Agenda and minutes

The minutes of the Area South meeting held on 1^st July 2015 copies of which had been circulated, were agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Nigel Gage and Gina Seaton.

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 Kaysar Hussain declared a Personal and Prejudicial interest in Agenda Item 8 Planning Application 15/03002/FUL as he lives near the hospital.  He stated that he would make a statement on the relevant item and then leave the room.

Councillor David Recardo declared a Personal and Prejudicial interest in Agenda Item 8 Planning Application 15/03002/FUL as he is the Representative on the Board of Governors for Yeovil District Hospital. He would leave the meeting during consideration of that item.

Councillor Andy Kendall declared a Personal and Prejudicial interest in Agenda Item 8 Planning Application 15/03002/FUL as he is a member of the Yeovil Bowls and Squash Club.  He would leave the meeting during consideration of that item.

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 advised members that the forthcoming SSDC Flood Risk Management Event was being held on the 28^th September and if members wished to attend to contact Penny Blunn by Monday 7^th September.

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 and Prejudicial Interest Councillors Andy Kendall and David Recardo left the room during consideration of this item).

Councillor Kaysar Hussain then made a statement to the committee voicing his support of the application.  As a local resident himself he understood the current issues and car parking problems at the hospital and surrounding roads and supported the improvement required   He appreciated the impact on neighbouring properties regarding overlooking however it should be remembered that Cheverton Tower flats had until recently been located on the site.  (Councillor Kaysar Hussain then left the room).

The Area Lead South then presented the application as detailed in the agenda and with the aid of a powerpoint presentation gave a comprehensive presentation showing the site, proposed plans and proposed road layout.  He updated members that formal comments had now been received from the Highways Authority.

The Area Lead South also explained the inclusion of the provision where necessary of Traffic Regulation Orders (TRO’s) to control and restrict car parking in the vicinity of the site; this would need to be included within a Highways Agreement under s278.  He also advised of two off-site TRO’s to restrict parking in Kenmore Drive and Milford Road.  He advised that the outcome of a TRO cannot be guaranteed but confirmed the applicant’s commitment to providing a contribution to pay the Highway Authority’s costs for the processing and implementation of the off-site TRO’s. 

He therefore suggested that the recommendation as set out in the agenda should be amended to read:

‘Grant planning permission for the following reason subject to:

(a)  the prior completion of a section 106 planning obligation (in a form acceptable to the Council’s solicitor(s)) before the decision notice granting planning permission is issued, the said planning obligation to cover the following items/issues:

(i)  the applicant’s commitment to providing a contribution (amount to be agreed) to pay the Highway Authority’s costs for the purpose of consulting on, processing and implementing a new Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) or amendments to the existing TROs in respect of parking restrictions in Kenmore Drive and Milford Road. The agreement would indicate that any monies not spent with a specified timescale would be returned to the applicant. The contribution would be payable prior to commencement of the development to allow sufficient time for the process to be carried in advance of the car park being opened.

(b)  discussions regarding the retention of the London Plane by the proposed access to the multi-storey car park and re-siting of the cycle store

(c)  the imposition of the planning conditions set out below on the grant of planning permission:

and with the inclusion of the additional highway conditions’.

In response to questions, members were informed that:

·         Any monies intended for the off-site TRO’s would only be used for this purpose.  Should the TRO applications not be made by the Highway Authority this money would be returned to the applicant.

·         Conditions 12,13 and 14 as detailed in the agenda report would impose  ...  view the full minutes text for item 42.

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 told members that SSDC is a consultee on this application and at the request of the Development Manager members are asked to consider the Council’s response and comment on this Somerset County Council (SCC) planning application. 

The Area Lead South also referred members to the draft proposed response to SCC as set out in the agenda report and asked members whether this to be acceptable and sought their views on this application.

Councillor Tony Lock declared he was a member of the Somerset County Council Regulation Committee who would deliberate this application, however as this application was for consultation only he would not leave the room during consideration of this item.

In response to questions, the Area Lead South confirmed to members that the number of proposed car parking spaces was considered insufficient and these concerns would be included within the response.

Tony Cavalier the Vice Chairman of Mudford Parish Council addressed the committee.  He believed consideration for the primary school application should not be deliberated in advance of the current application planned for the Sustainable Urban Extension (SUE).  He was concerned what impact the overall development would have on the surrounding road network and the current unconnected/detached site of the school should the urban extension fail to be built. He also raised concern regarding the impact from the construction traffic including soil removal, access for emergency vehicles and the hugely inadequate number of parking and drop off spaces proposed for the school.  He appreciated the essential need for a school but did not consider this location to be appropriate as a site had been identified and agreed in 2008.

Councillor Mike Lewis, County Councillor also addressed the committee.  He confirmed that he had initiated consultation from SCC regarding the application and although appreciated the need for a primary school in the area felt it was unusual to consider permission prior to consideration of the Upper Mudford SUE application.  He understood that an Environmental Impact Assessment had not been undertaken and encouraged this to be carried out.  He also voiced his concern regarding the inadequate number of car parking spaces proposed and urged that strong representation be made to insure sufficient car parking spaces are provided.

Nick Whitsun-Jones then addressed the committee as a Representative from Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE).  He appreciated the need for the primary school in the area however felt the application did not accord with Policy YV2 of the recently adopted Local Plan.  He felt the application was premature and prejudiced the comprehensive planning of the Upper Mudford SUE application.  He considered the school was an integral part of the development and the statutory obligation to decide planning applications in accordance with the recently adopted Local Plan. He therefore wished that the District Council would oppose the application for the reasons stated.

In response, the Area  ...  view the full minutes text for item 43.

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 informed members that fully amended plans had now been received to address the concerns regarding proposed roof height and dormer windows.  He therefore recommended that an amendment be made to Condition 2 to reflect the amended plan as follows:

‘The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: amended location and block plans received 14 July 2015 and amended proposed elevation, floor and section plan received 21 August 2015’.

He confirmed the neighbours were fully aware of the amendments made and that there were no further updates to the report.

In response to questions, members were informed that:

·         The garage was 330 millimetres from the neighbouring boundary and over 20 metres away from the neighbouring house.

·         There were other flat roof garages located nearby but uncertain anywhere else within the village.

Mr David Neal, Chairman of West Coker Parish Council addressed the committee.   He said the Parish Council raised concern regarding the effect the proposal would have upon the conservation area and neighbouring listed building.  They did not consider the amended plans mitigated the concerns of the local residents as the topography of the site was very important and the proposed extra 2.2 metres in height was significant to the area.  He concluded the site was in a sensitive area of the village and that the application was not supported by the local residents and would be detrimental to the area.

Sophie Newton spoke in objection to the application.  She told members that she and her family lived at the neighbouring property No 19 Manor Street and considered the proposal would be overbearing and cause overshadowing to the garden.  She felt the proposed plans were inaccurate and confusing and that the ‘right to light’ was a material consideration. She encouraged the committee to arrange a site visit to see the exact topography and impact the proposal would have on the area. 

Neil Symes also spoke in objection to the application.  As a local resident he felt the proposal was unacceptable and over development within a conservation area.  He felt there were other ways to extend the property causing minimal impact.  He raised concern over the inaccuracy of the height of the boundary fencing and the small reduction in the roof ridge height and concluded there was significant local objection to this proposal.

James Fox, the agent then addressed the committee.  He said the issues raised had now been addressed with the recent amended application and that the SSDC Conservation Officer and Planning Officer had considered the proposal acceptable.  He appreciated the concerns of the local residents and that these had been taken into account within the amended proposal.  He considered there would be no significant harm to the conservation area or loss of light or amenity to the local residents.

Louise Crocker, the applicant addressed the committee.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 44.

The Planning Assistant presented the application as detailed in the agenda and with the aid of a power point presentation showed the site and proposed plans.  She told members that this was a retrospective application seeking permission for the retention of the shed for use to store medical supplies for one of the occupants of the property.

The Planning Assistant noted to members that the applicants were unable to be present at the meeting due to regular hospital appointments they were required to attend.  She also referred to the comments from Yeovil Town Council who considered the application to be out of keeping with the existing area due to its location and design.  She concluded that should members be minded to refuse the application consideration should be given to instigating formal enforcement action.

Following questions, the Planning Assistant and Area Lead South clarified to members that:

·         Confirmed the use of the shed was wholly for the purpose of storing medical supplies for the applicant’s son.

·         Considered the form and scale of the shed acceptable and it would not have a detrimental impact on the visual amenity of the area.

·         Prior to the application being submitted the applicants were invited to relocate the shed into the back garden behind the current timber fencing.  The applicants decided not to follow this option however they would be happy to screen the shed by some means should this condition be imposed.

·         The house is part owned by both Yarlington Housing group and the applicants.  The application had been submitted by the applicant with the support of Yarlington Housing group.

·         Applicants permitted to re-submit another application free of charge within the next year.

·         The reason for the development is not a material planning consideration that should be given significant weight.

Councillor Tony Lock, Ward member voiced his concern of the application.  He noted Yeovil Town Council comments and also believed the application to be out of keeping with the existing area due to its location and design.  He said the property was located within an area that had recently been regenerated and would set a precedent for future applications of this type.  He appreciated the circumstances of the applicants but believed the shed could be re-located to the other side of the current fencing with a means of continual access to the shed and therefore would not support the application.

Councillor Rob Stickland, Ward member reiterated the comments already made by Councillor Tony Lock and although sympathised with the applicants’ circumstances believed the purpose of the shed was not a planning consideration.

Councillor David Recardo, Ward member also voiced his concerns of the application.  He said the area had recently undergone significant redevelopment and felt the re-location of the shed to the other side of the timber fencing would be more appropriate.

During members’ discussion, several comments were made including the following:

·         The proposal fails to enhance the area or promote the aims of high quality design.

·         Set a precedent for other applications of this  ...  view the full minutes text for item 45.

Pauline Burr, Arts Development Officer presented the report in the absence of the Arts and Entertainment Manager and with the aid of a power point presentation explained the Arts Development Service including:

·         Arts development and working with different arts companies to bring a range of arts activities to the district.

·         Take Art Live – 22 shows to village halls across the district.

·         Actiontrack – community groups learning about local heritage.

·         Somerset Art Week – The event 2014 generated over £100,000 sales through 18,000 visits to 36 venues.

·         Somerset film – training in use of film and digital media

·         Support of local groups offering opportunities for both the young and elderly people

·         Octagon Gallery – a programme of work to view and exhibit local artists and groups

She then proceeded to inform members that:

·         the Octagon Theatre held approximately 260 events a year and welcomed guests from across South Somerset and beyond.

·         the Auditorium seated 626 and was one of the largest theatres in the South West

·         Awarded ‘Trip Advisor Certificate of Excellence’ and Lufton College ‘Our Street Award’ for the fourth year running

·         last year’s pantomime broke box office records.  Audience of over 25,000.  Box Office has doubled in five years.

·         Yeovil Literary Festival to be held 28^th Oct – 1^st Nov 2015.

·         The Johnson Studio permitting 18 weekly classes, rehearsal space, meetings and events, hospitality, Castaways and Octagon Theatre Company.

She showed figures of an annual turnover of £1.8 million with over 100,000 tickets sold an income excluding ticket sales of £477,181.  This equated to £1.87 per year, per person or 7p per household per week.  

During a short discussion members suggested there was an advertising opportunity with the ‘Review’ booklet and the possibility of the recurrence of ‘pop up galleries’.

Members thanked the Arts Development Officer for her presentation and the excellent facilities and events on offer at the theatre.

NOTED

The Economic Development Manager presented the report as detailed in the agenda report and with the aid of a power point presentation he informed members that:

·         The Innovation centre was currently 98% occupied.  Successful businesses were now starting to acquire their own premises releasing capacity for new businesses within the centre.

·         Success of the Local Food Show which took place at Haynes Motor Museum in September last year.  The show will take place again in 2016, venue to be confirmed.

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

·         Production of various brochures including the additional funding from BIS of £48k towards further marketing promotions for the tourism trade.  This will include the production of ‘Lets discover the Levels and Moors of South Somerset’

·         Success and popularity of the TIC located within Petters House Yeovil.

·         Community Heritage Access Centre (CHAC) – production of the ‘Yeovil in Living Memory’ calendar.

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

·         The principles of the Innovation Centre enable the opportunity for start-up advice and assistance for new businesses. 

·         The SSDC Business Support Officer will continue to support and monitor successful small businesses.

·         Work with Yeovil College where opportunities arise.

Members noted the report and thanked the Economic Development Manager for his informative presentation and the excellent work of his team.

NOTED

The Principal Engineer presented to members the report as set out in the agenda.  He explained that the site was currently well managed and asked that members formally approve the management strategy and contingency plan for the site as appended to the report.

In response to questions, the Principal Engineer informed members that:

·         Monitoring of the site would continue indefinitely.

·         The Capital scheme currently under design will provide long term enhancement to the pollution prevention and manage the risk levels of leachate and gas on the site.  It is expected that within the next twelve months a planning application will be made and the scheme is due to be complete within the next two years.

Members thanked the Principal Engineer for his update report and it was proposed and subsequently seconded that members approve the Management Strategy and Contigency Plan for the site.  On being put to the vote this was carried unanimously.

(voting; unanimous)

The Neighbourhood Development Officer presented the agenda report and with the aid of a power point presentation sought members views on their approval to either refurbish or replace six gateway signs at key vehicular entrance points to Yeovil. 

She also explained that West Coker Parish Council expressed the desire the to re-locate the gateway sign on the West Coker Road as it is positioned some distance from the boundary line of Yeovil South ward.

She proceeded to show members the ‘Love Yeovil’ main branding logo and the possibility to incorporate the logo in the replacement signs.

During member’s discussion, several comments were made including the following:

·         The West Coker Road sign already located in an appropriate position and should remain in the same place as Samson Wood is within the West Coker Parish.

·         The West Coker Road sign was originally moved for reasons associated with postcodes.

·         Believed the strap line should be removed from any new signage.

·         Minimum information to be included on the new signage; however the brown amenity symbols to remain along with the twinning mark as creates interest and a good first impression for visitors.

During a short discussion, members requested that the restyled signs be brought back to committee for final approval.

It was then proposed and subsequently seconded that members agree to the relocation of the West Coker sign to the parish Boundary.  On being put to the vote this was lost by 3 votes in favour and 7 against.

It was furthermore proposed and subsequently seconded that members approve the project to redesign replacement signs, with one incorporating the Love Yeovil logo and one without the Love Yeovil logo.  On being put to the vote this was carried unanimously.

RESOLVED:

1.    That member’s did not agree to the relocation of the West Coker sign to the parish boundary.

2.    That member’s approve the project to redesign replacement signs, with one incorporating the Love Yeovil logo and one without the Love Yeovil logo.

The Area Development Manager South introduced the report which asked members to consider the start time of the Area South Committee meetings.  She explained that currently the committee meeting starts at 2.00pm with planning applications being determined first on the agenda.  A survey of all 19 members of Area South Committee was carried out and all considerations were taken into account.  On this basis a preferred start time of 4pm has been proposed with the determination of planning applications as the first item for business. 

During discussion, varying views were expressed by members, some being of the view that the start time should be at 4.00pm to help both members and members of the public to attend out of the normal working day.  Furthermore that planning should be considered last on the agenda, although it was highlighted by other members that it was very difficult to plan how long the first items of business on the agenda would last. 

Some members supported that the start time remain at 2.00pm with the determination of planning applications last on the agenda with the flexibility to alter the time as necessary.

It was then proposed and seconded that the Area South Committee meeting start at 4.00pm as per the recommendation as set out in the agenda report.  It was then proposed that an amendment be made to this recommendation that the start time of the Area South Committee remain at 2.00pm.  This was seconded and on being put to the vote was carried by 9 votes in favour and 7 against.

A further discussion pursued where members agreed that for a trial period of 3 months planning applications be determined last on the agenda and not least before 3pm.  On being put to the vote this was carried by 9 in favour and 1 against.

There were no further reports requested by members.

Members noted the Planning Appeals.