Agenda, decisions and minutes

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

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

An apology for absence was received from Councillor 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 David Norris, 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 Sarah Dyke declared a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in Agenda Item 10 – The Balsam Centre – Allocation of Healthy Living Centre Funding for 2016/17, as an employee of the Balsam Centre. 

Councillor Mike Lewis declared a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in Planning Application No. 16/03149/LBC, as his wife was the applicant and advised that he would leave the room during discussion of the item.

Councillors Mike Lewis and Anna Groskop, 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.

Questions/Comments from members of the public

The Committee was addressed by Lillian Elson.  She expressed her appreciation to the local police officers for their help and support in dealing with local issues.  She  commented about the work that Horton Heritage Trust had undertaken in conjunction with the Streetscene service including the clearance of ragwort and liaising over the emptying of the litter bin located in the layby along the A303.  She also raised concerns over the use of herbicides and badger setts becoming deserted on both sides of the A303 due to the impact of night working. 

Questions/Comments from representatives of parish/town councils

Cllr. Colin Winder referred to the issue of lorries operating from a business in West Mudford which had been raised at the last meeting and asked about the outcome of consultation.  In response, the Assistant Director (Communities) explained that a certificate of lawfulness had been submitted and Mudford Parish Council had been given 3 weeks to comment.  The issue was ongoing and it was likely that a planning application would follow in the future.  The Assistant Director (Communities) agreed to liaise with the Planning Department with regard to timescales and would check if an appropriate operators licence was being held. 

Cllr. Tony Capozzoli advised that there were two issues that needed to be given priority by Highways. The first related to safety railings outside Mudford Village Hall that had been damaged for 6 months and the second related to the need for replacement white lines on the layby at Northover.  The Area Development Lead (East) will follow these up.

Cllr. Tim Inglefield expressed his thanks to the Committee for funding received towards Horsington Pond and advised that the works were now fully funded.

Cllr. Henry Hobhouse informed members that he had attended the opening of South Barrow converted church and expressed his thanks to the Committee for the funding received towards the project.

Cllr. Henry Hobhouse advised that he was unable to attend an important meeting of the Dimmer Liaison Group being held the following day and asked whether any other member would be able to attend in his absence.  Unfortunately no other member was available to attend.  It was noted that representatives from Carymoor would be attending the meeting.

Members are asked to note that the next scheduled meeting of the committee will be at the Council Offices, Churchfield, Wincanton on Wednesday 12^th October at 9.00am.

Members noted that the next meeting of the Area East Committee would be held on Wednesday 12^th October 2016 at the Council Offices, Churchfield, Wincanton at 9.00am.

The Chairman made no announcements.

Sgt. Dean Hamilton and Insp. Neil Dillon from Avon and Somerset Constabulary were welcomed to the meeting and gave a short presentation on local issues, crime trends and initiatives. Particular reference was made to the new crime recording system and its implications and the latest position with staffing.  He informed members that there was an increase in recorded crime throughout the Force because of the way that crime was now recorded.  He advised that all Police Officers in Wincanton had been issued with body cams which would assist with evidence and protection.  The issues with staffing problems over the last 18 months had now been resolved and two new posts had recently been secured resulting in 4 beat managers.    Members were informed that the Police were looking at new ways of working with other agencies and that the fire brigade were now attending any welfare issues. 

The Police Officers responded to questions and issues from members raised during discussion.  Further details of the lorry watch scheme will be obtained as this may be of interest to communities in Area east. 

The Chairman thanked the Police Officers for attending the meeting.

RESOLVED: that members note the report.

The Streetscene Manager presented his report, which informed members about the performance of the Streetscene Service in Area East from January to August 2016. He highlighted to members key points including:

·         Some concerns had been raised about use of herbicides and so the service was actively assessing alternative options;

·         The service had accommodated the need for additional waste bins in the district;

·         The number of flytips was reducing which was due to the street cleaning teams collecting single black bags of rubbish as routine litter;

·         Work was being undertaken to develop the workshop as an MOT station.

The Streetscene Manager responded to points of detail raised by members during discussion.  He explained that the process for prosecuting for flytipping was a complex issue and that the approach being taken involved the issuing of fixed penalty notices and this now came under the Environmental Health Service.

Members thanked the Officer for the work of the team especially for the following:

·         clearing bales of hay in Ilchester;

·         removal of weeds outside Queen Camel School;

·         the continuation of christmas tree shredding.

The Chairman thanked the Streetscene Manager for attending the meeting.

Reason:  To agree an allocation of funding ring-fenced for Health Living Centres.

(Voting: unanimous)

(Having earlier declared a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest as an employee of the Balsam Centre, Cllr. Sarah Dyke left the room during consideration of the item.)

The Area Development Lead (East) reminded members that the budget was originally established to support Healthy Living Centres across the whole of the District but was transferred to Area East as the only eligible organisation was based in Area East.  He commented that the main strength of the Balsam Centre was that it was flexible and able to change to meet demand.  He highlighted that the Balsam Centre had been effective in developing a strong relationship with the Health Centre. 

A member suggested putting forward the project as an essential community facility for future funding through CIL.

Following a brief discussion on the report, Members unanimously supported the recommendations outlined in the report.

Reason:  To agree an allocation of funding ring-fenced for Health Living Centres.

(Voting: unanimous)

The Section 106 Monitoring Officer presented the report as shown in the agenda which detailed signed Section 106 agreements relating to development within Area East.  He highlighted key changes in legislation since the last report with regard to contributions from schemes of 10 dwellings or less, and reminded members of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations.

During discussion, members made a number of comments which included the following:

·         Sought assurance that the money collected with county was being recorded;

·         Queried the possibility of sending draft S106 agreements to district, town and parish councillors; 

·         Advised that Parish and Towns Councils were unaware of how to draw down the money that was due to improve community infrastructure from developments;   

·         Felt that it would be useful for future reports to include whether S106 agreements had been renegotiated and highlighted the need for the amount due to parish and town council areas to be made clearer.

The Assistant Director (Communities) advised that a Portfolio Holder Briefing on CIL was due to be held for members in the near future.

At the conclusion of the debate it was agreed that a workshop on the S106 process would be arranged for members with the relevant officers.  Somerset County Council Lead responsibility for their Section 106 Monitoring will be clarified.

The Chairman thanked the Section 106 Monitoring Officer for his report.

The Assistant Director (Communities) advised that the updates on Historic Buildings at Risk (Confidential) and the Conservation Service expected at the November meeting would be presented as linked reports.

A member referred to a recent article in the Blackmore Vale and requested an update on Dimmer and its future to be added to the Forward Plan.

Members made a request for the new Chief Executive to attend the October meeting of the Area East Committee.

RESOLVED: that the Area East Forward Plan be noted as outlined in the agenda subject to the amendments

Members noted the planning appeals which has been received and allowed.

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

Application Proposal: Erection of 9 dwellings and associated ancillary works

The Planning Officer presented his report to members with the aid of a powerpoint presentation.  He noted an error in the report and that the site address was Wincanton.  He advised that since writing his report, an additional letter had been received from an occupier of a neighbouring property seeking assurances that if approved the site would not be left in a partially completed state.  The Planning Officer’s recommendation was for approval subject to conditions.

The Committee was addressed by Sally Hoadley, a supporter of the proposal.  She said that although she was saddened by the proposals the plans presented were as acceptable as they could be and was pleased that the access issues had been resolved.

The Applicant’s Agent, Matthew Kendrick commented that the proposal had been developed in response to discussions with the Town Council and local members.  The proposed development would be located within a sustainable location 550 metres to the High Street and would be served by a footway.  He said that the proposal was supported by Policy SS5 and that the site was a perfect location for bungalows.

The Ward Member, Cllr. Colin Winder welcomed bungalows on the site.  He felt that the site entrance should be constructed first.  He referred to the stone wall around the site and wished to see a condition to ensure that it was cleaned and brought up to date.  He also wished to see the trees removed.  Reference was made to flooding and drainage issues in the area which needed to be addressed although were not in relation to this site.  

The other Ward Member, Cllr. Nick Colbert expressed his support for nine bungalows on the site which he believed was the best option for the neighbourhood and wouldn’t impact on the views from the properties above.  He queried whether a condition could be added to ensure that bungalows were built on the site.   

In response to member’s comments and questions, the Planning Officer and Area Lead North/East confirmed the following:

·         The Committee were considering a full application and that if the applicant wished to vary any details a new application would have to be submitted. 

·         The wall could be dealt under an existing condition;

·         Condition 11 required the visibility splays to be provided prior to the development commencing;

·         The application could not seek to deal with ongoing flooding issues through other sites;

·         The scheme would provide for new storm water drainage to serve the development.  

At the conclusion of the debate, it was proposed and seconded to approve the application as per the Planning Officer’s recommendation outlined in the report.  On being put to the vote, the proposal was carried 9 in favour and 1 against.

Application Proposal: S73 Application to vary conditions 1 and 4 of approval 12/00971/S73, to allow for an increase in permitted retail sales area

The Area Lead (North/East) presented his report to members with the aid of a powerpoint presentation.  He updated that a further letter had been received from a local resident objecting to the proposal raising concerns over the impact on the viability of the high street.  He advised that the Area Development Officer had provided comments echoing concerns over the adverse effect on the town centre.   The Area Lead North/East’s recommendation was for approval.

The Committee was addressed by John Smith, Chairman of Wincanton Chamber of Commerce.  He advised that Boots had been contacted asking for assurances that their High Street shop would not close but no response had been received.  He questioned if the High Street store didn’t make a profit how long would it remain open?  He sought assurances that if the application were to be approved, the District Council would work with the Chamber of Commerce to keep the high street going.

The Applicant’s Agent, Malcolm Honour stated that Boots had no intention of closing the High Street store and that it was common for Boots to have more than one store in a town. 

The Committee was then addressed by David Morton, Estate Manager for Boots.  He commented that the High Street store was profitable and that there were no proposals to close the store.   

Ward Member, Cllr. Nick Colbert commented that he was unable to support the proposal due to the impact on the high street.

The other Ward Member, Cllr Colin Winder was of the view that the proposal was contrary to planning policy guidance for town centre frameworks and that Boots were continuing to try to make a non-viable project viable.

The Area Lead (North/East) advised that the application was not for change of use and only related to an increased sales area and no variation to the range of products to be sold was being sought and that all conditions would remain the same. 

During discussion on the item, one member expressed concerns over the impact on the High Street and that no need for an additional sales area had been demonstrated.  It was felt that the social benefit of coming to the High Street outweighed the benefits of locating a pharmacy outside the community.  Some members were of the view that a commitment from Boots to remain in the High Street for at least five years could address members concerns.

Following discussion, it was proposed and seconded to approve the application as per the Planning Officer’s recommendation.  On being put to the vote the proposal was lost 3 in favour and 5 against.  It was subsequently proposed to defer the application to enable more information to be provided about the impact on the existing store on the High Street.  On being put to the vote the proposal was carried 7 in favour and 2 abstentions.

Application Proposal: Outline application for the erection of a detached dwelling

The Planning Officer introduced the report and with the aid of slides and photographs and summarised the details of the application.  The Planning Officer’s recommendation was for refusal.

The Committee was addressed by Trevor Gill, representing Charlton Horethorne Parish Council.  He informed members that the Parish Council supported the application and that no members of the public had raised an objection.  The Parish Council were of the view that there was a special case to approve the application and that the only issue to be resolved as part of the application related to drainage.

The Committee was addressed by Lilian Elsa in objection to the application.  She stated they she agreed with the comments of the Landscape Architect and believed that the finances of the farm were unsound.

The Applicant’s Agent, Janet Montgomery commented that Stowell was part of the community of Charlton Horethorne.  The proposal would allow an existing dairy farmer to have an injection of capital to allow the expansion of the business.  Members were advised that the application was supported by the Parish Council and the Council’s Economic Development Officer. 

The Committee was addressed by the Applicants James and Liz Kingman in support of the application.  They referred to the current financial climate and commented that they had no control over milk prices.  They referred to the need for their business to grow and dairy farmers having to take on new technology.  In order for them to complete the parlour and sustain a future, they advised that they would need help with funding.

Ward Member, Cllr. Tim Inglefield expressed his support for the application and advised that the other ward member, Cllr. William Wallace also supported the application. He commented that it was vital for the applicants business to be sustainably viable in the future.  He believed that policy SS2 did apply and that the site was located in a sustainable location and close to adequate services in Charlton Horethorne.  He referred to other developments in the village and commented that it was difficult to object to an infill and was of the opinion that the development had been planned so a gap would be retained to continue the landscape characteristics of the village.  He felt that the application should be approved subject to conditions including an agreement to cover money from the sale of the dwelling being put back into the business.

The Area Lead (North/East) advised members strongly against putting a S106 agreement on the site.  The Solicitor confirmed that the offer did not meet the statutory test for S106 obligations.

During discussion, members were of the view that the site was in a sustainable location and that the application would not result in harm to the characteristics of the area. It was proposed and seconded to approve the application contrary to the Planning Officer’s recommendation subject to conditions relating to time limit, reserved matters and drainage.  On being put to the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 74.

Application Proposal: Conversion of agricultural building to dwelling and the erection of a detached carport with room above, boundary wall and formation of new access (Revised and Part Retrospective)

The Planning Officer presented the report to members with the aid of a powerpoint presentation.  The Planning Officer’s recommendation was for refusal.

The Committee was addressed by the Applicant, Mr Stacey Beaton.  In terms of visibility, he advised that neighbouring properties were content with the change to the boundary wall.  He commented that the Parish Council had not raised any objection with leaving the glazed end.

The Ward Member, Cllr. David Norris commented that the neighbours still had an issue with overlooking and neighbour amenity.  He was in agreement with the Planning Officer’s recommendation to refuse the application and felt that approval should only be given for a proposal more in line with what was originally approved.

At the conclusion of the debate, it was proposed and seconded to refuse the application as per the Planning Officer’s recommendation as members felt that the development should be built to plan.  On being put to the vote the proposal was carried by 8 votes in favour and 2 against. 

Application Proposal: Refurbishment of free-standing outbuilding to create an annex to house (guest bedroom and living space) (revised application)

The Planning Officer presented the report to members with the aid of a powerpoint presentation.  She noted an error on page 95 of the agenda report and advised that the distance to the adjoining property was approximately 35 m and not 70 m as stated in the report.  She advised that the only reason the proposal required planning permission was because of the raising of the roof height.  The Planning Officer’s recommendation was for approval. 

The Committee was addressed by John Bishton and Helena Pomeroy who spoke in objection to the application.  Their comments included the following:

·         Concerns over the ridge height;

·         Concerns of overlooking and the proposal being intrusive;

·         Concerns over the effect on the boundary wall;

·         Support for the change in colour of the roof material;

·         Loss of privacy;

·         The proposal would not enhance the neighbourhood.   

The Applicant, Natalie Jones informed members of the nature of her local business and the reasons for the application.  She stated that in order to provide a usable room it was necessary to raise the roof height and the proposed height was the minimum rise feasible.  She said that it was appropriate to retain a different material and welcomed the colour grey.  She advised that the roof lights with frosted glass would mean that privacy would remain.

The Ward Member, Councillor Anna Groskop advised that the Town Council objected to the materials proposed.  She commented that the roof scape in Bruton had been admired for many generations and the proposed roofing material was not in keeping with the area.   The adjoining neighbour would also be affected by the proposal.

In response to a member question, the Area Lead (North/East) confirmed that the material of the roof would be profile metal sheeting and that the Conservation Officer had no objection.

During discussion, members expressed concerns over the proposed roofing material and could not support a corrugated roof. It was proposed and seconded to defer the application to allow for clarification of the proposed roofing material to be used.

Application Proposal: Refurbishment of free-standing outbuilding to create an annex to house (guest bedroom and living space) (revised application)

It was proposed and seconded to defer the application to allow for clarification of the proposed roofing material.  On being put to the vote the proposal was unanimously carried.

Application Proposal: Reversionary works to reinstate original ceiling heights, replace non-consented windows and minor internal alterations

(Having earlier declared a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest (DPI) in the application, Cllr. Mike Lewis left the room during consideration of the item)

The Planning Officer presented his report to members with the aid of a powerpoint presentation.  His was recommendation was for approval.

The Committee was addressed by the applicant, Mrs Pauline Lewis.  She advised that the proposed works included the reinstatement of the original ceiling heights at first floor level. 

Following a brief discussion, it was noted that the application was only before the Committee because of the relationship of the applicant with a District Councillor.  It was proposed and seconded that the planning application be granted permission and on being put to the vote, this was carried unanimously.