Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 2^nd July 2014.

The minutes of the Area South meeting held on 2^nd July 2014 copies of which had been circulated, were agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Marcus Fysh, Jon Gleeson, Dave Greene, Andy Kendall, Ian Martin, Graham Oakes and John Richardson.

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 District Council’s Regulation Committee

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

Councillors Tim Carroll, Tony Fife, Peter Gubbins, Ian Martin and Gina Seaton

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.

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 individual planning applications at the time the applications are considered.

There were no questions from members of the public.

The Chairman announced that the Education workshop by Julia Ridge SCC is to be held after the October Area South Committee from 5.30pm – 7.00pm.  A light working tea break will be provided but more details will follow nearer the time. 

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

There were no reports from Councillors on outside organsations.

Members noted the Schedule of Planning Applications.

The Planning Officer presented the application as detailed in the agenda and with the aid of a power point presentation showed the site and proposed plans. 

She explained that there were no further updates to the report and that the main issue was concern from the neighbouring property regarding loss of light to the kitchen of no. 49 Preston Road. 

In response to questions, members were informed that:

·         The boundary wall is approximately 3m away from the neighbouring window and the proposed adjacent new house is approximately the same distance, as such it is considered that the distances from no.49 Preston Road would not result in an unacceptable loss of light.

·         The boundary wall is to be increased to 2m in height, yet this would be allowed under permitted development.

·         Confirmed the materials to be used would consist of new brick walls with hamstone plinth and quoins, however these would be agreed before commencement of any work.  This was considered to be in keeping with the adjacent properties in Grove Avenue although appreciated the neighbouring properties situated along Preston Road were rendered properties.

·         The other semi-detached dwelling was a single domestic home.

·         11 parking spaces were to be provided on site.

·         Building Line brought forward due to the constraints of the location of a main drain.

Duncan Pyle, the Agent then addressed the committee.  He said the applicant had worked with both the Planning and Conservation Officers to produce an acceptable scheme which would enhance the area and that the issue regarding the overlooking had now been agreed.  Referring to concern regarding the proposed building line he reported that some properties were less than 2m from Preston Road and likewise other properties were dispersed further back.  He said there would be minimal loss of greenery on site and would reinforce the character of the road and preserve the character and appearance of the conservation area.

Councillor Wes Read, Ward member raised his concern regarding the proposed building line and considered this not to be in keeping with the area.  He suggested a deferral of the application in order for amended plans to be resubmitted.

In response the Area Lead Officer North/East explained that members needed to consider the current application in the form proposed and that any substantial alterations to the application would require a new application.

During members’ discussion, several points were raised including the following:

·         Raised concern regarding the proposed building line.

·         Considered the application did not enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area.

·         Felt the issue regarding the constraint of the main drain could be overcome

·         Prominent site for the area and therefore the change in appearance was quite significant.

During a short debate, members, discussed and suggested reasons for refusal:

·         Impact on the conservation area

·         Material to be used

·         Location of the proposed building line

In response the Area Lead Officer North/East sought clarification that members were concerned with solely the location of the additional proposed dwellings.

It was then proposed and subsequently seconded  ...  view the full minutes text for item 34.

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 reported that no objections had been received and that the application was only before the committee for determination as located outside the development limit.

He also told members that condition 3 as set out in the agenda should be updated to add reference to section drawing, there were no further updates to add to the agenda report.

In response to a members question the Planning Officer confirmed that the application included the proposal for a double garage.

Councillor Cathy Bakewell, Ward member voiced her support of the application.  She said the site was out of view and considered it to be infill as long as the proposal followed the existing building line.  She felt it was a sensible use of land which was currently used as a scrap heap and therefore it would enhance the area.

Councillor Gina Seaton also voiced her support for the application and said the proposal would tidy up the area.   She also understood the Parish Council supported the application.

Following a short discussion member’s voiced their support of the application and felt this was an acceptable proposal and considered it to be within a sustainable location.

It was then proposed and subsequently seconded that planning permission be approved as set out in the agenda report with Condition 3 updated to add reference to section drawing.  On being put to the vote this was carried unanimously.

RESOLVED:

Grant permission for the following reasons:

01.       The proposal is acceptable in this location, causes no significant adverse impact on the character of the landscape or the area, archaeology, highway safety or residential amenity. Accordingly the proposal complies with policies EC3, EH12, ST5 and ST6 and the aims and objectives of the NPPF.

SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING:

01.       Details of the appearance, landscaping and scale (herein after called the "reserved matters") shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before any development begins and the development shall be carried out as approved.

            Reason: As required by Section 92(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

02.       Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the Local Planning Authority before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission and the development shall begin no later than 3 years from the date of this permission or not later than 2 years from the approval of the last "reserved matters" to be approved.

            Reason: As required by Section 92(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

03.       The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: drawing 14/051/01B and 14/051/02B received 19 June 2014.

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

04.       No works shall be undertaken unless the applicant, or their agents or successors  ...  view the full minutes text for item 35.

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 explained to members that this application is an amended re-submission of the previous application which was refused at committee in June of this year.

She explained the previous application proposed a smaller sized gap in the front boundary wall, however this application seeks to remove an additional 1 metre width of the natural stone wall to allow easier parking of a vehicle.  She advised members that although this would perhaps alleviate the parking issue for this property it is considered that it is detrimental both to the character and appearance of the conservation area and to highway safety, therefore her recommendation was for refusal of the application.

Councillor Gina Seaton, Ward member voiced her support of the application.  She said she had spoken with the residents of the property who would ensure the back retaining wall would be faced with hamstone.  She said the area was extremely busy with road traffic and that public safety was paramount and it was safer to keep vehicles off the road where at all possible.

Councillor Cathy Bakewell, Ward member also voiced her support of the application.  She referred to the previous debate and considered this application to be acceptable as long as the retaining wall be faced with hamstone.  She appreciated the Conservation officer’s comments but felt it was the sensible way forward and needed to get vehicles off the road.

During members’ discussion several points were raised including the following:

·         Appreciated the traffic problems in the area and that public safety is paramount.

·         Appreciated the need to protect the conservation area and agreed the retaining wall be faced in natural stone.

In response the Area Lead Officer North/East sought clarification on the reason for approval including conditions to include:

·         Agreement of stone samples

·         Completion of works by 31^st Dec 2014

·         Requirement to remove wall before using as parking bay

It was then proposed and subsequently seconded that planning permission be approved, contrary to the officer’s recommendation for the following reasons as read out by the Area Lead Officer North/ East:

‘The proposal to remove part of the boundary wall to allow the creation of an off-road parking space would not have severe impact on highways safety.  The benefits would outweigh any visual impact and the character and appearance of the conservation area would be maintained’.

On being put to the vote this was carried by 11 votes in favour, 0 against and 1 abstention.

RESOLVED:

Grant permission for the following reasons:

The proposal to remove part of the boundary wall to allow the creation of an off road parking space would not have severe impact on highways safety. The benefits would outweigh any visual impact and the character and appearance of the conservation area would be maintained. As such the proposal complies with saved policies EH1, ST5 and ST6 of the South Somerset  ...  view the full minutes text for item 36.

Steven Membery, Senior Historic Environment Archaeologist at Somerset County Council provided a presentation to members and with the aid of slides showed a number of significant archaeological sites and findings that were discovered as part of the planning process on the following sites: 

·         Lyde Road - works part funded by Somerset County Council with approximately 2-3 years excavation work remaining. 

·         Bunford Hollow - all excavation work being funded by the developer with work to continue on site for quite some considerable time.

He concluded that in order to retain significant local historical evidence, excavation of these sites, in his opinion, is the best option rather than stop much needed development.   He invited members to an organised site visit which he was happy to arrange.

In response to questions, he informed members that:

·         Community involvements linking groups, schools etc. to these historical sites was very important

·         2 types of constraints put on developers reference to guidelines from the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF):

1.    Sites of National significance – applications for these areas would in all probability be refused in order to preserve the area

2.    Sites of Local significance – developers would be able to continue to develop land in co-operation with the Archaeological risk assessment of the site

Members thanked the Senior Historic Environment Archaeologist for his very informative presentation and agreed a site visit would be an excellent opportunity to visit these sites. The Democratic Services Officer agreed to arrange a visit in due course.

NOTED 

The Corporate Strategic Housing Manager presented the report and with the aid of a powerpoint presentation proceeded to go through the agenda report highlighting to members the overall number of new affordable homes built in Yeovil last year and the future prospects for more affordable housing delivery in Area South. 

He explained that although last year saw a small amount of affordable houses built, these had all had been completed by Yarlington Housing Group.  He also referred to a report being considered by the district executive on the following day which gave more details on the district wide delivery of affordable housing over the past six years and the current year projection.  He also informed members that:

-       The Affordable homes currently being built as the first phase of the Lufton key site comprise half social rented and half shared ownership.

-       Area South is unique in the district this year as delivery consists of more social rented properties than affordable rented properties

-       In answer to a specific question he explained that it was usual that the tenant/buyer of a shared ownership home would assume responsibility of the maintenance of the property once completion had taken place.

The Chairman thanked the Corporate Strategic Housing Manager for his excellent report.

                                                                        NOTED

The Economic Development Manager presented the report as detailed in the agenda and explained the role of the Economic Development Team.  With the aid of a powerpoint presentation he informed members that:

·         The Innovation centre has secured further ‘anchor’ tenants to improve the mid and long term profitability of the centre.  This was in accord with the original financial modelling and projections for YIC.

·         Success of the ‘Business start up’ event where 65 prospective businesses attended.

·         Local Food Show to take place at Haynes Motor Museum on 17^th September 2014

·         Success of the ‘Literature Exchange’ whereby businesses within tourism had the opportunity to distribute and exchange various literature including leaflets, brochures etc.

·         Over 66,000 visitors to the TIC including the Cartgate site which was a popular site for visitors

·         Community Heritage Access Centre (CHAC) – production of the ‘Yeovil in Memory’ calendar and World War One Commemoration brochure

In response to questions, the Economic Development Manager informed members that:

·         Further development work on internet apps were restricted due to limited resources.

·         Advertising space within the ‘Discover’ brochure was considered acceptable at £20.

·         Agreed to provide further information to Councillor Tim Carroll who sought clarification regarding the value of investments supported by South Somerset within Area South.

·         Agreed to obtain more detailed breakdown of employment statistics within the tourism sector (if available) for Councillor Peter Seib.

Members noted the report and thanked the Economic Development Manager for his informative presentation.

NOTED

Councillor Nigel Gage requested an update regarding the position of the Eastern Corridor Highways improvements due to be brought to committee in December 2014.   He was informed that this report would be presented by SCC highways.  The Democratic Services Officer would action this request and liaise with SCC highways direct.

Councillor Peter Seib requested that an update report regarding the current position of the Western Corridor Highways Improvements be brought to committee in April/May 2015.

Members noted the Planning Appeals.