Agenda, decisions and minutes

The minutes of the meeting held on 16^th November 2016, copies of which had been circulated, were taken as read, and having been approved were signed as a correct record of the proceedings.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Jenny Kenton, Paul Maxwell, 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 Val Keitch declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 10 – Ilminster – Conservation Area Appraisal and Designation of Extensions to Conservation Area, as a member of Ilminster Town Council.

Councillor Andrew Turpin declared a personal interest in Planning Application No. 15/02733/OUT – Land and Premises Barley Farm, House Lane, Tatworth as a member of Tatworth and Forton Parish Council.  He advised that as Chair of Tatworth and Forton Parish Council he had remained as neutral as possible and did not take part in the vote when the planning application was discussed.

Councillor Sue Osborne declared a personal interest in Planning Applications 15/05534/FUL, 15/05535/FUL, 15/05536/FUL and 15/05537/FUL – Lands OS 0005 at Knight House Farm, New Lane, Cudworth, as the Ward Member.

Councillors are requested to note that the next Area West Committee meeting is scheduled to be held on Wednesday 18^th January 2017 at 5.30pm at The Guildhall, Chard.

Members noted that the next meeting of the Area West Committee would be held on Wednesday 18^th January 2017 at 5.30pm at The Guildhall, Chard.

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.

There were no questions from members of the public.

The Chairman reminded members to complete the recently circulated survey on the Area West Committee Meeting Arrangements.

Reference was made to the report, which informed members of the proposed Area West Committee Forward Plan.  There were no updates to the Forward Plan.

In response to a member comment regarding the update on the Chard Regeneration Scheme, members noted that a confidential report was considered by the District Executive on 1^st December and all members could access the report.

Reason:  To update members on the work of the Blackdown Hills AONB Partnership and agree in principle to the continuation of core funding.

(Voting: unanimous)

The Area West Team Leader summarised the agenda report, which updated members on the work of the Blackdown Hills AONB partnership during the last 12 months to which the Council provided joint funding.

With the aid of a powerpoint presentation she informed members about the following:

·         A number of successful events to celebrate 25 years of the AONB, had been held by the AONB including Bat Box making, mushroom extravaganza, photogenic fungi and Carols Under the Stars;

·         Corporate sponsorship for the 25^th anniversary celebrations had been secured from Otter Valley Ice cream, Otter Brewery and Corrymoor Mohair;

·         The Natural Futures project was now in its second year and had again taken on three more graduates.  The trainees have undertaken a field study and discovered a number of rare species including the UK’s first black dormouse which received lots of media coverage;

·         A number of short films have been made of local experts and are available to view on the Natural Futures website;

·         The AONB website is a good source of useful information and had recently produced some guidelines on light pollution.

The Area West Team Leader referred members to the table in the agenda report outlining what each local authority partner has contributed in the 2016/17 financial year and suggested that Area West continue to contribute £6,000 in 2017/18. 

Cllr. Martin Wale, the SSDC representative on the AONB commented that the AONB undertook far reaching and useful work with only a small workforce. He supported the continuation of funding for 2017/18.

Members were content to approve the recommendations of the report.

Reason:  To update members on the work of the Blackdown Hills AONB Partnership and agree in principle to the continuation of core funding.

(Voting: unanimous)

The Area Team Leader (West) summarised the agenda report and commented that members had already received updates on some of the work undertaken by Area Development Team at the Area West Committee meetings.  She advised members of the following: 

·         With regard to the Chard Regeneration Scheme, the Area Development Team were not leading on the project but were involved with attending the meetings;

·         Work of the Business Hub was progressing and two successful promotional events had been held including a business breakfast;

·         Work was progressing with officers from Legal and Economic Development on the delivery of a legal agreement for the creation of the Stop Line Way;

·         A casual part-time Officer was providing support to the Chard Town Team to look at governance arrangements and assist with developing projects;

·         A lot of time has been spent assisting Crewkerne and Ilminster with their Community Plans;

·         Provided support to Creative Crewkerne;

·         Officers have assisted Ferne Animal Sanctuary and Perry’s Cider Mills with successful applications to the Making It Local fund;

·         Assistance has been given to the Henhayes Centre to develop a fundraising strategy to build an extension.

Members thanked the Area Team Leader (West) for all her hard work.

Cllr. Sue Osborne, speaking on behalf of Dowlish Wake thanked the Area West Team Leader for all her support.  She advised that the site had been cleared and a meeting was being held shortly with regard to submitting plans for the rebuild of the pavilion.

The Assistant Director – Communities gave an update on the LEADER funding and the Hinkley Legacy Fund that was being set up. She agreed to circulate a map of qualifying areas for the Hinkley Legacy Fund to members.

The Chairman thanked the Area Team Leader (West) for her excellent report.

Reason:  To formally designate an extension to the Ilminster Conservation Area and approve the recently prepared Conservation Area Appraisal.

(Voting: unanimous)

The Conservation Officer presented the report.  He advised that 18 boundary changes were being proposed and that all new properties within the area had been consulted.  The Town Council, Ward Member, Historic England, Dillington Estate and SW Heritage Trust had also all been consulted on the proposed alterations.  He advised that the Town Council were in support of the proposals and had suggested more areas.  He was therefore proposing a revised recommendation in order to allow the further extensions suggested by the Town Council to be considered.

Cllr. Val Keitch, speaking on behalf of Ilminster Town Council confirmed that the Town Council were in support of the new conservation areas and advised that the suggestions proposed were fairly minor.

Members were content to approve the revised recommendations put forward by the Conservation Officer.

Reason:  To formally designate an extension to the Ilminster Conservation Area and approve the recently prepared Conservation Area Appraisal.

(Voting: unanimous)

Members noted an appeal had been allowed at Land East of Two Oaks, Broadway Road, Broadway, Ilminster.

Members noted the schedule of planning application to be determined as outlined in the agenda.

The Planning Officer presented his report to members with the aid of a powerpoint presentation.  He advised that the application was a revised outline application for up to 7 no. dwellings and that the application was to agree the principle of development and access only, all other matters were reserved.  He outlined the key considerations associated with the application which were impact on visual amenity/setting of listed buildings, highway safety, drainage and sustainability/5 Year land supply.  There were no updates to the report.  He advised that his recommendation was for approval subject to conditions.

The Planning Officer and Development Control Manager responded to Members comments and questions which included the following:

·         Confirmed the location of the four listed buildings near the site;

·         Clarified the access arrangements to the site including plot 7;

·         Houses Lane was a  one way street and would therefore require a signage scheme for people coming out of the site;

·         The edge of the site was 5 metres away from a listed building;

·         Confirmed that service delivery vehicles could drive past the site and then reverse into the site;

·         It was difficult to accommodate pedestrians/cyclists beyond the confines of the site;

·         There was a pedestrian route from within the site to Tatworth Street;

·         Confirmed that the access to the site would accommodate emergency vehicles;

·         It would be satisfactory for a refuse collection vehicle to pull up alongside a development and was not always necessary for them to turn around on the site;

·         It was inevitable that some people would use their vehicles to access services such as the local school; 

·         The road can cope with the increase in vehicles and to demonstrate that the impact is severe would be very difficult;

·         Policy SS2 in the Local Plan refers to the need for two facilities.  Tatworth benefits from various facilities;

·         There was currently no speed restriction on Houses Lane;

·         The 3 metres wide access was appropriate to serve a single dwelling;  

·         There was no calculation on the precise number of parking spaces as the application was only outline. The proposed layout was parking strategy compliant.

The Committee was addressed by Sarah Humpreys who spoke in objection to the application on behalf of herself, Martin Turner, Simon Boyle, Naomi Gilchrist and Alastair Purcell.  Concerns raised included the following:

·         Overdevelopment and non-compliance with policies EQ2 and EQ3, ST1 & SS2;

·         House No. 7 is of a sympathetic design and should be extended to the other houses;

·         Traffic Safety and access concerns;

·         Erosion and removal of sections of the Devon bank;

·         Houses Lane is unsuitable for additional traffic;

·         Pedestrian access issues with Plot 7;

·         Issues with flooding and surface water run off in the area;

·         Prefer to see lesser density of houses that are in keeping and can be sustainable.

The Committee was then addressed by Terry Bailey in support of the application.  He advised that he was born and grew up in the village and that the proposal would increase the opportunity for young people to remain in the village.  

The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 91.

The Planning Officer explained that four planning applications had been received covering one proposal.  Three applications were in relation to the agricultural buildings comprising the farmstead and the other was for the siting of a temporary agricultural workers dwelling. 

The Planning Officer gave a powerpoint presentation outlining the four applications and referred to the key considerations associated with each application which were landscape impact, functional/business need for a worker to reside on site, does the justification for the site outweigh the landscape harm and ecology.  The Planning Officer’s recommendation was to refuse all four applications.

The Planning Officer advised that the applicant had offered the demolition of some of the existing buildings to be conditioned as an enhancement to the scheme.

In response to questions from Members, the Planning Officer and Development Control Manager confirmed:-

·         The livestock to be kept would remain the same which was currently cattle and sheep;

·         The dwelling on the existing farmstead was occupied by someone not involved with agriculture;

·         The benefits of the proposal could include supporting a rural business;

·         The maximum height of the farm buildings would be 7 metres;

·         The floor levels could be conditioned if the application were to be approved;

·         A landscaping condition could be included if the application were to be approved;

·         If approved and the business did not prosper, the buildings would remain but the temporary agricultural dwelling would fail;

·         The height of the site above sea level is approximately 165 metres;

·         The owner of the existing buildings was the applicant.

The Committee was addressed by Lucy Corbett, representing Cudworth Parish Meeting.  She raised a number of concerns with the application which included the following:

·         Impact on the existing landscape;

·         Concerns of a permanent dwelling in time;

·         Impact of development would be irreversible;

·         It was unclear what use the existing buildings would have;

·         Remote and isolated location from the village;

·         Purpose of the two storey building remained unclear;

·         Support for the redevelopment of the existing site.

Carleton Earl, an objector and member of the Ramblers Association commented that the application would site a large building in the heart of a unique secret valley.  He referred to the newly created track being in regular use by large machinery and a potential danger for walkers.  He commented that the development would impact significantly on a number of footpaths in the area.  If the business failed the building would still be located in the area and spoil the environment.

The Committee was addressed by Mike Mouland and Kate Siebert in support of the application.  Comments made included the following: 

·         The site had been proposed because it was in the middle of the farm;

·          The buildings were required for security and animal welfare reasons;    

·         The field was very sheltered;

·         There were no water courses on the proposed site;

·         The existing buildings would not be able to accommodate more animals;

·         Ecology aspects of the farm would be preserved and improved;

·         The farm had a Woodland Management Plan approved by Natural England;

·         The landscape  ...  view the full minutes text for item 92.

(Please refer to Minute 92 for the discussion on this item)

It was proposed and seconded to approve the application subject to conditions, contrary to the Planning Officer’s recommendation, for the reasons outlined by the Development Control Manager including:

·         The development would not have an adverse effect on the existing landscape character

·         Supports a local business

·         In keeping with the area

·         Supports policy HG9

The final wording of the justification for the permission and conditions to be agreed by the Planning Officer in conjunction with the Chairman and Ward Member, conditions to include the removal of the existing buildings, site levels, landscaping and external lighting etc.

On being out to the vote the proposal was carried by 8 votes in favour, 2 against and 1 abstention.

(Please refer to Minute 92 for the discussion on this item)

It was proposed and seconded to approve the application subject to conditions, contrary to the Planning Officer’s recommendation, for the reasons outlined by the Development Control Manager including:

·         The development would not have an adverse effect on the existing landscape character

·         Supports a local business

·         In keeping with the area

·         Supports policy HG9

The final wording of the justification for the permission and conditions to be agreed by the Planning Officer in conjunction with the Chairman and Ward Member, conditions to include the removal of the existing buildings, site levels, landscaping and external lighting etc.

On being out to the vote the proposal was carried by 8 votes in favour, 2 against and 1 abstention.

(Please refer to Minute 92 for the discussion on this item)

It was proposed and seconded to approve the application subject to conditions, contrary to the Planning Officer’s recommendation, for the reasons outlined by the Development Control Manager including:

·         The development would not have an adverse effect on the existing landscape character

·         Supports a local business

·         In keeping with the area

·         Supports policy HG9

The final wording of the justification for the permission and conditions to be agreed by the Planning Officer in conjunction with the Chairman and Ward Member, conditions to include the removal of the existing buildings, site levels, landscaping and external lighting etc.

On being out to the vote the proposal was carried by 8 votes in favour, 2 against and 1 abstention.