Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the previous meeting held on 7^th October 2015.

The minutes of the Area South meeting held on 7^th October 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 Cathy Bakewell, Graham Oakes, Gye Dibben, Sam McAllister and Peter Seib.

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.

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 informed members that:

·         Assessment of demand for hub style office space provided little suggestion that Foundry House would be favoured as a future location for a Hub, however there is fresh interest for the possibility to purchase and renovate Foundry House.  The Chairman hoped to update member’s with further information in the New Year.

·         Councillor Peter Gubbins, Chairman of Area South and Kim Close , Area South Development Manager will attend the new Work Hub opened in Bristol on Wed 2^nd December 2015 and for that reason will not be in attendance at the Area South Committee.

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.

The Neighbourhood Development Officer presented the report as detailed in the agenda.  She gave an update on progress to date and invited questions from members.

In response the Neighbourhood Development Officer informed members that:

·         Happy to provide members with a comprehensive breakdown of the work carried out by the Ranger Scheme in relation to that of the Streetscene team including costs.

·         Highlighted areas of work outside the remit or appropriate for the Ranger Scheme due to certain regulations i.e. Health & Safety guidance for use of equipment.

·         Noted members’ comments and the prioritising of maintenance work within the town centre.

·         Advised members of the responsibility of shop owners in relation to the location of A boards within the town centre believing any concerns should be reported to SCC Highways Authority.

Members thanked the Neighbourhood Development Officer for her report.

NOTED

The Community Office Support Manager presented the report as detailed in the agenda.  She highlighted to members:

·         Highest proportion of work undertaken at Petters public reception related to Benefit enquiries.

·         Housing Advice Centre also located at Petters House received 6791 customers during 2014-15.

·         Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB) located at Petters House have their own public reception.

·         Customer Satisfaction survey once again received a 99% satisfaction score.

In conclusion the Community Office Support Manager referred members to the enquiry examples as detailed in the agenda report highlighting the satisfying and excellent value of the service.

In response to questions, the Community Office Support Manager and Assistant Director Communities informed members that:

·         Customer Satisfaction survey was undertaken every year with a breakdown of responses received as detailed in the agenda report.

·         Most housing and homelessness enquiries are taken directly by the Housing Enquiries public reception.

·         No longer a Police presence at Petters House mainly due to lack of capacity and resource.

·         Withdrawal of SCC funding from supported housing is expected to have an impact on demand for our support services and this is presently being assessed.  It was noted that the Corporate Strategic Housing Manager could provide an update under his report.

Members thanked the Community Office Support Manager for her comprehensive report.

(Please note this item was taken after Item 7 of the agenda).

Councillor David Recardo requested a report regarding Community Protection Notices to inform members of changes to prohibited drinking zones within Yeovil Town Centre.

Councillor John Clark requested a further update from the Economic Development Team on their service and work involved with Yeovil Vision. The Assistant Director Communities noted this request informing members of recent staff appointments within the Economic Development team which will mean more capacity to progress priority economic infrastructure.

The Democratic Services Officer confirmed to members that the Conservation Service Update report and a confidential Historic Buildings as Risk report was scheduled for Area South Committee in February 2016. 

During a short discussion it was confirmed to members that at the September Area South Committee members agreed that the start time for Area South Committee meetings remain at 2.00 pm and that for a trial period of 3 months planning applications be determined last on the agenda and not least before 3pm.

Members noted the Planning Appeals.

Members noted the Schedule of Planning Applications.

The Planning Officer presented the report and with the aid of a power point presentation showed the site and proposed plans.  He informed members that:

·         A dwelling can be used for up to six residents as a House in Multiple Occupancy (HMO) without any planning permission with no control over the level of parking.

·         That ‘Policies ST5 and ST6’ as referred to in Condition 5 be replaced with ‘Policies TA5 and TA6’.

·         Considered the boundary front wall be retained to existing height as located within the Conservation area.

·         Highlighted to members various uses of current properties in the area.

He referred to the key considerations which included:

·         Impact upon parking/highway safety

·         Impact upon residential amenity

·         Impact upon visual amenity

·         Impact upon character or appearance of the Conservation Area

In conclusion the Planning Officer considered the proposal would not have an adverse impact on highways or adversely affect visual or residential amenity and would preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.  His recommendation was to approve the application as set out in the agenda report.

In response to questions the Planning Officer and Area Lead South explained to members that:

·         Considered the visibility display from the property onto Hendford Hill to be adequate and not obscured by the existing boundary wall.  Likewise there was sufficient turning on site to allow vehicles to enter and exit the site in forward gear.

·         It had been suggested that the existing boundary wall could be reduced in height.  However front boundary walls are an important feature within the Conservation Area and any alterations could be detrimental to the area.

Following a short discussion, the Area Lead South suggested to members that should they be minded to approve the application a condition could be imposed to reduce the height of the existing boundary wall subject to agreement with the applicant, however members did not agree to this proposal.

Hilary Unsworth spoke in objection to the application.  She referred to a petition signed by forty nine local residents objecting to the application believing the proposal would exacerbate the existing parking problems within the neighbouring streets.  She felt the parking and turning area only had sufficient space for 4 vehicles with restricted visibility out on to Hendford Hill which was already an extremely busy A road and would only get worse should the new proposed out of town housing developments be built.  She believed a 10 bed HMO would warrant the use of 10 cars and that the area is already fraught with parking difficulties due to various usages of the properties within the area.

Mr B Oozageer, the applicant then addressed the committee.  He confirmed that he had worked with the relevant parties to ensure an acceptable proposal wishing to attract professional people working in the area.  He referred to HMO’s located elsewhere within Yeovil which had a lesser amount of parking provision and that this scheme complies with policy guidance.  He confirmed the property would be suitably licenced and highly regulated.

The Planning  ...  view the full minutes text for item 75.

(Please note this item was taken after Item 10 on the agenda)

The Corporate Strategic Housing Manager presented the report and proceeded to go through the agenda report highlighting to members the anticipated likely delivery of more affordable homes being constructed in the future. 

He explained the fluctuation of lack of delivery of housing due to slippage of a 59-unit scheme at Lufton Key Site which should have been completed by March 2015, had it done so then just under 30% of last year’s completions would have been in Yeovil. 

He also informed members that:

-       Councillor Tony Lock referred to the decision made that morning by the County Council cabinet confirming the proposed reduction in funding for the ‘P4A’ contract but also setting some funding aside for a project in Taunton.  The Corporate Strategic Housing Manager confirmed that this decision does not affect the ‘roof over head’ for housing applicants which this Council is responsible for, but does remove essential support which enables some vulnerable people to maintain their tenancy.  He also confirmed that various agencies are being brought together on Friday 6^th to consider how to respond in the light of the reduction in services funded by the County.

-       Currently around 2000 households on homefinder register with approximately a quarter within gold band.  These figures are for South Somerset only.

-       Explained the current position regarding ‘Right to Buy’ and the possibility Government may extend this option to Housing Associations on a voluntary basis.  However further guidance would be required from the HCA regarding value of such properties and future investment of monies received.

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

                                                                        NOTED