Agenda, decisions and minutes

The minutes of the meeting held on 19^th July 2017, copies of which had been circulated, were taken as read, and having been approved were signed by the Chairman as a correct record of the meeting.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Mike Best, Amanda Broom, Carol Goodall, Jenny Kenton, Sue Osborne and Angie Singleton.

In accordance with the Council's current Code of Conduct (as amended 26 February 2015), 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.

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.  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. 

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, Angie Singleton and Martin Wale.

Where planning applications are referred by this Committee to the Regulation Committee for determination, 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.

At the time the item was discussed, Councillors Val Keitch and Linda Vijeh declared a personal interest in Agenda item 12: Planning application 16/05500/OUT – Land South West of Canal Way, Ilminster as the District Council Ward Member for Ilminster and the Somerset County Council Divisional Member for the area, respectively.

Councillors are requested to note that the next Area West Committee meeting is scheduled to be held on Wednesday 20^th September 2017, commencing at 5.30p.m.  Venue to be confirmed. 

Members noted that the next meeting of the Area West Committee would be held on Wednesday 20^th September 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.

It was agreed that members of the public present would speak at the time the Agenda items would be discussed.

There were no announcements from the Chairman.

(Voting: unanimous in favour)

The Neighbourhood Development Officer advised that the application was for a one-off grant programme to help boost the economy and increase footfall within the towns of Chard, Ilminster and Crewkerne.  Organisations would be encouraged to collaborate and add to existing events to stimulate the local economy.  There would be two periods to accept applications to separate the opportunities and start the events early.  He asked that Members support the allocation of £4,500 funding.

During discussion it was noted that Town Councils could be excluded from applying as they would have reserve funds.  It was agreed to adjust the scheme and guidance to clarify that these would be uncommitted reserves. 

It was further clarified that a proposed event could take place on the periphery of a town provided the organisers could demonstrate an increase in footfall to the towns retail businesses.

At the conclusion of the debate, Members supported the allocation of funding towards the Town Centre Events Grants programmeto boost town centre footfall and retail engagement in Chard, Crewkerne and Ilminster.

(Voting: unanimous in favour)

(Voting: unanimous in favour)

Merriott

The Committee were addressed by Mr I Hall of Merriott Parish Council who spoke in support of their application for funding towards phase 2 of improvements to the recreation field.  He said the local residents had been consulted and the Parish Council had increased their precept to fund the initial works.  He confirmed that although the work was planned over 4 phases, this would be the only application to the District Council for assistance. 

The Neighbourhood Development Officer confirmed that the multi-use access route was now complete at the recreation field and it was now planned to install play equipment targeted at younger children.  He recommended the application be supported.

During a brief discussion, Member were supportive of the proposal and when put to the vote, unanimously agreed to grant £5,000 to Merriott Parish Council towards Phase 2 of improvements to the Recreation Field.

Crewkerne

The Committee were addressed by Mr B Hodgson of Crewkerne Town Council who spoke in support of their application for funding towards play equipment at Henhayes Play Park. 

The Area Development Lead (West) confirmed the Town Council had been improving the park over a number of years and the proposed equipment would be versatile for children of all ages. 

During a brief discussion, Members were supportive of the proposal but asked that advice be sought from the SSDC leisure team on the durability of wooden play equipment.  When put to the vote, it was unanimously agreed to grant £8,041 to Crewkerne Town Council towards Phase 2 of enhancement work at Henhayes Play Park.

(Voting: unanimous in favour)

The Communities Lead advised that the report from the One Public Estate Programme would be delayed until October or November and a report on the Half Year progress of the Area Development Programme would be presented in December.  This would not affect the Chard Regeneration Scheme. 

Members were content to note the Area West Committee Forward Plan as amended.

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

Application Proposal:demolition of existing lean to extension and detached garage and the erection of a two storey side extension and single storey rear extension to dwellinghouse

The Planning Assistant introduced the report with the assistance of a power point presentation. She advised that although there was potential for overlooking neighbouring properties from the new extension, it would not be more significant than currently existed.  It was also proposed to increase the number of car parking spaces on the front garden.  She confirmed that her recommendation was to grant permission.

In response to questions from Members, the Planning Assistant confirmed that the extension would not project any further forward than the existing front elevation of the house, and, any impact on the neighbouring garage would be a civil matter to resolve.

Mr T Coleman spoke in opposition to the application.  He said that he had taken advice from a planning consultant who had advised him that the submitted plans did not contain sufficient detail on footings, party walls or impact upon neighbouring residents. He also referred to the planning history at the site and Policy EQ2 which protected the residential amenity of neighbouring properties. 

Mr P Loaring, the applicant, said there were other double storey extensions on the same street and so his proposal was in keeping with others.  He also noted that he would be creating 3 new car parking spaces at the front of the property which he wished to improve and be a long term family home.

The Ward Member, Councillor Dave Bulmer, said the application was difficult as many of the issues raised were a civil matter and there were no substantial planning reasons to refuse permission.

During a brief discussion, Members noted that there were similar extensions in the local area and while the proposed extension was marginally different, it was not sufficient to refuse permission.

It was proposed and seconded to approve the application as per the Officer’s recommendation and on being put to the vote the proposal was carried unanimously.

01.       The proposals, by reason of their scale, siting, design and materials, will cause no significant adverse impact to residential or visual amenity whilst providing sufficient parking in accordance with the aims and objectives of Policies TA5, EQ2 and EQ3 of the South Somerset Local Plan (2006 - 2028) and the policies of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012).

SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING:

01.       The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

            Reason:  To accord with the provisions of section 91(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

02.       The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:

            Amended Block Plan received 24th July 2017

            Drawing No. 4:7 received 15th May 2017

            Drawing No. 5:7 received 15th May 2017

            Drawing No.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 38.

Application Proposal:to remove condition 02 (agricultural workers occupancy) from planning permission 04/02261/FUL

The Development Manager introduced the report and advised that an application for an agricultural workers dwelling at the site had been approved in 2004 with a Section 106 condition that the property only be occupied by people in agricultural or horticultural occupation, or, their last occupation was agricultural or horticultural business.  The application had only been approved with the condition as it was a new building in open countryside.  He said that no open marketing exercise had been carried out and no supporting evidence had been submitted with the application.

In response to questions from Members, the Development Manager confirmed that:-

·         the applicant had not carried out any marketing exercise as they said that they did not wish to sell the property.

·         Planning Policy HG10 was a robust policy to justify the need for a new dwelling in open countryside.

Mr A Booth, agent for the applicant, clarified that the applicants only owned the 7.3 acres of land alongside the property and the field edged in blue in the presentation slides had been sold in 2015.  He confirmed that the valuation of £600,000 listed in the report was taken before the sale of the adjacent land.  Because of the unusually large size of the house and small acreage of land with no permanent outbuildings, it would not be attractive to a farmer.  He said that policy HG10 was not relevant in this instance and the well-being of the applicants should be considered as they did not wish to sell the property. 

The Development Manager clarified that the application plans had been submitted with the blue line around the adjacent field, indicating ownership and they had not been advised that it had been sold.  He also noted that the valuation of the land and property would increase by a third if the agricultural condition was lifted. 

The Ward Member, Councillor Paul Maxwell, advised that this was a small specialised nursery which could no longer compete with its larger competitors.  The large house and small acreage made it uneconomic for an agricultural living.  He confirmed that the applicants did not wish to sell the property but their health was such that they would not be able to operate the nursery business for much longer.  He concluded that the agricultural tie was no longer appropriate and should be lifted.

During discussion, varying views were expressed.  Some members felt that every application should be considered on its individual merits whilst others felt that the 18 month marketing exercise should be carried out before any consideration be given to lifting the agricultural tie, as the applicants currently complied with the condition. 

Councillor Paul Maxwell proposed that the agricultural tie to the property be lifted, contrary to the officer’s recommendation and an early review of Policy HG10 be made. This was seconded, however, on being put to the note, it was lost (voting: 3 in favour, 6 against 0 abstentions).  It was then  ...  view the full minutes text for item 39.

Application Proposal: outline application for residential development for up to 400 dwellings with associated access

The Area Lead West introduced the report to the Committee with the assistance of power point slides of the site.  He noted that the proposed area of open space had been amended and was now within the parish of Ilminster, not Donyatt.  Since writing his report, one further letter of objection had been received from the CPRE.  He referred to the number of dwellings listed for Ilminster in the Local Plan and said that although the proposal would exceed that number, it was similar to that allowed at Ansford and Castle Cary.  There were no objections from statutory consultees and the site could be built in phases.  The site was a sustainable location and the principle of development had been accepted therefore he recommended approving the application. 

In response to questions from Members, the Area Lead West and the Development Manager confirmed that:-

·         Condition 10 of approval ensured that footpaths and cycleways connections were constructed prior to occupation of any of the houses.

·         The Lead Flood Authority had added 30% to their calculations due to climate change.  The developer would be responsible for ensuring surface water was adequately dealt with.

·         The Highway Authority had originally objected to the second emergency access as they thought that it was proposed as an open access. 

·         The single point of access was a concern for the Landscape Officer however, the Highway Consultant felt it was acceptable.

·         The 20 hectare site was within the acceptable limit of 40 dwellings per hectare, excluding buffer zones.

·         The Local Plan confirmed that there was a need for housing in the district and the site was allocated for housing by the District Council and Plan Inspector.

·         Government advice was to support development unless there was demonstrable evidence of adverse harm.

·         The SCC Highways Department were impartial and there was no link between them and the SCC Estates Department.  An independent Highways Consultant would be very expensive to engage.

·         The professional consultants engaged by the applicants were impartial and the information which they submitted was scrutinised.

Mr A Shearman of Ilminster Town Council said the application had been discussed by them on a number of occasions and there was concern at the lack of infrastructure provided, the single access point, the time of day which the traffic survey had been conducted, the current flooding on the fields, the traffic diverted through Ilminster when the by-pass was closed and the policing of the proposed emergency access. 

Mr B Porritt of Donyatt Parish Council said that although they were appreciative that no land in Donyatt now formed part of the application, they were still apprehensive and needed assurance and an undertaking that no land in Donyatt would be included in any future development. 

The Committee were then addressed by 14 members of the public who were objecting to the development.  Their comments included:-

·         400 houses is too many for one site in Ilminster.

·         Concerned  ...  view the full minutes text for item 40.