Agenda, decisions and minutes

The minutes of the meeting held on 20^th January 2016, copies of which had been circulated, were taken as read, and having been approved were signed by the Chairman as a correct of the proceedings.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Ric Pallister and Garry Shortland.

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 Regulation Committee

The following members of this Committee are also members of the Council's Regulation Committee:

Councillors. Mike Best, Sue Osborne and Angie Singleton

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 Angie Singleton advised that, having taken advice from the Monitoring Officer, although this was not an interest, she was advising the Committee that her husband was the part-owner of a property adjacent to the Crewkerne Key Site, Land between A30 and A356, Crewkerne (Agenda item 14 – Planning applications 14/02141/OUT and 15/04084/DPO).

This is a chance to ask questions, make comments and raise matters of concern.

Parish/Town Councils 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.

Anyone wishing to raise matters in relation to items on the agenda may do so at the time the item is considered.

No questions or comments were raised by members of the public.

The Chairman made the following announcements:

·         Mactaggart & Mickel Homes’ High Court challenge on the decision to refuse planning permission for a site in Chard has been dismissed. The judge looking at the case decided that the Planning Inspector had acted correctly in upholding South Somerset District Council’s decision to refuse the planning application. Mactaggart & Mickel Homes were entitled to apply to the Court of Appeal to have the judge’s decision reviewed. But for now the decision remained that the site had been refused planning permission.

·         A member workshop on Policy SS2 would be held prior to the March meeting of the Area West Committee.

Reference was made to the agenda report, which informed members of the proposed Area West Committee Forward Plan.

The Area Development Manager (West) advised that the progress report on the Chard Business Hub Project, if agreed at agenda item 8, was likely to come forward in April.

Members were content to note the Forward Plan as attached to the agenda.

 (Voting: unanimous in favour)

The Neighbourhood Development Officer advised that the hall had a lot of single glazed sash windows which needed to be replaced with double glazing.  The removal of a redundant storage building behind the hall had provided the opportunity to improve the access and create a new entrance with a small outdoor seating area to the rear.  The Village Hall Committee was seeking £11,000 from the Area West capital budget towards the project.

The Committee was addressed by John Bowman, Trustee and Vice Chairman of the Village Hall Committee.  He advised that the hall was almost 100 years old and required some maintenance to keep it efficient.  The hall was a very important community facility and a lot of internal works had already been undertaken to meet regulations.  The Village Hall Committee had been involved with raising funds and installed a PA and loop system.  The proposal to remove the redundant building would benefit the hall and make it more attractive to hirers and the replacement of windows would make it more energy efficient.

In response to member questions, the Neighbourhood Development Officer and John Bowman advised that:

·         the Section 106 contributions from the Broadway Farm development were imminent;

·         a planning application for the proposed works had been submitted;

·         the parish council were planning to make some improvements to the car park;

·         The new entrance would be an additional entrance;

·         A fence and gate would be constructed at the rear of the hall that could be locked to improve security;

·         Part of the S106 funding would provide the shortfall in funding.  Two other grant applications had also been submitted to other organisations.  The total amount from S106 contributions would depend on the outcome of the grant applications.

The Ward Member, Cllr Paul Maxwell expressed his support for the project and commented that the hall was very popular and well used.  The project would enhance the venue and provide security lighting to the rear.

At the conclusion of the debate, Members were content to confirm the award to Merriott Village Hall Committee towards enhancement works from the Area West Capital Budget.

 (Voting: unanimous in favour)

With the aid of a powerpoint presentation, the Neighbourhood Development Officer explained the proposals to develop a Business Hub based in the Holyrood Lace Mill to provide start-up, incubation and innovation support and expand the business base in Chard.  He highlighted that the Chard Regeneration Scheme specifically recognised the importance of business incubation in Chard town centre, and that the 2015 Lister Workspace Demand Study identified a shortage of serviced office provision. The Hub would be open to general businesses and would develop a special focus on digital industries. The first stage of the proposal would set up a basic, inclusive Hub with video editing facilities within the Lace Mill.  If successful a second stage would seek external funding to develop a prestige Hub.

During discussion, members made a number of comments, which included the following:

·         The building had been empty for some time and should be put to good use;

·         It had been perceived that businesses were not in the town centre because business rates were too high;

·         There was potential in the long run to generate income which SSDC needed to consider in the long term;

·         External funding was the way forward;

·         Business support was desperately needed in the town and the project was the perfect opportunity to achieve it.

Members noted that a further report would be presented to the Committee outlining the next stage of the project including a detailed costed plan.

At the conclusion of the debate, Members were pleased to confirm the recommendations of the report. 

The Corporate Strategic Housing Manager summarised the report which updated members on the outturn position of the Affordable Housing Programme for 2014/15 in relation to Area West and the position for the current financial year including future prospects.  Members were informed that an annual report on the programme was considered by District Executive in October.  He highlighted that there had been a significant amount of new affordable housing in Chard and four affordable homes in Crewkerne.

The Corporate Strategic Housing Manager referred to the 2014/15 outturn as outlined in Appendix A to the report and highlighted that seven schemes had been completed resulting in 94 dwellings in Area West including the Community Land Trust Scheme at Norton Sub Hamdon.  He advised that there would be no new HCA grant for rented housing in future which increases reliance on S106 obligations.  Three schemes had been completed in Chard and four units in Crewkerne.  The conversion of Chard Working Men’s Club into five flats during the current financial year had also had a positive impact on the street frontage of Chard.  There were proposals for a scheme in Misterton and a planning application was expected shortly.

In response to questions from Members, the Corporate Strategic Housing Manager advised that:-

·         The level of design depended on the subsidy received and that efforts had been made to increase the design quality of affordable housing;

·         The Misterton scheme as outlined in Appendix D was subject to planning permission with the anticipated completion being during 2017.

At the conclusion of the debate, Members were pleased to note the outturn position of the Affordable Housing Development Programme for 2014/15 and the update provided on the current and future year.

The Housing and Welfare Manager introduced the report and with the aid of a powerpoint presentation gave details of how people were banded into housing need.  The number of applicants on the register was declining compared to the last few years but this was more about how the register was managed rather than lack of need.  She highlighted that Chard, Crewkerne and Ilminster were the areas of highest need at the current time.  Demand for one and two bedroom properties was the highest demand but developers were reluctant to build one bed properties.

In response to member question, the Housing and Welfare Manager advised that the majority of people on the register could only afford to rent but she would include details of people moving towards purchasing a property in her next report.

The Chairman thanked the Housing and Welfare Manager for her report.

The Committee noted the details contained in the agenda report, which informed members of appeals received and an appeal dismissed at Barns at Lower Wood Close Lane, Allowenshay, Hinton St George.

Members noted the Schedule of Planning Applications to be determined by the Committee.

Application Proposal: The erection of 1 No. wooden gypsy lodge, toilet and stables/tackroom (Part Retrospective)

The Area Lead West introduced the report and with the aid of slides and photographs summarised the details of the application as set out in the agenda.  He noted that a site nearby had recently been granted planning permission on appeal, having been refused on highway safety grounds at Committee.  Although the Highway Authority did not support this application because of the nearby substandard road junction, a traffic survey undertaken on behalf of the applicant showed that a reasonable level of traffic used the lane and the impact of one site would not be high.  He noted the Parish Council comments which were listed in the appendix to his report but he did not feel the site would have a significant impact upon the character of the area.  He recommended a further condition to control use of the stables to be personal to the applicant only and said his recommendation was for approval.

In response to questions from Members, the Area Lead Planning Officer advised that:-

·         There was a compost toilet and one building dating from 2008 currently on the site.  Google maps showed that there was nothing on the site in 2006.  The applicant would use the existing building as a day room.  There would be one static and one touring caravan on the site;

·         The quota for traveller pitches in the Local Plan was 23 and so 10 or 11 pitches were still needed to meet this target;

·         The Policy for travellers also took account of travelling permanently;

·         He was satisfied that the applicant had a nomadic lifestyle;

·         The applicant could apply to vary or appeal any unreasonable conditions imposed;

·         There was no doubt that the junction was substandard, the issue was whether it was substandard enough bearing in mind that the application was for only one pitch and it could be visited on a daily basis without the permission;

·         A condition could be added to ensure that no additional buildings could be erected on the site without permission;

·         The need for 23 pitches in the Local Plan was not a maximum target but a minimum target.  There was a need for the pitch and even if the target had been reached his recommendation would still be for approval.

Jonathan Hoskyns, Chair of North Perrott Parish Council addressed the Committee.  His comments included the following:

·         The Parish Council had not considered the proposal for an additional caravan;

·         Concerns over the inaccuracy of the plans;

·         Concerns over road safety.  Photographs had been submitted of skid marks to show the near misses at the junction but had not been included in the report;

·         The report stated that there was no relevant history on the site but this was considered inaccurate. Since 2003 the Parish Council had tried to restrict development in the area.  A previous application had been submitted for residency and a market garden but was refused permission.

The Committee was addressed by Marisa  ...  view the full minutes text for item 118.

Application Proposal: Outline development of up to 110 houses, 60 bed nursing home, up to 3.74 hectares of employment land, vehicular access from Station Road and Blacknell Lane, Crewkerne

Application to modify S106 agreements dated 31^st January 2013 between SSDC and SCC and Taylor Wimpey Lit in respect of planning permission reference 05/00661/OUT

The Area Lead Planning Officer (North/East) summarised the applications and made reference to the following points:

·         The application injected some value into the site and revisited the S106 obligations on the original outlined scheme;

·         The application was seeking to amend the original scheme in line with the new scheme;

·         Odour emissions would be low enough not to affect residential amenity;

·         Pre-application discussions had been held on the dormouse bridge although a culvert under the road may work and should be cheaper to construct, however the applicant could fall back to constructing the bridge;

·         With regard to the issue of noise and the close proximity to the employment area of the town, based on 24 hour monitoring there was no reason to believe that the noise was unsatisfactory.  A condition required the submission of a detailed noise survey;

·         Access was as per the original application;

·         Archaeology had been investigated on the northern part of the site;

·         With regard to the planning obligations off-site leisure provision and landscape planting had been reduced;

·         Dormouse mitigation had been reduced due to the culvert rather than a bridge;

·         The applicants had offered £7.6m to cover all the S106 obligations;

·         There were significant savings within the S106 obligations from landscaping and the use of natural stone on the housing;

·         Affordable housing was down from 17.5% to 8.25% all for social rent but pressing need was social rent and there was a reasonable balance;

·         The NPPF was clear that allocations for employment land which were not coming forward should be looked at again.  The principle was contrary to the Local Plan but there were arguments that constituted exceptional circumstances;

·         The District Valuer was satisfied with the revised obligations.

In response to questions from Members, the Area Lead Planning Officer advised that:-

·         The sewage works were currently located to the north of the site and they could be expanded adjacent to the existing works or all works could be relocated elsewhere;

·         There had been no obligation at outline stage with reference to photovoltaic panels on roofs.  The lower site was likely to be less sensitive and so a condition or informative could be included if members wished;

·         The level of odour emissions would not affect the level of residential amenity;

·         The provision of on-street parking on Station Road remained;

·         The land to be transferred to the town council was off the site and they were willing to take it on in principle for a commuted sum which was within the landscaping budget;

·         The missing figure on agenda page 92 should be £1,377,657;

·         The applicant was not requesting any changes to the trigger point of 200 houses for the road.  If the site were sold  ...  view the full minutes text for item 119.

Members noted that the next meeting of the Area West Committee would be held on Wednesday 16^th March 2016 at 5.30pm at Swanmead Community School, Ilminster.