Agenda, decisions and minutes

The minutes of the Area South Committee held on 3^rd February 2016 copies of which had been circulated, were agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman. 

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Kaysar Hussain, Sarah Lindsay and Sam McAllister.

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 Peter Gubbins, Graham Oakes, David Recardo 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 that although she had endorsed the Parish Council decision to support application Planning Application 15/05598/FUL Agenda Item 12 she would engage in the debate with an open mind.

Councillor Peter Gubbins declared a personal and prejudicial interest in Agenda Item 13 Planning Application 15/05325/OUT as his son lives in close proximity of the proposed site. He would leave the meeting during consideration of that item.  

Councillor John Field declared a personal and prejudicial interest in Agenda Item 13 Planning Application 15/05325/OUT as he owns a property within close proximity of the proposed site. He would leave the meeting during consideration of that item.

Councillor Nigel Gage declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 13 Planning Application as he has a relative who lives very close to the proposed development.

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 a report on the Workspace Hub would be brought to the April committee.

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

Councillor David Recardo informed members that:

·         Yeovil Country Park should be congratulated as they had been awarded 5 gold star rating. 

·         The Care Quality Commission (CQC) were holding a public feedback session in the Yeovil Library on Friday 4^th March 2016 between 11-00am – 1.00pm for members of the public to offer feedback on Yeovil District Hospital as part of the hospital audit.

·         Yeovil Hospital Charity has reached the finals of the National Lottery’s People’s Projects and that public support was needed.  An email would be circulated to members with more details as soon as possible.

Councillor John Clark informed members that the launch of the Westfield Regeneration Project Forward Plan would take place on Friday 11^th March 2016 at 10.00am.

Mr Pugsley a member of the public addressed the committee and asked about the future management of the Westland Allotments.

In response the Assistant Director (Health & Well-Being) acknowledged the concern of the Allotment Society and as detailed in previous communication with Mr Pugsley explained that negotiations were ongoing with Yeovil Town Council and further details will be provided as soon as possible. 

The Assistant Director (Health & Well-Being) then proceeded to present the agenda report and highlighted to members that:

·         Terms of Reference had now been agreed with Agusta Westland (AW) and the lease agreement was expected to be signed with AW and SSDC at the beginning of April.

·         Parish and Town Council Financial Support sought with follow up meetings being organised to discuss further details of the project. 

·         Mobilised Friends of Westland Leisure Complex (WLC) with ideas to engage businesses and individual giving for further funding opportunities.

·         Rebranding of the venue with a ‘name change’ competition in conjunction with local media.

·         Tenders have now been received for Stage 1 of the proposed works.  A Planning Application is expected to be submitted in April for new foyers to the main complex and sports hall, demolition of outbuildings, modifying of car park and lighting.

·         Grant funding almost secured from Sport England and Badminton England to refurbish facilities at the site.

·         Completed fitness market appraisal with proposal to include new fitness suite within the main sports hall.

·         Positive discussions were taking place with the England County Cricket Board and Somerset Cricket Club to refurbish the cricket pavilion. 

During discussion, it was noted that:-

·         It was disappointing that not all Local Parish Council’s had agreed to contribute to the project.

·         Members requested that three monthly update reports be brought to Area South Committee. The next update report would be brought to the June Committee.

·         A press release should be issued when the lease agreement is signed which would provide an update to local clubs and societies and give an indication of the proposed design and when the facilities were likely to re-open.

·         If energy saving measures were introduced at the site during the refurbishment there would considerable savings in energy. 

Members congratulated the Assistant Director (Health & Well-Being) and his team on the excellent work already carried out and were pleased to note the progress report.

Angus Mcphee, representative from West Coker Parish Council addressed the committee and asked that members reconsider the re-location of the gateway sign at West Coker Road.  He explained they are very keen to re-locate the sign on or close to its historical parish boundary and confirmed the Parish Council would pay for the re-location.

The Neighbourhood Development Officer presented the agenda report and with the aid of a power point presentation sought members views on the approval of either option 1 or option 2 as outlined in the agenda report to replace six gateway signs at key vehicular entrance points to Yeovil. 

She also explained that at the Area South Committee in September members resolved that the sign along West Coker Road was considered to be located in an appropriate position and remain in the same place.  Subsequently West Coker Parish Council has approached SSDC and has offered to pay for the sign’s relocation.  She confirmed that there were no legal or practical reasons why the sign could not be moved and therefore asked that members re-consider the relocation of the sign based on the new information and importance of this matter to West Coker Parish Council. 

She proceeded to show members both options of the newly designed signs and explained that following consultation with County Highways the ‘Love Yeovil’ style font was unlikely to comply with the highway regulations and therefore would require slight alteration before final sign off.  Should members be minded to approve either signs she proposed to delegate the final sign off to the Area Chairman and Area Development Manager.

Following a short debate, members concluded that neither signs were of an acceptable design and that further work should be undertaken to improve the overall impact and appeal of the signs.  Members therefore suggested that the Neighbourhood Development Officer consider the comments made and seek member’s views before bringing an improved design back to Area South Committee as soon as possible.

Members also considered the re-location of the West Coker Road sign and although many considered it already to be located in an appropriate position others appreciated the request of the West Coker Parish Council and were content for the sign to be re-located.

It was then proposed and subsequently seconded that recommendation 1 be amended to read ‘ that members agree to the Neighbourhood Development Officer to seek member’s views and comments before bringing an improved design of the ‘Welcome to Yeovil’ gateway signs back to Area South Committee as soon as possible for member approval’. Members were content to agree recommendation 2 as detailed in the agenda report. On being put to the vote this was carried by 8 votes in favour and 6 against.

RESOLVED:

1.    That members agree to the Neighbourhood Development Officer to seek member’s views and comments before bringing an improved design of the ‘Welcome to Yeovil’  gateway signs back to Area South Committee as soon as possible for member approval’.

2.    That member’s agreed to the relocation of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 125.

 (voting: unanimous )

The Community Development Officer presented the report as detailed in the agenda and there being no further discussion it was proposed and subsequently seconded that an award of up to £3,500 be awarded towards the cost of running the Incredible Tuesdays Group.

 (voting: unanimous )

The Assistant Director, Communities updated members that the Workspace Hub report would be brought to the April committee and advised that the cycling projects briefing would take place after the April committee. 

She also noted member request that three monthly update reports be brought to Area South Committee regarding the Westland Leisure Complex. Therefore the next update report would be brought to the June Committee.

Councillor Andy Kendall requested a short update on the current positon regarding the CCTV installation at the Hospital underpass.

(Voting: Without dissent)

Members noted the Schedule of Planning Applications.

The Area South Lead Officer presented the application as detailed in the agenda and with the aid of a powerpoint showed the site and proposed plans.  He explained to members that this was a revised application following the previous application of 15 dwellings currently at appeal.  He also updated members that:

·         An amendment be made to the actual composition of dwellings as set out on page 29 of the agenda report. This should be made up of 7 x 4 bed houses, 1 x 3 bed house, 1 x 2 bed house and 1 x 2 bed bungalow.

·         Letter received from Hardington Mandeville Parish Council requesting the addition of extra drainage on site to aid surface water drainage of the site. 

·         Highways comments had been received relating to the internal road layout of site.

·         Local Flood Authority had yet to respond, however the proposed drainage scheme is exactly the same as that which formed part of the last refused application and no objections had been raised.

·         Revision of condition 2 to omit the 5 bed units.

The Area South Lead Officer referred to the key considerations which included:

·         Principle – Policy SS2 vs lack of 5 year land supply.  Material considerations and the Planning Balance.

·         Impact upon visual and residential amenity, ecology, heritage, highways and drainage.

·         Planning Gain

In conclusion the Area South Lead Officer considered that all other outstanding issues could be controlled by planning condition or planning obligation and therefore his proposal was to approve the application subject to the conditions as set out in the agenda report with the amendment to condition 2.

Mr Ernest Kong, Hardington Mandeville Parish Council Representative then addressed the committee.  He confirmed the Parish Council were in support of the application as the number of dwellings was more suitable for the size of the site and the type of housing proposed met the identified needs of the village. He voiced concern regarding the priority road markings and that priority should not be given to the estate traffic.

Mr Richard Leach a local resident requested that condition be imposed regarding the road surface materials to be used and also requested that priority should not be given to the estate traffic. He also believed there would be considerable impact on the traffic at the construction phase and that the timing of the consultation period with local residents was not ideal as carried out over the Christmas holiday period. 

Mr Keith Dack a local resident appreciated that the developer had listened to local residents but still raised concern regarding traffic safety within Moor lane as this was a single track road where increase in traffic could be a danger to pedestrians.  He asked that construction traffic be diverted through the neighbouring farmland.

Dan Trundle, the Agent also addressed the committee. He explained they had worked closely with officers and guided by the local residents had produced a scheme that was acceptable within the scale and character of the surroundings.   It included the required housing need  ...  view the full minutes text for item 129.

(Having earlier declared a Personal and Prejudicial Interest Councillors Peter Gubbins and John Clark left the room during consideration of this item).

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 updated members that recommendation ‘b’ be amended to read provision of up to ‘14’ houses and not ‘20’ as detailed on page 70 of the agenda report.

He confirmed that as detailed in the agenda report the previous application for 20 dwellings was dismissed at appeal on only two reasons; 1 – proposal did not contribute to the identified housing need of the local area and did not have support of the local community; 2. – Significant impact to the landscape and surrounding views.  He confirmed the other reasons for refusal were not upheld and costs were awarded against the Council.

The Planning officer also explained that the scheme would provide 5 affordable housing including a bespoke disabled bungalow.  Also it is proposed to include a local preference clause for people in the parish and confirmed that the proposal was to include all bungalows on the site.

In conclusion the Planning Officer believed that the main consideration for members was the impact on the surrounding landscape and the lack of community engagement.  He considered that all other outstanding issues had been addressed and could be controlled by planning condition or planning obligation.   His recommendation therefore was to approve the application subject to the conditions as set out in the agenda report. 

In response to members’ questions the Planning Officer confirmed that:

·         This was an outline application and that no garages had been proposed within this scheme.

·         It is usual that the Parish Council can take on the management of the open spaces under a Section 106 Planning Agreement.

Mr Barry Hartley representative from East Coker Parish Council addressed the committee stating that planning permission had been refused on this site for over a period of twenty years and was not supported by the local community.  He believed there to be a low level of housing need in the area and that the 5 year land supply carried little weight as was forever changing.  He said that 80 houses had recently been approved at Bunford Hollow and that this site was not appropriate for housing development.

Mr Nick Whitsun- Jones spoke of behalf of the CPRE (Campaign to Protect Rural England).  He raised concern regarding the Applicant’s failure to comply with Policy SS2 to submit a Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) therefore believing a lack of community involvement.  He recognised SSDC as not having a five year housing land supply but believed that Policy SS2 was considered to be more than a housing supply policy and the assessment of Policy SS2 should be followed in its entirety.

Caroline Field spoke in objection to the application. She believed the proposal was outside the development area and that all previous applications had been refused  ...  view the full minutes text for item 130.

Members noted the Appeals.