Agenda, decisions and minutes

The minutes of the Area South Committee held on 6^th July 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, Peter Gubbins 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 John Clark declared a personal and prejudicial interest in Item 17 – Planning Application 15/02535/FUL as he is Vice President and Season Ticket Holder of Yeovil Town Football Club. He would leave the meeting during consideration of that item.

Councillor Mike Lock declared a personal and prejudicial interest in Item 17 – Planning Application 15/02535/FUL as he is Shareholder and Season Ticket Holder of Yeovil Town Football Club. He would leave the meeting during consideration of that item.

Councillor Graham Oakes declared a personal interest in Item 17 – Planning Application 15/02535/FUL as he has a small shareholding and Season Ticket Holder of Yeovil Town Football Club.

Councillor Rob Stickland declared a personal interest in Item 17 – Planning Application 15/02535/FUL as he has an association with the Yeovil Ladies Football Club.

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 of the forthcoming ‘Super Saturday’ in Yeovil Town Centre on 24^th September 2016 including the appearance of ‘Paddington Bear’ and the Vintage Market.

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

Councillor Andy Kendall told members of his visit to the Sutton Bingham & District Canoe Club and the success of the two extra Katakanu boats where Area South had agreed a grant to support the purchase of these boats.

Councillor Rob Stickland informed members of the Youth Service Review Group explaining that notice had been given regarding the expectance of the service provider.

Adam Burgan, the Arts & Entertainment Manager introduced the report.  Pauline Burr, Arts Development Officer with the aid of a power point presentation proceeded to explain the Arts Development Service including:

·         Arts development and working with different arts organisations to bring a range of arts activities to the district. Offering advice and support to voluntary and professional artists and groups.

·         Take Art Live – including the Poetry project supporting people with mental health problems

·         Somerset Art Week – takes place from 17^th September till 2^nd October. 69 South Somerset Venues will include those in Yeovil and West Coker.

·         SAW in Yeovil Country Park

·         Supporting the ‘Super Saturday’ in Yeovil Town Centre on 24^th September 2016.

·         Success of the ‘Bugstore’ and working with local schools bringing families into the town.

·         Supporting various projects within the area including the Eastville Project Space, the OSR Projects at West Coker.

The Arts & Entertainments Manager then highlighted to members that:

·         the Octagon Theatre held 264 events a year and welcomed around 200,000 guests from across South Somerset and beyond.

·         Record attendance in 2015/16 with SSDC events at 83% capacity and £70k efficiency savings made.

·         Awarded ‘Trip Advisor Certificate of Excellence’ and Art & Entertainment Manager awarded the Western Gazette Pride Award – Contribution to the Arts.

·         last year’s pantomime broke box office records.  Audience of over 27,000. 

·         Yeovil Literary Festival to be held 20^th – 23^rd October 2016.

·         Foyer Club Volunteer around 14,000 hours per year. Fundraising raised £76,000.

During a short discussion the Arts Development Officer noted members’ comments regarding the success of the Wassail Theatre Company explaining how the Company produces plays inspired by the people and places of Somerset.  The Manager also noted the comments regarding the limited Air Circulation System within the theatre and explained the proposals to update the system.

Members thanked the Arts & Entertainments Manager and Arts Development Officer for their presentation and the excellent facilities and events on offer at the theatre and in the wider community.

NOTED

The Assistant Director, Communities presented the report and updated members on the two meetings that had taken place since June.  This included:

·         the £10,000 committed to the Marketing and Events Group to revamp and drive things forward.

·         Active Social Media campaign being outsourced.

·         David Woan president of Yeovil Chamber developing new prospectus to bring in more business membership to support the programme of the Marketing Group.

·         The development of clear Terms of Reference for Marketing Group in relation to the overarching Yeovil Vision Board.

She also updated members on the Area South Regeneration Board and the work being undertaken regarding a refresh of Urban Development Framework in a more concise and focused format.  These proposals are due to be brought to the District Executive in October to reassess the redevelopment sites and promote reinvestment.

During a short discussion Councillor John Clark voiced his disappointment with the Weston Super Mare Musem who could not release an aircraft for the anniversary display of the Helicopter in Yeovil Town Centre.

Members thanked the Assistant Director, Communities for the update and noted the report.

NOTED

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

She referred to the comments already received from members as set out in the agenda report and asked that members consider and approve their preferred option.

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

·         The exact format of the Town Crest must be used, this forms part of the history of the town.

·         Prefer option 2 with the white background as reads clearer.

·         Unnecessary to have the black border around the option 2 sign.

·         Would be necessary to clean the white sign.

During a short discussion, the majority of members voiced their support for Option 2 as presented on the powerpoint but with the removal of the black border.  It was therefore proposed and subsequently seconded that members agree to option 2 with the agreement that the Neighbourhood Development Officer email the design omitting the black border and should the majority of members agree that option 2 be approved.  On being put to the vote this was carried by 13 votes in favour and 1 against.

RESOLVED:

(1)   To approve option 2 of the Gateway signs as outlined within the report and via a powerpoint presentation subject to member agreement for the removal of the black border.

(voting: 13 in favour, 1 against, 0 abstentions)

(Voting: 11 in favour, 2 against, 0 abstentions)

The Area South Development Lead presented the report and invited members for a volunteer to serve on the Westfield Community Association (WCA) for the remainder of the municipal year 2016-17.

During a short discussion, Councillors Alan Smith and John Clark expressed their interest to serve on the WCA. 

On being put to the vote John Clark was appointed to serve on the WCA for the remainder of the municipal year 2016-17 by 11 votes in favour and 2 against.

(Voting: 11 in favour,  2 against,  abstentions)

(Voting: Unanimous)

The Area Development Lead presented the report and updated members that:

·         Both Ward Members were supportive of the application.

·         Outcome regarding all funding sources had now been received and that Brympton Parish and Yeovil Town Council were unable to support the application.

·         Various other grants had been secured for £41,000.

She concluded however that due to the success of recent fundraising events the group were in a position to proceed despite the shortfall in the original funding sources.

Councillor Peter Seib explained that unfortunately there is a legal impediment that prevents civil parishes supporting such projects.

There being no further debate, it was proposed and subsequently seconded to grant up to £5,000 towards the reordering/refurbishment of St James Church, Yeovil.

(Voting: unanimous)

(Voting: 13 in favour, 1 against, 0 abstentions)

The Assistant Director, Communities presented the report and highlighted to members:

·         First time since 2003 that the annual passenger journeys on the line had not increased.  This was mainly due to the disruption last summer and the service becoming self-limiting.

·         Work undertaken by Lufton college students to help maintain the standards of the Penn Mill Station.

·         The Partnership now chaired by David Mitchell of Somerset County Council and that work is underway to work with other Authorities along the line on a line strategy to improve the level of service available.

During a short discussion, the majority of members believed the partnership helped support and maintain and promote the line and for approximately 1.5% of the overall cost was worth investing in the partnership.  Councillor John Clark highlighted the importance of the involvement of community volunteers supported through the Partnership. It was therefore proposed that members approve the funding contribution of £1,000 to the Heart of Wessex Rail Partnership.  On being put to the vote this was carried by 13 votes in favour, 1 against and 0 abstentions.

(Voting: 13 in favour, 1 against, 0 abstentions)

Councillor Peter Seib requested that an update report from SCC be brought to committee regarding the Yeovil Eastern and Western Corridor Improvements.  This was noted and a request for this will be taken forward.

(Voting: Without dissent)

Members noted the Planning Appeals.

Members noted the Schedule of Planning Applications.

The Planning 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 provided members with a detailed update from both the SCC Highways and the SSDC highways consultant and explained to members to be mindful that these comments have been made collectively with regard to this application and applications 15/02535/FUL and 16/02888/OUT which are also being considered today. Comments included:

·         SCC Highways – Expected the proposal would see an increase in vehicle movements however considered not significant enough to warrant an objection on traffic grounds from SCC.

·         SSDC Consultant - believes the proposal would generate an additional 16 movements in peak hours per day. This is likely to be the worst-case scenario for the full capacity of 16 pupils.  The implementation of a travel plan may reduce the volume of vehicular traffic.

The Planning Officer referred to the key considerations including:

·         the Highway Implications/Increased traffic within Lufton Lane and any mitigation measures.

·         Impact upon setting of listed building.

He believed that on the basis of the submission of the transport assessment and conditioning of the travel plan and that the building is currently well screened from the main principal listed building his recommendation was for approval for reasons as set out in the agenda report.

In response to members’ questions, the Area South Lead confirmed that the Highways advice submitted relates to the situation at present.  He acknowledged that there is a clause within the S106 legal agreement in relation to the Lufton Key site (05/00931/OUT) regarding the traffic access along Lufton Lane that is currently unresolved, however he deemed it not to be an issue in this application as access to the college would have to be maintained in any case. 

He concluded the loop road proposed within the reserved matters application of the Lufton Key site is of sufficient width and capacity to serve these additional movements and that the Highways authority would have taken this into account when considering this application.  Therefore he does not believe these movements would make any significant difference and should not prejudice this application

Maggie Baker a member of the public then spoke in objection to the application.  She raised concern regarding the increase in traffic on the surrounding highway network and believed that until the proposed changes as part of the Lufton Key site development had been completed any other applications should not be considered at this time that could result in further increase in traffic.

Adam Wilkinson the agent then addressed the committee and explained the services of the college for both residential and day students. He considered this to be a safe rural environment and a necessary requirement to meet the needs and quality of life of students and who have suffered trauma in their young lives.  He believed the traffic impact to be minimal as many car share and that vehicle movements be largely confined to the start and finish of the school  ...  view the full minutes text for item 58.

(Having earlier declared a Personal and Prejudicial Interest Councillors John Clark and Mike Lock 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 power point presentation showed the site and proposed plans. 

He reiterated to members the update from both the SCC Highways and the SSDC highways consultant as already detailed under application 16/02464/S73 which concludes when viewed in context of other applications in this area raised no objections. Comments included:

·         SCC Highways – Main vehicular access will be via Thorne Lane, which is narrow and restrictive in some sections.  Again like the previous proposal the application would result in an increase in vehicle movements on Thorne Lane it is our opinion that it would only be at certain times and not consistently throughout the day.  As a consequence the proposal did not warrant an objection on traffic impact grounds.

·         SSDC Consultant – Would anticipate the use of the pitches were unlikely to coincide with the college peak times – the use of the pitches is more likely to be in the evenings and at weekends. In addition, the development of the key Site has to be considered.  This is a committed development under construction and although unsure what was agreed in the end with regard Lufton Lane is sure SCC was going to secure a sum of money towards a potential TRO to restrict vehicular use along Lufton lane if increased traffic generation flow was going to cause a problem.

He also informed members of an update received from the SSDC Conservation Officer which he read as follows:

“There are a number of heritage assets close to the application site. These include Lufton Manor, Lufton House and Lufton Church. The proposal is of a significant scale in an area of open countryside. The three historic assets I’ve mentioned enjoy a rural setting, and Lufton Manor features a sizeable associated area of planned parkland. I cannot find any supporting statements within the application documents to show that this has been considered. Paragraph 128 of the NPPF makes it clear that the applicant should describe the significance of any heritage assets affected by the proposal. I am of the view that given the scale of the proposal and the extent of formal landscaped parkland abutting the site there is the potential for the works to cause harm to the setting of nearby heritage assets. There is no evidence within the application documents to demonstrate that the significance of the setting of these assets has been taken into account in developing the proposal.

Therefore, in addition to Robert’s concerns about the impact on the Montacute House parkland I also suggest that the application should be refused due to the lack of supporting information in accordance with para. 128 of the NPPF, and potential impact on the setting of Lufton Manor Parkland”.

The Area South Lead also updated members of the following:

·         That further Archelogy information would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 59.

The Planning 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 confirmed that the proposal was contrary to policy but as a site has current development on, the Council not being able to demonstrate a 5 year supply of deliverable housing land, no adverse impact upon historic assets including listed buildings and the site being in close proximity to the approved Lufton Key site the proposal was recommended for approval.

He made no further updates to the report and his recommendation was for approval as set out in the agenda report.

Alan Roberts the applicant then addressed the committee.  He explained the proposal was for a dwelling for his daughter who wished to remain in the hamlet and that the proposed site was currently waste land used as a vegetable plot and would replace the unsightly Dutch barn and other outbuildings currently on the site and provide a nice new home within the area.

Helen Lazenby the agent then addressed the committee.  She believed this proposal to be a small infill site with no highway objection, no adverse impact on the neighbours and had the support of the Parish Council.  She understood that SSDC does not currently have a 5 year housing land supply and that the proposal satisfies sustainable development as set out in the NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework).

There being no members debate, it was proposed and seconded to approve the application as per the officers recommendation as set out in the agenda report.

RESOLVED:

That application 16/02888/OUT be approved subject to the following:

01.       The site is located adjacent to the Lufton Key Site with current built form on. In considering that the Council cannot demonstrate a five year land supply and the site not adversely affecting landscape character, visual amenity or traffic generation the principle of development on this site is accepted.  Subject to detailed plans at reserved matters a suitable access can be achieved and amenity maintained. The proposal therefore complies with the aims and objectives of the NPPF and does not compromise the Council's settlement strategy as detailed in policies SD1, SS1, SS4, SS5 and YV1 of the South Somerset Local Plan (2006 - 2028).

SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING:

01.       The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the location plan shown on drawing 6591-01 received 4 July 2016.

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

02.       Details of the access, scale, appearance, landscaping, and layout (herein after called the "reserved matters") shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before any development begins and the development shall be carried out as approved.

            Reason: As required by Section 92(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

03.       Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the Local Planning Authority before the expiration of three  ...  view the full minutes text for item 60.

This item was taken directly after Item 15 on the Agenda.

The Planning Officer informed members that the Ward members had requested that this item be deferred for further information to be obtained regarding this application.  It was therefore proposed and seconded that application 16/01826/DRO be deferred and on being put to the vote was carried unanimously.

RESOLVED:

That member’s agreed that application 16/01826/DPO be deferred in order to obtain further information.

(voting: unanimous)