Agenda, decisions and minutes

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 3^rd October 2018.

The minutes of the Area South Committee held on 3^rd October 2018 copies of which had been circulated, were agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Andy Kendall, Graham Oakes and Sarah Lindsay.

In accordance with the Council's current Code of Conduct (as amended 26 February 2015), 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. 

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.  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. 

Planning Applications Referred to the District Council’s Regulation Committee

The following members of this Committee are also members of the Council's Regulation Committee:

Councillors Peter Gubbins, Mike Lock, Tony Lock and David Recardo.

Where planning applications are referred by this Committee to the Regulation Committee for determination, 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.

There were no questions from members of the public.

There were no Chairman’s Announcements.

This is an opportunity for Members who represent the Council on outside organisations to report items of interest to the Committee.

Councillor John Clark informed members that £890k of the £996k had been secured to fund the Westfield Community Hall.  A preferred contractor had been agreed and he was hopeful that they would start works in the New Year.

(voting: unanimous)

The Communities Lead presented the report and explained this was a one off grant to recruit a part time post that would subsequently be self-sustaining.  She explained the role of the post was to help co-ordinate town centre activities and focus on events and promotions within Yeovil town centre.

David Woan, President of the Chamber of Trade addressed the committee and said that this role was needed to ensure the town centre did not suffer as a result of reduced support from SSDC Officers.  He believed funding was critical to deliver events in Yeovil and was part of the Yeovil Refresh project.

During discussion members voiced their support of the grant application and agreed that events are essential to help bring people into the town centre to help the future of the town.

It was then proposed and subsequently seconded to agree a grant up to £7500 to the Town Centre Events on behalf of Love Marketing Group.

(voting: unanimous)

The Communities Lead presented the report and updated members that the Crematorium presentation would now take place at the February committee.  She also said an approach had been made to the relevant officer at SSC Education on the future demand and requirements for education places in Yeovil and she would update the committee as soon as information is supplied by them.

Councillor Peter Gubbins asked that the Yeovil Refresh and Economic Development update report be brought to the March committee.

Councillor Tony Lock requested an update report on the ongoing work and current situation of Birchfield Park in Yeovil.

In response to an enquiry from Councillor John Clark as to when the Area South Council Plan element would be finalised and whether it would be brought back to committee, the Communities Lead advised that this would come to the December committee.

(Voting: Without dissent)

Members noted the Planning Appeals.

Members noted the Schedule of Planning Applications.

The erection of a two storey side and single storey rear extension to dwellinghouse 10 Westbury Gardens Higher Odcombe Yeovil

The Planning Officer presented the application as detailed in the agenda and with the aid of a powerpoint presentation showed the site and proposed plans.  She confirmed the application was part retrospective and that should the application be refused consideration of enforcement action would be taken. 

The Planning Officer confirmed that there were no further updates to the report and referred to the key considerations being the impact on visual and residential amenity and believed that on balance she does not consider the proposal causes demonstrable harm to the neighbouring properties and is located in a residential road of differing styles.  Her recommendation therefore was to approve the application for reasons as set out in the agenda report.

In response to members’ questions the Planning Officer explained that planning conditions are imposed on applications at the time of approval.   Individuals have the right to re-submit an application in future which may or may not allow removal of conditions previously imposed, however each application would be assessed appropriately at that time.  She also confirmed the original single storey extension south elevation would be finished in render and remained the same for this proposal.

A representative of Odcombe Parish Council then addressed the committee who believed the additional height was overbearing to the neighbouring property with the extension built right up to the neighbouring boundary.  She confirmed the Parish Council were happy with the original application but unanimously against approval of this proposal.

Two members of the public made comments in objection to the proposal.  These included:

·         Very overbearing and oppressive.

·         Extension dominates the view.

·         Second storey is a step too far.

·         Building works and scaffolding have be ongoing for an extensive period of time causing undue stress to occupants of neighbouring property.

·         Badly designed and not in keeping with surrounding properties.

·         Insufficient gap between extension and neighbouring property.

·         Causes loss of light and dominates neighbouring bungalow.

·         Disproportionate size for the area.

·         Original single storey extension was acceptable.

The agent then addressed the committee and told members that work had now stopped on site and believed the proposal was not unduly obtrusive.  He apologised for any inconvenience caused but hoped that members would support the application.

Ward member, Councillor Gina Seaton said this proposal was overbearing and dominated the view to the neighbouring bungalow.  She said it overlooked No.12 garden and dominates their private amenity space with the extension obscuring the view and therefore would not support the application. 

Ward member, Councillor Cathy Bakewell believed the two storey extension finished in render to the side elevation was out of keeping with the streetscene and as the road sloped stood very imposing and overbearing to the neighbouring property also being in close proximity to the neighbouring boundary line.

During discussion, members raised comments including the following:

·         Render to the south elevation of the extension was not a key material used in the street  ...  view the full minutes text for item 37.

Change of use of former public house to 8no flats with associated internal, external works and parking, Great Western Hotel, 47 Camborne Grove, Yeovil BA21 5DG

The Planning Officer presented the application as detailed in the agenda and with the aid of a powerpoint presentation showed the site and proposed plans.  He told members the original application had been deferred at the September committee to allow negotiations to take place in respect of the parking provison associated with the proposal. 

He referred members to the proposed amendments as set out in his report and although this had reduced the parking provison requirement by one space a 4^th parking space had now been created.

He also updated members that two further letters had been received reiterating concerns regarding parking provision and sustainability, however all other consultee comment’s remained unchanged.  His recommendation therefore was to approve the application and the conditions as set out in the agenda report.

A member of the public and representative for Camra then spoke in objection to the application.  Comments raised included:

·         Disappointed the Council had decided not to enter the property onto the list of Assets of the Community (AVC) as it was an excellent community pub that should remain.

·         The scheme showed no consideration for local residents with the parking provision to be unacceptable. 

·         Roads within the area were already to full capacity and the addition of many more cars would have an impact on highway safety.

·         Questioned the sustainability and the reliance for residents to depend solely on public transport with the area already badly served by the local bus service.

The agent then addressed the committee and believed the amendments made to the application with the additional parking space to be acceptable.  He noted the Council had decided for a second time to decline adding the pub to the Community Asset Register and believed it to be in a highly sustainable location, within walking distance of the railway station and town centre facilities.  He said it was an opportunity to provide housing of smaller units for low cost and was fully compliant to policy.

Ward member, Councillor Tony Lock acknowledged the former public house was no longer a viable business with lack of trade over recent years and therefore supported the change of use.  Nonetheless he still raised concern regarding the lack of parking provision given the number of flats proposed within the development.  He said the surrounding roads were already at full capacity and this proposal would result in more pressure for on street parking and be harmful to pedestrian safety. 

Ward member, Councillor Rob Stickland also had concern regarding the lack of parking provision given the surrounding roads were already at capacity and could not support the application. 

Ward member, Councillor David Recardo reiterated concerns regarding parking provision and that the pub had declined over the years and therefore was just not viable.

During discussion members made several comments including the following:

·         Felt the proposal was within a sustainable location  ...  view the full minutes text for item 38.