units listed on page 25 would be included within the scheme.

On being put to the vote, this was carried 6 in favour and 3 against.

RESOLVED: that members agreed that the maximum sums for Retail Support Initiative and Retail Support Initiative Wincanton top up would be retained for 2016/17. The operating criteria for the Wincanton top up would exclude up to £300 previously available for business improvement to give more focus on shopfront improvement.

REASON: To support and help to improve the retail offer in the towns and villages across Area East.

(Voting: Area Wide RSI Scheme Unanimous, Wincanton top-up scheme 6 in support and 3 against)

RESOLVED: that

1) Members agreed a contribution of £7920 (6% of the total project costs) from the Community Capital budget to Castle Cary Town Council towards the Fair Field project, subject to the standard conditions set out in appendix A and the following additional condition:-

That the applicant consults the Senior Play and Youth Officer on the design of the proposed Youth Facility prior to installation.

(Voting: Unanimous)

2) Members agreed a contribution of up to £5000 (36% of the total project costs) from the Community Capital Budget to Horsington Parish Council towards the refurbishment of Horsington Pond, subject to the standard conditions set out in appendix A.

(Voting: Unanimous)

3) Members agreed a contribution of up to £10,000 (11% of the total project costs) from the Community Capital Budget to South Barrow PCC towards the refurbishment of South Barrow Church, subject to the standard conditions set out in appendix A and the following additional condition:-

That the applicant provides assurance that the facility will be available as a community facility for a minimum of 15 years in line with SSDC grant policy as set out in appendix B.

That the applicant agrees to the terms of a clawback arrangement to safeguard the AEC investment.

(Voting: 7 in favour, with 2 abstentions)

REASON: to consider requests for capital grants from Castle Cary Town Council, Horsington Parish Council and South Barrow Parochial Church Council.

The Neighbourhood Development Officer addressed the Committee to present his report. He advised that there was a slight amendment to page 41 of his report; additional S106 money for Castle Cary and Ansford was now available and had been omitted from the financial implication details. The report should read ‘If members agree the recommendations set out in this report, a sum of £2967 (not £887) will remain to be allocated.’

It was suggested that the three grant applications would be discussed in turn.

The Neighbourhood Development Officer, with the aid of a PowerPoint presentation slide, presented a landscaping plan which provided details of The Fairfield Project.

He advised members that the proposal would be advantageous to younger residents by providing additional facilities. He also pointed out that it was unlikely that an alternative site could be found. 

Penny Steiner, Castle Cary Town Councillor, addressed the Committee and spoke in support of the project. She explained to members that residents would like to see the land, jointly owned by the two Councils, to remain as open space and welcomed the project for facilities such as a pump track.

There were no questions from members.

The Neighbourhood Development Officer summarised the application made by Horsington Parish Council towards funding for pond improvements. He explained that the pond is currently dredged approximately every 6 or 7 years.

Charles James, a representative of the Parish Council addressed the Committee. He explained that the current process of de-silting the pond was destroying the wildlife and hoped that a silt-trap at the top of the site would stop this from happening. He also pointed out that the proposal included a safe dipping area for children, would encourage wildlife such as water voles and newts and would create a nice feature for the village.

Ian Snowden, a member of the Parish Council and the project group, addressed the Committee and spoke in support of the application. He explained that the community would benefit from the project and pointed out the silt trap would be accessible from the road which would make maintenance easier.

Councillor William Wallace, Ward Member, supported the scheme. He agreed with the comments made and advised members that the pond attracted tourists and was popular with local residents.

Councillor Tim Inglefield, Ward Member, offered his support for the project and complimented the Parish Council for their work carried out so far.

The Neighbourhood Development Officer summarised details of the grant application made by South Barrow Parochial Church Council towards reordering the St Peter’s Church to provide a meeting space. 

He pointed out that the parish already had access to a village hall at North Barrow, but pointed out that funding had been found from a number of other sources and that the project was ready to go.

During the discussion, it was suggested that a clawback condition should be included to safeguard to AEC investment.

It was proposed and seconded that members agreed the capital grants as detailed in the officer report,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 15.

The Neighbourhood Development Officer presented his report to members. He pointed out that SSDC had very little input into the Parish Design Statement and that the very detailed document had been funded by the local community.

It was proposed and seconded to endorse the Brewham Parish Design Statement. On being put to the vote, this was carried unanimously.

RESOLVED: that the Brewham Parish Design Statement be endorsed.

(Voting: Unanimous)

RESOLVED: that

(1)  The Wessex Cross Border Working Group no longer operated and that Councillor Colin Winder would no longer be required to represent Area East Committee on the working group.

(2)  That the following members be appointed to the outside organisations and groups for 2016/17 as listed below;

REASON: To appoint district council representatives to outside organisations and groups.

(Voting: Unanimous)

The Assistant Director (Communities) confirmed that the Wessex Cross Border Working Group no longer operated and membership could be removed. She advised that the number of Councillors to be appointed to the Dimmer Liaison Group could be reduced to one, rather than two and that it would be useful to appoint two members to the Henstridge Consultative Committee.

RESOLVED: It was unanimously resolved that

(1)  The Wessex Cross Border Working Group no longer operated and that Councillor Colin Winder would no longer be required to represent Area East Committee on the working group.

(2)  That the following members be appointed to the outside organisations and groups for 2016/17 as listed below;

REASON: To appoint district council representatives to outside organisations and groups.

(Voting: Unanimous)

RESOLVED: That, in line with the Development Control Revised Scheme of Delegation, two members be nominated to act as substitutes for the Chairman and Vice Chairman to make decisions in the Chairman’s and Vice Chairman’s absence on whether an application should be considered by the Area Committee as requested by the Ward Member(s).  For the 2015/16 municipal year the substitutes are Councillors Colin Winder and Mike Beech.

REASON: For members to nominate two members to act as substitutes for the Chairman and Vice Chairman in their absence.

It was unanimously agreed to nominate Councillors Colin Winder and Mike Beech to act as substitutes for the Chairman and Vice Chairman in their absence on whether an application should be considered by the Area Committee as requested by the Ward Member(s).

RESOLVED: That, in line with the Development Control Revised Scheme of Delegation, two members be nominated to act as substitutes for the Chairman and Vice Chairman to make decisions in the Chairman’s and Vice Chairman’s absence on whether an application should be considered by the Area Committee as requested by the Ward Member(s).  For the 2015/16 municipal year the substitutes are Councillors Colin Winder and Mike Beech.

REASON: For members to nominate two members to act as substitutes for the Chairman and Vice Chairman in their absence.

(Voting: Unanimous)

The Chairman pointed out that he was expecting the planning application for Henstridge Airfield to return to Committee next month.

It was confirmed that an update report on the Wincanton Sports Ground would follow when ready and an Area Development half year progress report would be included on the November agenda.

RESOLVED: That the Area East Forward Plan be noted and updates reports for Wincanton Sports Ground and Area Development be included on the Forward Plan.

Members noted the planning appeals which had been received.

Members noted the schedule of planning applications to be determined by Committee.

The Planning Officer presented her report to members with the aid of a PowerPoint presentation.

She explained to the Committee that amended plans had been received for consideration which included a revised south gable. She advised members that following the submission of these amended plans, that she was now recommending that the planning application was approved, subject to conditions.

She pointed out that following amended plans, the consultation period to neighbour and consultees would expire on the 15^th June 2016 and that a decision could be reached but not issued until after this date.

She continued to use a PowerPoint presentation, containing photographs and plans, to show the scheme as approved and the plans which were now being considered.

She explained to the Committee that the access to neighbouring properties was a concern as it did not accord with the plans which had been submitted. She did however point out the access met Somerset County Council’s standing advice.

She advised members that she was now recommending approval of the planning application subject to conditions which;

·         secure details of the gradient and surfacing of the first 5 meters of the access and that there be no obstruction to visibility above 900m above road level within the visibility splays set out on the approved plans

·         remove Permitted Development rights for any new external openings in the dwelling

·         remove permitted development rights for any new outbuildings

·         ensured parking and turning area is free from obstruction

·         ensured no entrance gates less than 5 meters from highway

Richard Montagu spoke in objection to the application. He was a resident of Lytes Cary Court and further represented another neighbour. He explained to the Committee that the road alongside the site is an unrestricted, narrow and heavily used. He informed members that the planning application which was approved in 2012 retained visibility to the north of his access, but that the developer had built a wall 2.4 meters closer to the road which now restricted his view.

He informed members that it was now difficult and made him feel anxious when driving out of his property access. He also pointed out that the SSDC Highway Consultant indicated in his consultation letter that he would support a change to the wall. He urged members not to grant approval without alterations to the wall.

Stuart Sinclair, the applicant, addressed the Committee. He pointed out that the glazing issue had now been resolved and that although his client accepts the objections made by the neighbours, that he had consulted with both the neighbours and the planners. He also pointed out that the wall could be built to this height under permitted development rights.

Councillor David Norris, Ward Member expressed his concern that the development should have been built in accordance with the approved plans. He explained that although the issues with the overlooking had now been resolved, he still found the wall to be a concern. He read an extract from comments made by the SSDC Highway Consultant and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22.