Agenda and minutes

There were no apologies for absence.

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 Henry Hobhouse, Paul Rowsell and William Wallace.

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.

Councillor Colin Winder declared a personal interest in planning applications 19/01840/OUT** and 19/01725/FUL as he had previously worked for two of the applicants as a planning agent prior to becoming a District Councillor.  He advised that this had been over 12 years ago. 

Councillor Nick Colbert declared a personal interest in planning application 19/01725/FUL as two of the applicants were former clients of his who he had acted for historically.

At the time the item was debated, Councillors Mike Lewis and William Wallace declared a personal interest in planning application 20/00337/S73 - Land at Burrowfield, Bruton, as the applicant was Somerset County Council and they were County Councillors.

There were no questions from members of the public present.

The Chairman advised that the meeting was a consultative meeting and the decisions taken would be communicated to the Chief Executive for confirmation as agreed at the Full Council meeting on 19^th March 2020.  This was to enable decisions to be taken in consultation with Committees whilst Councillors were unable to meet in person due to the coronavirus pandemic.  He asked that all participants mute their microphones unless speaking.

The Locality Team Manager introduced the report and advised this was the first year report of the work on Members agreed priorities from the Council Plan.  Quarterly updates had been sent to Members and would be reported to the Committee in the future.  He asked that Members allocate funding notionally at the beginning of each financial year towards their key areas of focus to enable officers to monitor this.  He said most of the projects had progressed well while other were more complicated.

In response to questions from Members, the Locality Team Manager advised:-

·         The four Area Committees were allocated similar revenue and capital finding.

·         There had been an underspend of budgets across the four areas during the last year.

·         It was hoped that new software would assist officers to check the Section 106 and CIL funding on a parish by parish basis.  Individual queries could be followed up in the interim period.

At the conclusion of the debate, Members were content to note the Area Chapter 2019/2020 outturn report.

The Chairman advised that a Food Directory was being compiled to advise the public of food retailers open and offering home delivery during the pandemic.

It was noted that Area South Committee had requested that a report be presented in June on support for communities and Town and Parish Councils and general business support during coronavirus and this would be provided to all Area Committees. It would be a short report with Members providing feedback from their areas. 

Members noted the Area East Committee Forward Plan.

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

Proposal: Erection of 200 dwellings (70 affordable and 130 open market) with associated highways, drainage, landscaping and public open space.

The Specialist, Development Management presented the application as detailed in the agenda and explained this was an outline application and therefore scale, layout, appearance and landscaping are not for consideration at this time.  He also updated members that although his reason for refusal was omitted from the original report, this had been emailed separately to members and should now be included on the current agenda report. He also updated members that since the report had been circulated, 11 further letters of objection had been received which broadly followed the points already set out in his report. 

He also updated that he had received one letter of approval and summarised the comments included as follows:

·         Well thought out plan.

·         No objection from consultees.

·         Section 106 legal agreement would provide substantial financial contributions.

·         Too late to preserve countryside approach.

·         Many other towns have had development on the outskirts of the towns, for example Bruton and Wincanton.

·         Station and railway line provided a boundary for Castle Cary and Ansford, this development would be within these boundaries.

·         Housing land supply shortage.

·         Social benefits of the proposed affordable housing.

·         Development would provide financial and economic benefits to the town which outweigh the visual impacts of the development.

With the aid of slides the Specialist, Development Management then proceeded to show the site and proposed plans.  

He referred to the key considerations being the principle of development and explained that Castle Cary and Ansford had already received a substantial amount of growth (completions and commitments) over recent years.  This currently exceeded the proposed housing target for the area by 291 dwellings as set out in the Local Plan. He believed the development would again significantly increase this target and therefore would be contrary to Policy SS1 and Policy SS5. 

He also noted that the site is outside the direction of growth and that the Council does not currently have a five-year housing land supply.  He explained that most important to the determination of this application included policy’s SS1, SS5 and LMT1.  He advised these should only be afforded limited weight, and that the application should be considered for approval, unless the harm of doing so would significantly and demonstrable outweigh the benefits of the scheme.

He also referred to the landscape and local character, and that although the impact of the view is relatively localised it would have an effect on the open countryside and visible approach from both north and south.  He believed this development would propose a significant breach to the town’s development boundaries and adversely affect the character of the area and the setting of the town.  It was a significant consolidation of built form, which results in harm to the local character and contrary to policy EQ2 and the neighbourhood plan DP1.  

The Specialist – Development Management also advised members on the following:

·         The Highways Authority had raised no objections and that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

Proposal: Proposed development of 9 dwellings with access and landscape planting provision.

The Specialist – Development Management updated members regarding the following:

·         Condition 3 be amended at the beginning of the wording to read ‘No works above ground works shall be carried out unless particulars of the following have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority’.

·         Condition 17 be amended to now read ‘twenty years’ and not ‘five years’ as set out in the agenda report.

·         Additional condition be included to read as follows:

‘The development hereby permitted shall not be first occupied unless a scheme for the maintenance of all communal areas including the landscaped and shared parking areas have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The communal areas shall thereafter be retained and maintained in complete accordance with the approved maintenance scheme’  

With the aid of slides the Specialist, Development Management then proceeded to show the site and proposed plans.  She also summarised the key considerations of the application regarding the following:

·         Principle of Development.

·         Landscape and local character.

·         Highway safety and traffic impact.

·         Residential amenity.

·         Flooding and drainage.

·         Ecology.

·         Planning Balance.

The Specialist, Development Management therefore concluded that after considering all of the responses and advice, as outlined in the agenda report, her proposal was to approve the application for the reasons as set out in the agenda report.

The Committee were then addressed by 3 members of the public including a representative from Queen Camel Parish Council.  Their comments included:-

·         No affordable housing element included within the proposal.

·         Vehicular access along England Lane was already very difficult with road safety concerns for pedestrians and school children

·         There was limited accessibility for emergency vehicles.

·         This proposal was not consistent with draft neighbourhood plan.

·         The proposed site was near a conservation area and located outside the village development boundary.

·         With a previous application already approved within the village, the housing target for the area has already be met, therefore the application was not required.

·         Increase in traffic and parked cars within the area.

·         The site was an important floodplain for the river Cam, which could rise by 1 - 2m during heavy rain.  To build on the site would put other properties in the village at risk of flooding.

·         During construction the ground would be compacted and any heavy rain would have a serious impact for residents.

The Agent for the applicant advised that pre-application discussions had taken place with officers from the Council and several technical reports were submitted with the application on highways, drainage, ecology and archaeology at the site.  He said the Access Statement confirmed there were no recorded personal injury collisions on Englands Lane or the junction with the A359 in 19 years.  The site would generate on average 1 vehicle movement every 10 minutes at peak hours which was not significant.  The Highway Authority had confirmed that the proposal was acceptable and the new houses would be outside the flood risk  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

Proposal: Outline application with all matters reserved for the erection of a dwelling

The Development Management Case Officer introduced the report and advised that the application was referred to Committee at the request of the Ward Member and due to potential district wide implications, it was two-starred and would be referred to Regulation Committee if approved.  She advised that a similar application had been refused permission at the site the previous year.  She provided a power point presentation of the site, showing its remoteness, access and distance to local services.

She concluded that the main considerations were the principle of development, the site location remote from services and that the site was within the curtilage of a Grade 2 listed building with no statement of heritage significance provided to assess the possible impact.  The recommendation was to refuse permission.

The Committee were then addressed by a representative of Chilthorne Domer Parish Council who said they had no objections to the proposals.

The Committee were then addressed by the applicant who said he had lived in the Yeovil area for 15 years and had actively been seeking a building site for some time. He was a qualified brick layer and stonemason and also assisted his father to run his farm.  The site was in the middle of the farming area and living there would provide a green and more sustainable lifestyle.  The house would be built of natural hamstone and would incorporate eco-friendly measures. Any potential overlooking of neighbouring properties would be covered by trees and hedge planting.   The site was sustainable due to its closeness to the farm area and the local roads were safe to use. 

The Agent for the applicant advised that there would be no problem in providing the required visibility splays and a safe access could be provided without any detriment to other road users.  This could be covered by an appropriate condition.  This was already a developed site and the proposed self-build site was adequate to overcome policy objection.  The application had been accompanied by a statement of the impact of the heritage asset and given the distances separating the proposed dwelling and the listed building there could not be any significant impact on the heritage asset.  This would bring a dilapidated site back into good use and provide a family home.

One of the Ward Members, Councillor Paul Rowsell, said he was sad the village of Chilthorne Domer was considered to be unsustainable when it had many local services.  He said there was also a half-hourly bus service and by footpath, the village was very close.  The Parish Council fully supported the application and he said the site was asking to be built upon.

The other Ward Member, Councillor Charlie Hull, also spoke in support of the application.  He noted the applicants intent to build with eco-friendly measures and said the farming family should be supported.

The other Ward Member, Councillor Tony Capozzoli, said although officers had put forward  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

Proposal: Change of use of ground floor/basement from a cafe (Use Class A3) to a residential unit and alterations to rear elevation

The Planning Consultant presented the application as detailed in the agenda and outlined the key considerations which were principle of development, impact on designated heritage assets, highway safety and impact on residential amenity.

The Planning Consultant updated that since the report was published five objections had been received relating to the adverse impact on the future regeneration of Wincanton, the proposal setting a precedent for loss of further commercial businesses elsewhere in the town centre, no parking provision and lack of public transport network.

The Committee was addressed by a representation of Wincanton Town Council.  He advised that Wincanton Town Council objected to the application and highlighted that the property was located within the defined town centre and that similar applications for change of use for example in Church Street were acceptable as they were outside of the immediate environment on which it would have minimal negative affect.  This property was too close to the high street to be exempt from such considerations.  He referred to issues with parking and refuse collection due to the narrow pavement and commented that the proposed conversion was inappropriate and would reduce the vibrancy of the high street and went against the Town Centre Regeneration Plan.  The application would set a precedent and change the nature of the high street.

The owner of the property advised that negotiations on the long term rental of off road parking in a neighbouring street had been unsuccessful due to the length of time taken on the planning application but hoped if the application was approved parking could be negotiated elsewhere.  He noted that the property had been empty for over two years and that there were two other properties with planning consent for a restaurant and with access to parking that had been empty for at least four years.  He stated that there was a demand for residential use which was surely preferable over another empty property.  The open plan layout to the front of the building was designed to make the space as flexible as possible which could accommodate live/work arrangements.

Ward Member, Cllr Colin Winder supported the views of the Town Council and felt that the application was unacceptable.  He felt that the application should be refused as it failed to comply with the agreed Wincanton Town Centre Strategy in accordance with the NPPF Chapter 7 Paragraph 85 and the emerging South Somerset Local Plan 2016-36.

Ward Member, Cllr Nick Colbert agreed with the views of the Town Council that the property should remain as a commercial use.  He referred to the property having no parking and that free parking in Wincanton was not guaranteed.  He pointed out that the neighbouring property was the town hall who clearly objected to the application.  He was of the view that approving the application would go against the efforts being made to regenerate Wincanton Town Centre.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

Proposal: Application to vary condition 2 (approved plans) of planning approval 18/03479/FUL to substitute approved drawings with revised drawings to allow changes to layout, design and landscaping

The Case Officer for Development Management presented the application as detailed in the agenda, highlighting that the application was seeking changes to the layout and design of the site only and that all previously agreed conditions would be carried over.

He referred to the key considerations and explained that the principle of development was already established with the previously approved application.  As the proposed scheme was a reduced scheme and sought to move the units in from the boundary and a reduction in the height of the office hub, there would be no impact on the amenity of the surrounding area.  He referred to the hours of operation and explained that the Environment Protection Unit had been consulted on the scheme and suggested that a condition to limit the hours of operation would be unreasonable considering that the proposed units would be a B1 use. 

The Committee was addressed by a representation from Bruton Town Council.  He commented that the Town Council were supportive of the principle of the development and as previously stated the provision of light industrial units and office space was welcomed.  The Town Council had concerns over the hours of operation in view of the proximity to the residential area and were supportive of a condition to reduce the hours of operation and consideration of maintaining timber cladding although noted the increase in hedge screening and other buildings in Bruton being of a similar look.

The Applicant’s Agent said that the proposed scheme would reduce the mass and scale of buildings together with improving the landscaping resulting in a scheme with a more beneficial impact on the surrounding area.  He highlighted that the Environmental Projection Officer had not objected to the proposal and that B1 use was acceptable in a residential area.  There would be no impact of traffic or parking and the buildings were designed to operate acceptably in residential environments. 

Ward Member, Councillor Lucy Trimnell felt that the office hub and units would be an asset to Bruton but had concerns over the proposed abandonment of the timber cladding.  She felt that the timber cladding should remain and commented that the valley below the site was considered an area of beauty and aesthetic value to local people.  The building could be seen from the Frome Road and the Batcombe Road and should be blended into the surrounding area, timber cladding the building would maintain continuity along the road and would soften the appearance of the building in a rural residential setting.  She also referred to the building being visible when the hedges thin in the winter months.

At this point in the proceedings, Councillors William Wallace and Mike Lewis declared that they were members of Somerset County Council and would not vote on the application.

During the discussion, members made a number of comments which included the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.