Agenda, decisions and minutes

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the previous meetings held on Wednesday 6^th April 2016 and 19^th May 2016.

The minutes of the Area South Committee held on 6^th April 2016 and 19^th May 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 Cathy Bakewell 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 Rob Stickland declared a personal interest in Item 11 – Area South Development Plan as he is Chairman of the Newton Residents Association.

Councillors Kaysar Hussain, Andy Kendall, Mike Lock, Peter Gubbins, Tony Lock, David Recardo, Alan Smith, Wes Read and Graham Oakes all declared a personal interest in Item 8 - Provision and Maintenance of Bus Shelters as members of Yeovil Town Council. 

Councillor Graham Oakes as a member of Yeovil Without Parish Council, Councillor Gina Seaton as a member of West Coker Parish Council and Councillor Peter Seib as a member of Brympton Parish Council also declared an interest in Item 8 – Provision and Maintenance of Bus Shelters.

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.

Mrs Kay Lewis addressed the committee and spoke on behalf of local residents in the Sandlewood Road and surrounding area.  She raised concern regarding the anti-social behaviour and ongoing drug issues in the area regarding the removal of fence panels creating an open access from Redwood Road into Wyndham Park.

In response the Chairman confirmed that discussions were ongoing regarding this issue and that following legal advice would look to bring the matter to the October Area South Committee for members to debate.

The Chairman made the following announcements;

·         Thanked members for all regeneration priorities – it was clear that many had put a lot of thought into responses.

·         He had held further discussions with Officer about the prospective work space hub at Petters House. Further detailed work is required to see if this is a viable option.

·         Urban Development Framework brief.  Many members showed interest in enhancement at The Borough.  We have looked at this, however, the opportunity to purchase the building at an affordable price is no longer an option and therefore the scheme is not viable at the present time.  Some sort of retail support scheme will be worked up and that will form part of the Area Development Plan.

·         Box Factory/summerhouse village sites and the Cattle Market as priorities for attracting investment and bringing footfall back into the Town Centre and is active discussions with Economic Development and owners about these options.

·         Please note that if an application in your ward is turned down and is being defended on appeal you may request the appeal statement from the planning officers.

·         If members want to refer an application to ASC for member determination you should talk to the officers to explore the possible grounds/planning reasons for seeking a different decision and inform the Chairman at the time of the referral request.  All requests for call ins must be made to the chair.

·         Introduced Natalie Ross who is now Area South Development Team Leader.

·         Supported members’ comments that any future confidential items be placed as the last item on the agenda.

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

Councillor Andy Kendall informed members that the CCTV cameras at the hospital underpass were now in full working order and functioning well with Bridgwater. Members congratulated and thanked Councillor Andy Kendall for all his hard work regarding this matter.

RESOLVED:  that the following item be considered in Closed Session by virtue of the Local Government Act 1972, Schedule 12A under Paragraph 3: “Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information).” 

 (Voting: Unanimous)

The Assistant Director, Communities presented the confidential report and noted members’ comments regarding the future provision and maintenance of Bus Shelters in the Yeovil Area.

At the conclusion of the discussion it was proposed and seconded to agree the recommendations as set out in the agenda report.  On being put to the vote this was carried unanimously. 

RESOLVED:

That the Committee agree a contribution from the Discretionary Transport Schemes Budget towards the provision and maintenance of bus shelters in the Yeovil area.

Reason: To agree a contribution from the Discretionary Transport Schemes Budget towards The Provision and Maintenance of Bus Shelters in the Yeovil Area.

 (Voting: Unanimous)

The Community Safety Co-ordinator presented the report as detailed in the agenda which included:

·         The development of the Yeovil One Team, including the work of the Operational Group and the Tactical Group.

·         Gave warning regarding ‘County Lines’ a national issue involving the use of mobile phone ‘lines’ by groups to extend their drug dealing business into new locations outside of their home areas. Tagging onto vulnerable people and using their addresses.

During a short discussion members again voiced concern regarding the drug and anti-social behaviour problems at Wyndham Park.  The Chairman reiterated his comments regarding the ongoing work and consultation and once again confirmed a report would be coming to the Area South Committee in October.

Members thanked the Community Safety Co-ordinator for his interesting and informative report.

NOTED

The Assistant Director, Communities presented the report as detailed in the agenda and explained the proposals to simplify the relationship of Yeovil Vision and to take into account the new Area South Regeneration Board.  She referred to the detailed proposed Terms of Reference of the Yeovil Vision Board and asked that members support the overall reconfiguration of these arrangements. 

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

·         The Yeovil Town Centre Partnership Board was a sensible option on overseeing the three sub-groups with the Yeovil Vision Board having its separate remit.

·         Believe the revised Yeovil Vision Board and new Area South Regeneration Board overlap in their agenda.

·         The Area South Regeneration Board is too centralised and believe it should have a majority of local members included on it.

·         Lack of involvement of Area South members on both the Yeovil Vision Board and Area South Regeneration Board. 

·         Appreciated updates were reported back to Area South Committee occasionally but members should at least have the ability to attend these boards even if it is not as a voting member.

In response the Assistant Director, Communities and the Chairman informed members that the Area South Regeneration Board was generic and had not been established by Area South and that the Yeovil Vision Board would become more of a ‘sounding board’ dealing with more everyday issues in the area.  They appreciated the concerns of members but believed that these new arrangements had only just been established and therefore unfair to make judgement at this early stage. 

Following a short debate it was agreed to keep the new arrangements under review and that a report be brought to committee regarding the progress and position of the Yeovil Vision Board in the near future.

It was then proposed and subsequently seconded to support the overall reconfiguration of the Partnership arrangements and the proposed Yeovil Vision Board Terms of reference as detailed in the agenda report.  On being put to the vote this was carried by 13 votes in favour, 1 against and 3 abstentions.

RESOLVED:

1. That members supported the overall reconfiguration of Partnership arrangements subject to agreement with Yeovil Town Council.
2. That the proposed changes to the Yeovil Vision Board terms of reference are approved.

(voting: 13 in favour, 1 against, 3 abstentions)

The Assistant Director, Communities presented the report as set out in the agenda report including the three key areas of work which included:

·         Support for the vitality of the local economy, with a focus on Yeovil town centre and improving the physical environment.

·         Community development with a focus on addressing health, social and economic inequalities and the provision and development of community facilities.

·         To continue to provide a high quality accessible front line enquiry service.

There being no further discussion members agreed to approve the Area South Development Plan 2016/17.

RESOLVED:  That the Area South Development Plan 2016/17 be approved.

The Committee agreed the appointment of members to serve on the various working groups, panels and outside bodies for 2016/17.

(Resolution passed without dissent)

The Committee agreed the appointment of members to serve on the various working groups, panels and outside bodies for 2016/17.

(Resolution passed without dissent)

(Resolution passed without dissent)

(Resolution passed without dissent)

The Assistant Director, Communities informed members that there were no further amendments to the Forward Plan.

Councillor John Clark requested a report on the Community development with a focus on addressing health, social and economic inequalities and the provision and development of community facilities as one of the key areas of work set out in the Area South Service Plan.  This was noted and a half year report would be brought to the October meeting and then six monthly.

Members were also reminded that the Wyndham Park update report would be brought to the October meeting.

(Voting: Without dissent)

(This item was taken after agenda Item 23).

The Planning Area Lead Officer presented the report as detailed in the agenda and explained to members the current situation regarding cycling routes, potential future infrastructure projects and the intentions to promote cycling.  With the aid of slides and various maps he highlighted:

·         The economic benefits and value for money of investing in cycling and walking.

·         Help to keep people active, keep a healthy weight, reduce the chance of serious illness and be active for your general wellbeing.

·         Help promote sustainable transport as adopted by the South Somerset Local Plan.

·         The four different areas within Yeovil and the main features and points of the town including main employment areas, town centre and train station.

·         Recognised that connectivity is key and that some areas were well connected with cycle routes although other areas were more fragmented.

·         Intention to encompass all areas and improve where there are evident gaps.

·         Improve the required signage on cycle routes.

·         Levering in funding from developers, CIL and third parties.

·         Encourage employers to encourage cycling through incentives and providing facilities.

·         Remove obstacles and physical reasons that make cycling difficult.

·         Help children cycle to school and then continue to cycle to work.

During a short discussion members voiced their full support on the proposals and intentions to develop cycling in the town and requested the need for the provision of bike lockers in suitable locations.  

RESOLVED:

That members noted and supported the officers report to progress with current intentions to develop cycling in the town.

Members noted the report.

Members noted the Planning Appeals.

Members noted the Schedule of Planning Applications.

The Area Lead Officer presented the application as detailed in the agenda and with the aid of a power point presentation showed the site and proposed plans.  He noted a further objection had been received regarding the traffic problems associated in Forest Hill and the implications to the bus stop and on-site parking.

He explained that this was a revised application following the withdrawal of a previous application and that this proposal was of smaller size, layout had been improved by providing a turning area for delivery vans and more justification had been supplied for the need of a new pharmacy. The recommendation was therefore for approval as it was felt on balance there were benefits to the proposal.

Valerie Muir, Wendy Hunt, Mr T Burlinson, David Staddon and Ray Fraser all members of the public then addressed the committee and spoke in objection to the application.  Various comments were made including:

·         Concern regarding traffic safety and the increase in vehicles in what is already a busy and hazardous junction between Forest Hill and West Coker Road.

·         Lack of parking on site and people likely to park on the road.

·         Concern regarding the turning on site which can only be achieved with difficulty.

·         Just moves existing traffic problem from Sandhurst Road to Forest Hill.

·         Concern over the existing bus stop located near the proposed entrance and the school bus stop which picks up/drops off school children both in the morning and afternoon.

·         Forest Hill is a residential area and therefore not an appropriate location for a pharmacy.

·         Visual impact on the area and surrounding properties.

·         A brand new pharmacy has recently been built at Hendford Lodge Medical Centre and Tesco Pharmacy as both located less than a mile away.

·         Concern regarding the recent cutbacks and requirements as issued from the General Pharmaceutical Council.  Is there a real need?

·         Covenant on 48 West Coker Road indicating that the property should be for residential use only.

Mike Bellamy, the applicants Highway Consultant then addressed the committee.  He believed the proposed new pharmacy would serve the community with no significant increase in the traffic network.  He considered the new proposed access was far superior to that of the current site located on Sandhurst Road, staff parking would be provided in the curtilage of no 48 West Coker Road and that it was not uncommon for bus stops to be located near access and other junctions. He confirmed the pharmacy would not open before 9.00am therefore having no conflict with waiting children and the proposal was consistent with the Traffic Policy of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

Mr Max Punni, the applicant addressed the committee.  He said his current premises were too small and unable to expand and therefore in order to serve the community and provide a safe, confidential and secure service for the aging population this was his only option.  He confirmed his intention was to close the current pharmacy at Sandhurst Road and that the opening hours would remain the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22.

The Area Lead Officer presented the application as detailed in the agenda and with the aid of a power point presentation showed the site and proposed plans.  He noted further representations had been received from residents of Clarence Court raising concern regarding the extra traffic congestion onto the hospital roundabout and the pedestrian safety with regard to the proposed pavement layout.

He explained that this application was referred for committee consideration given the significance of the development to the Yeovil Eastern Corridor Highway Project and representations made by the public.  He made no further updates and that the recommendation was to approve the application for reasons as set out in his report.

Eileen Knight a member of the public spoke in objection to the application.  She believed the traffic from this second exit would have a serious impact on the flow of the traffic onto the hospital roundabout and raised safety concern regarding the significant increase in traffic coming round the blind corner from Westminster Street round onto Clarence Street. She also raised concern regarding the current parking of lorries and refuse lorries using Clarence Street and the safety of the pedestrian using this area.

John Rawlins a local resident also spoke in objection to the application. He raised concerns regarding the increase in traffic flow along Clarence Street and the splitting of the pavement in order to make way for the exit.  He wished that a pedestrian crossing be provided to aid the local residents, especially the elderly and disabled who wish to cross between the flowing traffic exiting out onto Clarence Street.

Richard Needs, Somerset County Council the applicant then addressed the committee.  He explained that the original planning permission granted in 2005 had included this extra exit onto Clarence Street.  Unfortunately this had since elapsed due to the hospital roundabout works not complete; however these works have now been finalised and therefore a the need to bring this forward again. He confirmed that due to the gradient and plan of the proposed exit it will protect the speed which cars will exit onto Clarence Street.

During a short discussion it was confirmed to members that a barrier would be in force at the exit from 8pm each night and that the proposed plan to include tactile paving at the exit point would ensure sufficient access to allow pedestrians to cross safely.

Following a further short debate members appreciated the concerns of the local residents, however believed this would take the pressure off the traffic flow at the current exit onto Queensway and although may increase traffic onto the Hospital roundabout it would alleviate traffic from the Horsey roundabout and therefore improve the traffic flow overall.

It was then proposed and seconded to approve the application as per the officers recommendation as set out in the agenda report.  On being put to the vote this was carried unanimously. 

RESOLVED:

That application 16/01678/FUL be approved subject to the following:

Grant permission for the following reason:

01.       This proposal will  ...  view the full minutes text for item 23.

The Area Lead Officer presented the application as detailed in the agenda and with the aid of a power point presentation showed the site and proposed plans. He explained that an initial application for reserved matters was submitted in February 2011 and approved in April 2012 and was in relation to the southern part of the site and spilt into identifiable parcels A – F.  Revisions have already been made to Area A and that this application only seeks alterations to Area B.  If approved this will supersede the 2011 application and regularise the amendments also made to Area A.  He confirmed there are no additional units proposed.

He referred members to the amendments as set out in the agenda report and believed this proposal provides a different mix and improved layout with increased on-plot parking provision.  He felt it would improve the saleability of the properties and therefore increase the speed of the development of the site.

He advised members that condition 1 would need to be amended to reflect a later plan schedule and condition 5 amended to correct a mistake.  A new Condition 13 was proposed to secure the provision of a signalised crossing to ensure connectivity to the Abbey Manor Park estate.

The Area Lead Officer concluded that it was a good revision to what was already an excellent scheme and that his recommendation was to approve the application for reasons as set out in the agenda report with the amendments to conditions 1 and 5 and additional condition 13.

Councillor Graham Oakes, Ward members expressed his support for the application and there being no further debate it was proposed and seconded to approve the application as per the officer’s recommendation as set out in the agenda report with the amendments to conditions 1 and 5 and the addition of condition 13.  On being put to the vote this was carried 13 in favour, 0 against and 1 abstention.

RESOLVED:

That application 16/00978/REM be approved subject to:

Grant permission for the following reason:

01.       This application is a variation to a reserved matters application following the grant of Outline permission ref no 05/00753/OUT and the revised details accord with the principles set out in the outline application and in             the Local Plan allocation for this site and with the relevant planning policies, including the NPPF.

SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING:

01.       The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the plans as set out on the schedule dated 17th February 2016. RevC (20^th May 2016).

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

02.       Prior to the commencement of any dwelling within Areas B-F, full details of the following shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority for each plot in the phase, or part thereof, to be constructed:-

-           specific external wall materials, finishes and colours including sample panels for approval on site to show masonry coursing, jointing,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 24.

This application was presented and discussed in conjunction with the following Item 23 - application 15/04709/LBC.

The Area Lead Officer presented the application as detailed in the agenda and with the aid of a power point presentation showed the site and proposed plans.  He noted the concerns raised by the highway authority, the main concern being improvements required to the main access to increase visibility when entering and exiting the site onto Newton Road.

He explained the proposal was retrospective in that physical works to the building have already been undertaken to facilitate the change of use and that an application seeking listed building consent for the works to the double doors was running in parallel to this application.

In conclusion the Area Lead Officer felt the proposal would provide an asset to the town providing an excellent facility while maintaining the viability and conservation of the Newton estate.  He believed the proposed number of events and hours of use acceptable and with the agreement of an improved visibility splay his recommendation was to approve the application as set out in his agenda report.

Robin Cannon the applicant addressed the committee. He acknowledged the concerns regarding the visibility splay and confirmed that he had already started to remove fencing and hedging in order to improve the access of the site.  He gave assurance that he would work with SSDC officer’s to ensure a safe and improved access to the site.

During discussion members acknowledged the applicant’s desire to provide an excellent leisure facility in order to help maintain the viability and preservation of Newton House but were concerned regarding the safety of vehicles accessing and exiting the site onto Newton Road.

The Area Lead Officer with support from the Development Manager acknowledged the concerns of the members but confirmed that the SSDC Highway consultant considered the proposal acceptable and therefore along with conditions imposed to improve the visibility splay of the access onto Newton Road considered it to be an acceptable proposal.

Following a further short debate members noted the support of Barwick Parish Council and congratulated the applicant’s on the work already undertaken to restore Newton House.  It was then proposed and seconded to approve the application as per the officers recommendation as set out in the agenda report.  On being put to the vote this was carried unanimously. 

RESOLVED:

That application 15/04703/COU be approved subject to the following:

Grant permission for the following reason:

01.       The proposal maintains the character of the area, facilitates economic investment and the creation of a quality event venue, safeguards heritage assets whilst ensuring highway safety and is therefore in             accordance with the objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework; and policies SD1, SS1, EQ2, EQ3, EQ7, TA5, TA6 and EP11 of the South Somerset Local Plan (adopted 2015).

SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING:

01.       Notwithstanding the time limits given to implement planning permission as prescribed by Sections 91 and 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as  ...  view the full minutes text for item 25.

This application was presented and discussed in conjunction with the previous application 15/04703/COU and therefore there being no further debate it was proposed and seconded to approve the application as per the officer’s recommendation as set out in the agenda report.  On being put to the vote this was carried unanimously.

RESOLVED:

That application 15/04709/LBC be approved subject to the following:

Grant listed building consent for the following reason:

01.       The proposal by reason of its justified intervention into the historic fabric of this listed building is considered to respect the historic and architectural interests of the building and accords with the aims and objectives of policy EQ3 of the South Somerset Local (adopted 2015) and the NPPF.

SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING:

01.  Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 18 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 this consent shall be deemed to have been implemented on 14th October 2015 prescribed by Section 8 of the above Act. Reason: To comply with section 8 of the above Act.

(voting: unanimous)