Agenda, decisions and minutes

To approve the minutes of the Area South Committee held on Wednesday 6^th March 2019.

The minutes of the Area South Committee held on 6^th March 2019 copies of which had been circulated, were agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Karl Gill, Graham Oakes and Alan Smith.

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 District Council’s Regulation Committee

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

Councillors Peter Gubbins, Mike Lock, Tony Lock and David Recardo.

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.

Councillors Nicola Clark declared she had received correspondence with regard to Planning Application 18/03891/FUL however would consider the application with an open mind.

Councillor Jeny Snell also declared she had received correspondence regarding a planning application however would consider planning applications with an open mind.

Councillor Gina Seaton declared a personal interest in Planning Applications 18/03891/FUL and 19/00717/HOU as she had attended both Parish Council meetings however would consider both applications with an open mind.

Councillor Pauline Lock declared a personal interest in Planning Application 19/00609/FUL as she is a member of Yeovil Without Parish Council.

There were no questions from members of the public.

The Chairman informed members of the following:

·         Special Area South Committee on Tuesday 25^th June 2019 to consider the Bunford and Keyford Planning Applications.

·         Joint Area East and South meeting on Wednesday 3^rd July to consider the Up-Mudford Planning Application.

·         Forthcoming Council Plan Annual Action Plan Workshop to be arranged in July.  Members are asked to indicate preferred dates and will be informed of details as soon as possible.

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

Councillor John Clark informed members of the opening of the Westfield Community Centre on October 5^th 2019.

The Yeovil Refresh Project Manager presented his report and highlighted to members:

·         The Car park technical review had been completed but has yet to be reviewed by the board so is still a work in progress.

·         Yeovil Access Strategy was a joint piece of work with Somerset County Council with the first phase now complete and was now into the second phase of works and detailed assessment.

·         Public Realm Design Guide for the town was now underway and due to go out for Public Consultation in due course.

·         Improvements to Middle Street and the Traffic Regulation Order have been consulted on and there is now further work involved to take this forward.

·         There is a continuing discussion with potential investors of the town especially the proposed development of Glovers Walk.

·         A bid has been submitted for the High Streets Fund and we are hoping for a positive response from DCLG this summer.

In response to questions the Yeovil Refresh Project Manager informed members:

·         Works regarding Wyndham Street is included within the Yeovil Refresh project.

·         Noted comments regarding potential future advertising display boards within the town centre.

·         Confirmed that Yeovil Town Council were a key stakeholder and integral part of the Yeovil Refresh and would be informed and involved of any investment and discussions regarding the project.

The Chairman thanked the Yeovil Refresh Project Manager for his report. 

The Committee agreed the appointment of members to serve on the various working groups, panels and outside bodies for 2019/20.

(Resolution passed without dissent)

The Committee agreed the appointment of members to serve on the various working groups, panels and outside bodies for 2019/20.

(Resolution passed without dissent)

(Resolution passed without dissent

(Resolution passed without dissent

Councillor Peter Seib requested that the Annual Highways Maintenance Report include information regarding overgrown footways and the methods of reporting such issues.

Councillor John Clark reiterated his request that the SCC Project Manager be invited to Area South Committee to give a presentation on the upcoming I Aero project as there was very little information on the appropriate website.

Councillor Andy Kendall requested a report on Community Safety and current position of this role. 

Councillor David Recardo requested an update and presentation from Yeovil District Hospital.

During a short discussion members requested the Andy Coupe from SCC being invited back to committee to discuss the benefits and any issues arising from the recently completed Western Corridor Improvements Scheme within Yeovil.

Members also reiterated their request regarding the Eastern Corridor Improvements Scheme and asked that an appropriate Officer from SCC be invited to committee for members to discuss their concerns.

The Case Services Officer, Support Services and Locality Team Leader noted these request and would action accordingly.

(Voting: Without dissent)

Members noted the Planning Appeals.

Members noted the Schedule of Planning Applications.

The erection of 3 dwellings and formation of a new vehicular access Land North of Tall Elms Broadstone Lane Hardington Mandeville

The Planning Specialist presented the application as detailed in the agenda and with the aid of a powerpoint presentation showed the site and proposed plans.

She referred to the highway safety issues regarding the proposed access onto Broadstone Lane and that both the Council’s Highway Officer and the County Highway Authority had considered the scheme acceptable as per their comments within the report.  She also referred to the number of trees to be removed onsite to make way for the proposed access and reported that the Council’s Tree Officer had made comments on the application but had raised no strong Arboricultural objections to the removal of these trees.

The Planning Specialist confirmed that a further letter of objection had been received raising issues already included within the agenda report and that she had now received an application for Listed Building Consent regarding the front wall.

She summarised the key considerations and concluded that this was a well designed scheme that respects the character of the area without resulting in unacceptable harm to highway safety and neighbour amenity and considered the public benefits outweigh any harm to the setting of the listed house.  Her recommendation was therefore to approve the application for reasons as set out in the agenda report.

In response to questions the Planning Specialist informed members that:

·         The landscaping and tree protection conditions and the existing TPO would ensure the protection of the retained trees, planting and maintenance of new trees.

·         Believed the site was originally part of the garden and curtilage to the Historic Building.

·         Noted the concern regarding the maintenance of the existing stone boundary wall and suggested that if members were minded to approve the application a condition be included to ensure the future maintenance of the boundary wall.

A representative of Hardington Mandeville Parish Council then addressed the committee. His comments included:

·         The application should be refused on highway traffic safety grounds.

·         Considered the application harmful to the adjacent listed building.

·         Suggested that a preferred access off Rectory Lane was considered, however the applicant was not accommodating to this proposal. 

·         Confirmed the Parish Council were against the approval of this application as it stands.

Three members of the public made comments in objection to the proposal.  These included:

·         Proposed access was located on a dangerous blind bend and vehicle speeds are very high.

·         Broadstone Lane was a single carriageway with no footpath.

·         Proposal was in an inappropriate location and considered outside the footprint of the village.

·         Rectory Lane was wider than Broadstone Lane and therefore considered a better option for access to the site.

·         Proposal is Contrary to Policy SS2.

·         Appreciate the need for low cost housing however proposed dwellings does not require to current local need.

·         Changes to the boundary wall will adversely impact the village and listed building.

·         Dangerous to create a new access onto a narrow road which is used  ...  view the full minutes text for item 87.

The erection of a two storey side and single storey rear extension to dwellinghouse (part retrospective/revised applications) 10 Westbury Gardens Higher Odcombe Yeovil

The Case Officer, Service Delivery presented the application as detailed in the agenda and with the aid of a powerpoint presentation showed the site and proposed plans.  She confirmed the application was a revised application from the application that had previously been refused at committee and dismissed at appeal, with the only revision being the use of matching stone on the side elevation of the two-storey side extension instead of render. 

She referred to the previous planning appeal decision and the Inspectors’ comments stating that the two storey side extension itself would be acceptable but the proposed use of render on the two storey side extension would cause harm to the present streetscene.  This revised application has addressed that concern

The Case Officer confirmed that there were no further updates to the report and summarised the key considerations.  She concluded that her recommendation was to approve the application for reasons as set out in the agenda report.

In response to questions, members were informed of the boundary distances between the adjacent property and that maintenance of property boundaries is not a planning consideration.

A member of the public then spoke in objection to the application.  She explained she lived in the next door property and that the additional height was very oppressive and overbearing with the extension built to such close proximity of their boundary.  She said the building works and scaffolding have be ongoing for an extensive period of time causing undue stress. That the original proposed single storey extension had been acceptable but that the two storey extension was extremely dominant and had a severe impact on the privacy of the rear of their property and believe it to be overdevelopment and out of keeping with the area and contrary to Policy EQ2. 

The applicant then addressed the committee and said that he was willing to replace any plants and make good any damaged caused in the construction phase.  He explained that he had kept the neighbours fully informed of his plans throughout the building phase and expressed his disappointment on the lengthy process and time taken.    He referred to the Planning Appeal and the Inspectors comments and hoped that this application addresses these concerns and that members would support this application.  

Ward member, Councillor Gina Seaton said this proposal was overbearing and dominated the view to the neighbouring bungalow.  She said the original proposed single storey extension had been acceptable but considered this proposal to be oppressive and had a severe impact on the privacy of the rear of the neighbouring property and out of keeping with the area and contrary to Policy EQ2.

During discussion, members raised comments including the following:

·         Reasons for original refusal had now been tested and believed this revised application addresses these concerns. 

·         Appreciate the main issues raised but regrettably these are civil matters and not for planning  ...  view the full minutes text for item 88.

Erection of a detached dwelling 62 Tower Road Yeovil BA21 4NQ

The Case Officer, Service Delivery presented the application as detailed in the agenda and with the aid of a powerpoint presentation showed the site, access and proposed plan.  She confirmed that there were no further updates to the report and summarised the key considerations and concluded that her recommendation was to approve the application for reasons as set out in the agenda report.

In response to questions, the Case Officer informed members that:

·         The issue of a main sewer running through the site is not a planning consideration matter but part of the Building control application.

·         The proposed east facing roof lights will be of obscure glass and also above head height.

A member of the public then spoke in objection to the application.   He believed the height of the dwelling would block the winter sun and light into his property and would have a severe impact on the privacy of the rear of his property and increase the noise levels to an unacceptable standard.   He felt the proposal was too large and overbearing and raised concern regarding drainage issues.

Ward member, Councillor Rob Stickland believed the proposal to be too large and overbearing for the area in relation to other properties in Tower Road and believes contrary to policy EQ2. 

Ward member, Mike Lock raised concern regarding the parking issues near the access of the proposed site and considered the access to be very tight.  He also raised concern regarding the height and size of the proposed dwelling.

In response to questions, members were advised that:

·         The new dwelling was approximately half a metre taller than the existing property. 

·         Explained the new rules regarding permitted development rights, including that existing bungalows are permissible to add extra rooms in the roof space without having to apply for planning permission.

Following a short discussion it was proposed and seconded to approve the application as set out in the agenda.  On being put to the vote this was carried by 10 votes in favour, 4 against and 1 abstention.

RESOLVED: 

That Planning Application 19/00609/FUL be approved for the following reason:

01.       The dwelling is in a sustainable location and respects the character of the area, is of a suitable design and considered to have limited impact upon visual and residential amenity. Suitable access and parking can be provided. On this basis the proposal complies with policies SD1, SS1, SS4, SS5, YV1, TA5, TA6 and EQ2 of the adopted South Somerset Local Plan (2006 -2028) and the aims and objectives of the NPPF

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:

            Drawing Numbers: 18/162/02 revision A, 18/162/03 Revision A,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 89.

Crows nest and masts to form part of replacement Play Ship Yeovil Recreation Ground Chilton Grove Yeovil

The Planning Specialist presented the application as detailed in the agenda and with the aid of a powerpoint presentation showed the site and proposed plans. 

She confirmed that there were no further updates to the report and summarised the key considerations.  She considered the existing screening of the boundaries and distances of the neighbouring properties be acceptable and therefore her recommendation was to approve the application for reasons as set out in the agenda report.

During a short debate members sought clarity regarding the distance of the neighbouring property and landscaping of the site but believed this to be an excellent addition to the existing facility and voiced their support of the application.

On being put to the vote this was carried unanimously. 

RESOLVED: 

That Planning Application 19/00697/R3D be approved for the following reason:

01.       The proposed development, due to its location, scale and nature, is not considered to result in any demonstrable harm to residential or visual amenity and therefore accords with the aims and objectives of EQ2 (General Development) of the South Somerset Local Plan (2006-2028) and the principles of the National Planning Policy Framework (2019).

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; Drawing No.'s; LP1; Base Rev C; NRO-SHIP900029.  

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

(voting: unanimous)