Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the previous meeting held on Wednesday 12^th December 2018.

Councillor Winder requested that the minutes be amended. He requested that the list of attendees should be amended to include the Chief Executive Officer as he was also present at the meeting, although noted that he did not speak at the meeting.

He also suggested that minute number 105 should be revised to include the following comment which he had made at the previous meeting; ‘there are a lot of Listed Buildings within the Town Centre which are a problem for owners in terms of letting’

He also requested that the minutes include reference to an issue at the previous meeting in relation to a press officer taking photos of the slides.

Subject to these amendments, the minutes of the previous meeting held on Wednesday 12^th December 2018, copies of which had been circulated, were agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

An apology of absence was received from Councillor David Norris. An apology was also received from Councillor Mike Lewis as he would be slightly late to the meeting as he was attending another unavoidable meeting in Yeovil.

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 Tony Capozzoli, Nick Weeks and Colin Winder.

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 Tony Capozzoli declared a pecuniary interest in agenda item 14 as his family owned some land adjoining the application site.

Members are asked to note that the next scheduled meeting of the committee will be at the Council Offices, Churchfield, Wincanton on Wednesday 13th February at 9.00am.

Members noted that the date of the next meeting would be held on Wednesday 13^th February at the Council Offices, Churchfields, Wincanton at 9am.

There were no questions from members of the public present at the meeting.

The Chairman reminded members of the public that any audio recording of the meeting could only take place once the Chairman and the Committee had been made aware and had given permission for this to take place.

Councillor Hobhouse read out a letter, which he had received from one of his constituents. The letter was a response from the Lead Planning Specialist in response to a complaint, which had been received by the Planning Team. The complaint was in relation to a boundary wall which was now not being built as expected. As the construction of the wall had not been a condition of the approval, there was little that the Planning Team could do to ensure that the wall was built as shown in the plans.

The Senior Planning Advisor clarified that in some cases applicants could chose not to fully implement a planning approval. He pointed out that the response related to a current complaint, which had been dealt with by the Lead Planning Specialist.

In response to another question, the Senior Planning Advisor advised that following a review of the recent change to the allocation of planning applications; applications would now be allocated to named officers.

Councillor Tony Capozzoli explained that any correspondence for RNAS Yeovilton in relation to the flooding around the site, should be addressed to the Commodore.

Members noted the Area East Committee Forward Plan.

One member asked whether a meeting to discuss recent issues with the Planning Team had been arranged. The Senior Planning Advisor explained that it would be more appropriate to discuss any issues at a Scrutiny Committee meeting, which could involve all area committees rather than just meeting with Area East members.

Members noted the planning appeals which had been determined.

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

Application Proposal: Application to modify a S106 agreement between South Somerset District Council, Somerset County Council, Waddeton Park Limited and Michael John Berry and Joy Berry dated 13^th October 2016 in relation to affordable housing obligations.

The Area Lead Planning Officer presented his report to members. Using a PowerPoint presentation, he provided images to show the location of the site. He explained that the application sought amendments to the Section 106 agreement. The amendments related to the provision of affordable housing. He explained that the proposed amendments were outlined in his report.

The Chairman of the Parish Council addressed members. He felt that the developer should fulfil its obligation regarding affordable housing provision and S106 contributions. He expressed his disappointment that the developer could implement time restrictions for the sale of the affordable housing units to a short period of only 3 months. He hoped that the sale and rent conditions imposed could be made available once the properties had been allocated or released onto the housing market. He questioned whether the LEAP facility would be amended by this application to vary the legal agreement. He pointed out two similar applications and advised that these did not require variations. He also felt that full details of the amendments had not been made available.

A representative from Stonewater, the applicant, addressed the Committee. She explained to members that the amendments to the legal agreement were in relation to the affordable housing element only. She further advised that the amendments sought were to increase flexibility in the delivery and the mix of units and not to reduce the number of units. She clarified that there would be no time restriction on the sale of the properties.

Councillor Henry Hobhouse, Ward Member, advised members that families are struggling to afford homes and had no concerns over the application.

During the discussion, some members felt that the site and the application was confusing as there had been so many different applications on the site.

In response to a question from a member, the Area Lead Planning Officer confirmed that the LEAP would remain and would not be amended as part of the application. He pointed out that all proposed amendments  were detailed within his report.

It was proposed and seconded that the application should be approved as per the officer report.

On being put to the vote, this was carried 7 votes in support and 2 against.

RESOLVED:  that planning application 18/03121/DPO be allowed as detailed in the officer report as follows;

To agree to allow the variation of the Section 106 agreement dated 13^th October 2016 between South Somerset District Council, Somerset County Council, Waddeton Park Limited, and Michael John Berry and Joy Berry and to refer the matter to SSDC Legal Services to prepare an appropriate deed of variation.

(Voting: 7 votes in support and 2 against)

Application Proposal: Reserved Matters application for the erection of 60 dwellings, including access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale.

The Area Lead Planning Officer presented his report to members. He explained to members that since the report was published, he was recommending that two of the proposed conditions should be amended as follows;

Condition 9 – delete the words ‘for that dwelling’ from the condition as detailed in the officer report.

Condition 6 – include the word ‘phasing’ within the condition to read; None of the dwellings hereby permitted shall be occupied until a scheme of street lighting has been installed within the development in accordance with a design, phasing and specification to be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Using a PowerPoint presentation, he provided images of the site as well as the detailed proposed plans.

He explained that the application was an application for reserved matters following an earlier outline approval. He advised members that the principle of development had already been agreed and that the highways authority were now satisfied with the proposed scheme.

The agent addressed the Committee. He advised that the Town Council supported the application and that any ecology issues had been addressed. He also stated that the development provided pedestrians links to schools and that he had worked closely with the Police Design Officer and SCC Highways to overcome any issues.  He summarised that there had been no technical objections to the application.

Councillor Colin Winder, Ward Member, raised concern over the adjoining cemetery. He felt that secure fencing was needed along the boundary to the cemetery. He also raised concern over the footpaths within the development and explained that they did not run continuously through the site. However, the Area Lead Planning Officer pointed out the location of the footpaths, which did continuously run through the site.

Councillor Nick Colbert, also Ward Member, explained that he was happy with the proposed footpaths. He added that the extension to the cemetery should be fenced with matching iron railings and hedging.

During the discussion, members discussed hedging and fencing to the cemetery boundary and agreed that an additional condition should be added to ensure that a metal fence and hedgerow was required along this boundary.

Members also discussed the Travel Plan and hoped that contributions could be given towards the SSCAT bus. The Area Planning Officer advised that this could be added as an informative to any permission given.

It was proposed and seconded that the planning application should be approved as detailed in the officer report, subject to an additional condition to ensure that a metal iron railing fence to match the existing cemetery fence is provided along the cemetery boundary as well as an amendment to condition 2 to ensure that a hedge is agreed along the cemetery boundary. Members also agreed that an informative should be added to request that contributions to the SSAT bus should be provided as part of the Travel Plan. Conditions 6 and 9  ...  view the full minutes text for item 124.

Application Proposal: Redevelopment of site by the erection of 3 dwellings

The Area Lead Planning Officer presented his report to members. He explained that the application was an outline application for 3 dwellings.

He advised members that there was an update to the report; advising that reference to the site not being considered a brownfield site should be removed from the report.  He confirmed that the site was considered to be a brownfield site.  He also advised that there was no record an agricultural tie in relation to the existing property.

Using a PowerPoint presentation, he provided images of the site and images to show an indicative layout of the proposed properties. He pointed out the location of the site, advising that the site was outside of the built up area of Cucklington.

He explained to members that there were no objections from the County Highways Department, however the proposal was contrary to policy EQ2 of the South Somerset Local Plan.

A representative of the Cucklington Parish Meeting addressed the Committee. He explained that the site was in a predominantly rural location and that he had concerns over the development and impact which it would have on the community. He felt that the village of Cucklington did not support the application.

A member of the public spoke in objection to the planning application. He explained that he was representing other residents of Hale, pointing out that all the other households in Hale objected to the application, as well as the Parish Meeting. He felt that approval of the application would be devastating for the residents of Hale, adding that the proposed buildings would be too tall in height, and that the development would be unsuitable, unsustainable and unsafe. He added that the state of repair of a building should not be a reason for approving planning permission.

Another member of the public spoke in support of the application. She felt that the site was ideal for housing and felt that the area would be tidied up and improved by the redevelopment. She pointed out that the site was close to Wincanton and the A303 and was therefore close to transport links and amenities. She added that the Cucklington Village Plan was out of date and that there was a shortage of housing.

A member of the applicants family addressed the Committee.  She advised that she lived in the village and worked close by, but that she found it difficult to purchase a property in the village. She advised members that the site was a brownfield site.

Another friend/family member spoke on behalf of the applicant, advising that the proposed self-build dwellings would replace dilapidated buildings and tidy up the area. He explained that the properties would provide homes for family members.

The agent addressed members. He explained that the application was for a small cluster of homes and pointed out the bungalow was in a bad state of repair. He pointed out the there was little to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 125.

Application Proposal: The erection of an agricultural building for the storage of farm machinery. 

The Area Lead Planning Officer presented his report to members. He explained that since the agenda had been published, he wished to add that Ilchester Parish Council, the adjoining parish, had pointed out that the site was prone to flooding.

He explained that the application was for a storage building and using a PowerPoint presentation he provided images to show the proposed building and photographs of the site.

He explained to members that the applicant had not provided evidence to support the agricultural need for the building. He also advised members that the site was situated in flood zone 3b, in which government advice on allowing development was clear; permission should only be given for water compatible or essential use.  He informed members that he was recommending that this application be refused for this reason.

A representative of Limington Parish Council addressed members. She explained that neighbours in the parish which had commented on the application, had all pointed out that the area floods. However, she advised that the proposed building would not make the flooding worse. She explained that there was a lack of employment in the area and that employment to allow people to stay in the area should be encouraged.

The applicant addressed members. She advised that the building was solely for storage and security. She explained that she was aware that the site floods, however the ditches had been cleared and rain water from the roof would drain into a soakaway.

Councillor Tony Capozzoli, the Ward Member, addressed members. He explained that the whole of Ilchester was in a flood zone and that farms needed to be sited somewhere. He hoped that the business could be supported.

The Senior Planning Advisor highlighted the importance of the flood zone, detailing that the site was in a flood plain. He explained that the potential for approving this application would set an unacceptable precedent across the district and felt that the application should be 2-starred and referred to Regulation Committee in line with the Scheme of Delegation.

Members expressed their disappointment that this had not been highlighted before the report had been published. Another member pointed out that there were already two storage units on the land.

During the discussion, members questioned whether the storage building could be raised off the ground to try to alleviate some of the flooding issues.

The Area Lead Planning Officer felt that this wouldn’t improve the issues as displacement of water was the main concern and highlighted once more that the site was in a flood plain.

In response to a members question, he advised that the additional structures/storage units on the site did not have planning permission.

The Senior Planning Advisor requested that he was provided with additional time to consult the Senior Legal Advisor and Planning Lead Specialist, in response to this a member suggested that the application be deferred.

The proposal to defer the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 126.