Agenda and minutes

The minutes of the Area South meeting held on 1^st October 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 Jon Gleeson, Dave Greene, Wes Read, John Richardson, Peter Seib and John Vincent Chainey.

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 2012 (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.

Councillor Gina Seaton declared a personal and prejudicial interest in Agenda Item 8 – Planning Application 13/01791/OUT as her son owns the garage opposite the proposed site. She would leave the meeting during consideration of that item.

Councillor Peter Gubbins declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 8 – Planning Application 13/01791/OUT as he lived in the local area.

Councillor Marcus Fysh declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 8 – Planning Application 13/01791/OUT as he lived in the local area.

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.

Mr Michael Rendell a resident from St Thomas Cross, Yeovil addressed the committee and voiced his concern regarding the delay in the construction of a new length of pavement.  Councillor Tony Lock supported his concerns explaining that he had also been pursuing this issue for some time and that he had not received any further information as to when this may be resolved.

In response, the Development Control Manager explained that there was a requirement within the planning application for Turnpike Orchard that required the creation of this length of pavement.  He appreciated the delay in this being resolved but was hopeful that further progress could be achieved very soon and therefore would update members at next month’s Area South Committee.

The Chairman provided the following update to members:

Enhancement Scheme for Lower Middle Street

Yeovil Vision Board members agreed to the funding of £7,626 from the revenue budget to enable the Area South Neighbourhood Officer – Economy to work an additional 380 hours over the next 12 months to support the Middle Street and Sherborne Road Enhancement Scheme.

Reckleford Road Scheme

Yeovil Vision Board members agreed to take £5,000 from the £34k local delivery vehicle to fund improvements to the signage from National Tyres stating use both lanes and again further up, removing white lining at Reckleford/Market Street junction to allow two lane flow straight up Reckleford. White lineage in MarketStreet to produce Halt.  They also agreed to the funding of £6,000 from the Reckleford budget for the removal of the traffic lights at the WesternGazette building.

Retail Incubation

Yeovil Vision Board members agreed to allocate £10,000 of the High Street Innovation Fund to the Retail Incubator project.

The next Yeovil Vision Meeting has been arranged for Wednesday 12th November 2014

Library Consultation

Please will you ensure that members and parishes are alerted to changes that SCC are proposing to make to the library service and encourage residents to respond to the consultation process?

Wyndham Park

A report is going to DX tomorrow seeking £400k capital funding towards much needed community facilities at Wyndham Park.  This will greatly help the ongoing project to provide much needed community facilities in this part of Yeovil.

Attracting Coach Tours

Area South Staff attended a conference of Coach drivers to encourage them to bring coach tours to Yeovil.  This has already resulted in a number of calls.

Christmas Events in Yeovil

Christmas lights switch on: Saturday 15^th November

Lantern Procession

The first ever Yeovil Lantern Parade will take place on Saturday, 15th November at 4.30pm - before the Christmas Light Switch On. This event is FREE to attend and FREE to participate!

The assembly point is outside the Methodist Church in Middle Street at 4.00pm. The procession will leave at 4.30pm led by HMS Heron RN Volunteer Band and will proceed on a pre-arranged route ending at Quedam Shopping Centre, Yeovil where it will finish at Ivel Square at approximately 5.00pm.

Free Parking

All day in SSDC car parks using voucher from the Western gazette

All day in the Quedam

Late night shopping

Thursday 20^th November

Thursday 27^th November

Thursday 4^th December

Thursday 11^th December

Thursday 18^th December

(Free Parking in the Quedam from 4  ...  view the full minutes text for item 61.

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 organisations.

Members noted the Schedule of Planning Applications.

(Having earlier declared a Personal & Prejudicial Interest Councillor Gina Seaton left the room during consideration of this item).

The Area Lead South presented the application as detailed in the agenda and with the aid of a power point presentation showed the site and proposed plans.  He informed members that Highways were in support of the proposed road layout and as part of the scheme an improved cycle provision to the site had been agreed.

The Area Lead South referred to the key considerations of Principle of Development, Landscape Impact and Highways.  In conclusion he considered that the proposal did not outweigh the harm on the surrounding open countryside and therefore his recommendation was to refuse the application for the reason set out in the agenda report.

In response to questions, members were informed that:

·         Leylandii trees on the east boundary of the access road were in the ownership of No 167 West Coker Road.

·         Highways had agreed the proposed highway layout which would include the siting of the bus stop.

·         It is not standard procedure to undertake a viability assessment prior to application; however the applicants are comfortable with the level of contributions being sought.

·         No evident issues have been raised at this stage regarding foul drainage problems; however this would be detailed between the applicant and Wessex Water.

·         No reason to give a differing view to that of the Conservation Manager as set out in the agenda report regarding the impact upon heritage assets within the area.

Stan Shayler, Chairman of East Coker Parish Council addressed the committee.  He stated the proposal was outside of the development area, that the site was not identified in the emerging Local Plan and the necessity to protect Grade I agricultural land.  He explained that the emerging East Coker Neighbourhood Plan had not identified this site for development and that housing needs for East Coker were recently identified as 11 dwellings.  He referred to the 800 homes already allocated for the Keyford Site and furthermore at the Bunford Hollow development and considered another 144 homes would create excessive traffic problems within the area. 

Jim New, East Council Parish Council representative and Objector who is a nearby resident also expressed his concerns.  He felt the proposed development would create extra traffic problems within the area and that the proposal and design access lacked imagination.  He believed Localism should dictate that resident’s views should have weight in planning decisions.

Mr A Harwood also spoke in objection to the application.  He reiterated the concerns regarding traffic impact and the necessity to protect Grade 1 agricultural land.  He also raised his concern regarding the impact the development would have on the privacy of his own property and the impact on local schools within the area.

Andrea Caplan, the Agent then addressed the committee.  She explained this application sought outline planning consent and the applicant had worked with officers to provide an acceptable proposal.  She appreciated the concerns regarding the access but that this was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 64.

The Planning Officer presented the application as detailed in the agenda and with the aid of power point presentation showed the site and proposed plans.  He updated members on the further comments received from Yeovil Without Parish Council which included:

·         Proposal for a site adjacent to the new development of four flats on the old water tower site represented overdevelopment, in area in which the existing housing is already fairly closely spaced.

·         Noted that there appeared to be average of two cars per household in Ashford Grove with other cars parked in the street

·         This development of two more dwelling squeezed into a small garden can only serve to worsen the problems of congestion and difficult access in Ashford Grove

He also referred to comments made by the agent in support of the application.  This included:

·         Traffic generation/parking – this can be accommodated on site and the cul-de-sac has capacity to accommodate the additional traffic.

·         The access would be improved with passing places.

·         Amenity would be protected through the retained trees and no windows are proposed on the southern wall of plot 2.

·         Need does not have to be demonstrated and there is a requirement to provide additional dwellings in sustainable locations.

He referred to the key considerations regarding the impact upon residential amenity and the access and parking provision, however he considered that this would not adversely affect residential amenity or highway safety and therefore his proposal was to approve the application subject to the conditions as set out in the agenda report. 

Douglas Mason a local resident addressed the committee and spoke in objection to the application.  He felt that problems will increase with the 4 new flats already built and the addition of 2 further houses will make things worse.  He added it would increase the traffic problem in and around the area in what is already a dangerous area particularly during school drop off and collection times. 

Gordon Warren, the applicant felt that the proposed passing bays would allow two way movement to and from the site and that it was within a sustainable location and sufficient parking provision for the site.

Councillor Andy Kendall, Ward member voiced his concerns regarding the parking difficulties for existing residents and felt the increase with a further two dwellings would only exasperate these problems.  He believed it could set a precedent for further development in the area and create potential access problems for emergency vehicles and other large vehicles due to the cramped form of the site.

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

·         Previous planning application for 5 flats had already been refused and reduced to 4, due to concerns regarding impact to local residents

·         Parking and traffic issues already a problem for existing residents in the area

·         Frustrating that the Highway Authority refer to their standing advice, however members can consider this scheme on its own merits

·         Concern regarding the narrow access road which could cause problems for larger vehicles and cause further parking  ...  view the full minutes text for item 65.

The Area Lead South presented the application as detailed in the agenda and with the aid of power point presentation showed the site and proposed plans.  He advised members that there were no further updates to the report and referred to the key considerations being impact upon residential amenity, visual amenity and highway safety.  His recommendation was to approve the application as for the reason set out in his agenda report.

In response to questions, members were informed that:

·         The adjacent track which led to the nearby allotments did not serve the application site

·         The proposed site was wholly within the ownership of the applicant

Councillor Tony Lock, Ward member voiced his concern regarding the overdevelopment of the site.  He also believed there would be a loss of amenity for nearby residents and therefore would not support the application.

Councillor Tony Fife, Ward member also felt it would be an overdevelopment of what he considered to already be a crowded site and would not support the application.

Councillor David Recardo, Ward member reiterated the comments already made by the other Ward members and felt this would shoehorn too much into a small space.

During a short discussion, members voiced their concerns regarding the overdevelopment of the site and felt it was of poor design and a cramped form of development.  They discussed and suggested reasons for refusal to include overdevelopment and poor design.

It was then proposed and subsequently seconded that planning permission be refused, contrary to the officer’s recommendation for the following reason as read out by the Area Lead South:

‘The proposal represents poor design and a cramped form of development within this backland site, which does not respect the form, character or setting of the locality and impacts unduly on residential amenity. As such, it is contrary to policy ST5 and ST6 of the South Somerset Local Plan (Adopted 2006)  and the aims and objectives of the NPPF’.

On being put to the vote this was carried unanimously.

RESOLVED:

That application 14/03437/FUL be refused for the following reasons:

The proposal represents poor design and a cramped form of development within this backland site, which does not respect the form, character or setting of the locality and impacts unduly on residential amenity. As such, it is contrary to policy ST5 and ST6 of the South Somerset Local Plan (Adopted 2006)  and the aims and objectives of the NPPF.

(voting: unanimous)

This item was deferred for a future Area South Committee due to the officer unable to attend the meeting.

The Housing and Welfare Manager presented the report as detailed in the agenda and with the aid of slides highlighted to members:

·         Banding criteria used for ‘Homefinder’.

·         Decrease of numbers of applicants on the Housing Register.

·         Snapshot of the Housing Need in the Parishes of Area South.

·         Number of households and their bedroom requirements by band.

In response to comments and queries from members, the Housing and Welfare Manager reported that:

• Ex Armed Forces Service Personnel given two additional years on the Homefinder register.with their preferences.
• Housing register is only one of the ways to assess housing needs.

Members acknowledged the success on the significant reduction on the number of persons on the Housing register and congratulated the Housing and Welfare Manager and her team for their excellent work. 

                                                                        NOTED

Sarah Dyke-Bracher, Programme Manager for Heart of Wessex Local Action Group addressed the committee and with the aid of slides gave a presentation on the Heart of Wessex Leader Programme for Rural Economic Development.  A copy of the powerpoint presentation is attached as an appendix to these minutes.

Members noted the Community Offices Update report.

Richard Needs from Somerset County Council attended the meeting and updated and answered questions from members on the proposals for the A30 Yeovil Eastern Corridor.  

With the aid of plans he outlined to members the traffic flow changes planned for the improvement and safety for the Horsey (Police Station) Roundabout, Hospital Roundabout and Fiveways Roundabout.

During discussion several comments were made regarding the three roundabout proposals, these including the following:

Horsey (Police Roundabout)

·         Appreciated the need for the relocation of a two way pedestrian crossing at Hendford Hill with the aim to ensure traffic is not stopped both ways. However must ensure safe breaking distance to exit from crossing and ensure this does not create a bottle neck from traffic coming from Brunswick Street.

·         Raised concern regarding the removal of the adjacent mini-roundabout and a prohibited right-turn into Hendford from Brunswick Street.  This could make current traffic levels worse creating a bottle neck as feeding more cars onto the Horsey Roundabout.

·         Appreciated the need for improvement for both pedestrian and cyclist in the area.

·         Raised concern regarding the blocking of the access track to the Country Park, however understood this would still be accessible for pedestrians.

·         Closure of the access track could have an impact on the delivery lorries etc. which serve the Railway Inn Public House.

Voting: 7 in favour, 0 against, 4 abstention

Hospital Roundabout

Voitng: 8 in favour, 0 against, 3 abstention

Fiveways Roundabout

·         Appreciated the proposed guiderails to be located at the bottom of Mudford Road in order to prevent pedestrian crossing at this point. 

Voting:6 in favour, 0 against, 3 abstention

A discussion took place by members as to whether it was appropriate that a vote be taken to give an indication of the overall opinion of the committee regarding the proposals made.  In conclusion the majority of members decided that a vote be taken and on being put to a vote an indication was given for each scheme, however some members wished to abstain.

No requests were made by members.

Members noted the planning appeals.