Agenda, decisions and minutes

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the previous meeting held on Wednesday 13^th February.

The minutes of the previous meeting held on Wednesday 13^th February 2019, copies of which were circulated, were agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman subject to an amendment to minute number 139. It was agreed that the wording on page 7 would be amended to include the additional words ‘would be of an adoptable’ read;

Councillor Nick Weeks, also Ward Member, hoped that all the roads within the development would be of an adoptable standard. He was very disappointed that the footpaths within the proposed development could not link to existing footpaths. He added that not everyone had cars and that the residents would enjoy being able to walk into the countryside from the site. He also added that he would like to see a condition to ensure that swift and swallow boxes were added to the homes.

Apologies of absence were received from Councillors William Wallace and Colin Winder.

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 Sarah Dyke advised that she had a pecuniary interest in item 8 as she was the programme manager for the Heart of Wessex Local Action Group.

Councillor Mike Lewis also declared a pecuniary interest on the same item as he was an executive member on the Heart of Wessex Local Action Group.

Councillor Anna Groskop and Mike Lewis, members of SCC (Somerset County Council), would only declare an interest in any business on the agenda where there was a financial benefit, gain or advantage to SCC, which would be at the cost, or to the financial disadvantage of SSDC.

Members are asked to note that the next scheduled meeting of the committee will be at the Council Offices, Churchfield, Wincanton on Wednesday 10^th April at 9.00 am.

Members noted that the date of the next meeting of the Committee would be at the Council Offices, Churchfield, Wincanton on Wednesday 10^th April 2019 at 9am.

A representative from Pitcombe Parish Council addressed the Committee. He explained that there were ongoing planning enforcement issues within the parish of Pitcombe. He explained that he had not received a response from the Development Control Team in relation to enforcement concerns along Mill Lane and on the A359 where new accesses had been created.

A representative of Stoke Trister and Bayford Parish Council addressed the Committee. She explained to members that there were also ongoing enforcement issues within the parish, specifically at land near Riding Gate, Stoke Trister. She explained that she was awaiting enforcement action to be taken in relation to vehicles on the land and the possibility of someone running a business without planning permission.

The Chairman suggested that the Locality Manager passed on these concerns to the Development Control Department and to request that a response is presented to the Committee at the next meeting.

Councillor Mike Beech, ward member for the two parishes, explained that these were issues which had been ongoing for a significant amount of time and hoped that these could be resolved soon. He suggested that a letter could be sent to the Development Control Team to explain that there were concerns from the two parish councils.

Members discussed whether a letter should be sent to the Development Control Team. It was agreed that the Locality Manager would send a letter to the Development Control Team to explain the concerns raised and it was requested that the Development Control Team provide a response to the Committee to clarify what actions have been taken on these enforcement complaints.

The Chairman made no announcements.

Councillor Tony Capozzoli asked for clarification over whether a letter had been sent to the Commodore at RNAS Yeovilton in relation to the flooding issues at Bridgehampton.  The Locality Manager confirmed that this letter had been sent, however agreed to resend this letter and to send a copy to the Community Liaison Officer at RNAS Yeovilton and to the Ward Member.

(voting: 6 in support,  1 abstention)

(Councillors Sarah Dyke and Mike Lewis left the room during discussion of this item as they had both declared pecuniary interests in the item)

The Locality Manager presented his report to members. He explained that the report provided progress updates on the priorities which were identified by members last year. He hoped that members would agree to move the unallocated balance of £4790 from the Members Discretionary Budget to the Area East Capital Reserve. He explained that this balance related to the next item on the agenda, which was a community grant funding application.

In response to a question, the Locality Manager and the Specialist – Economic Development agreed that events such as the food festival would be publicised well in advance of the event.

Following the discussion, it was proposed and seconded that members agreed to maintain the allocation towards priority projects and noted the progress of projects in Area East and agreed to move £4,970 from the Members Discretionary Budget to the Area East Capital Reserve Budget.

On being put to the vote, this was carried 6 votes in support, with 1 abstention.

RESOLVED:  that members agreed;

(1)  To maintain the allocation towards priority projects and noted the progress of the projects in Area East.

(2)  To move £4,790 from the Members Discretionary Budget to the Area East Capital Reserve.

(voting: 6 in support,  1 abstention)

(voting: unanimous)

The Specialist – Economy presented her report to the Committee. She advised that the report recommended endorsement of a contribution towards the refurbishment and extension of Caryford Village Hall, which would need to be considered by District Executive in April.

She advised that there was an amendment to the recommendation as the money would be drawn wholly from the Area East Capital Reserve budget. This would align with the previous report.

She also advised that a previous application for £12,500 had been received and approved by Area East Committee in December 2018 towards Phase 1A of the project. She explained that the funding would now be considered as one grant rather than smaller grants for different phases of the project.

She informed members that the hall was extremely well used and was important to the community. She also pointed out that the group had raised significant amounts through fund-raising and that further fund-raising was planned for the summer months.

A representative from the Carymoor Community Hall Association addressed the Committee. She explained that the grant was really important to the team and that she was being visited by Viridor and representatives of other possible funding bodies. She explained that a grant from SSDC and local fundraising would mean that £78,000 has been raised, this and a Viridor grant would enable them to make a start on the site. She also hoped that this funding would unlock further funding from other sources.

Councillor Henry Hobhouse, Ward Member, explained that there were few places to hold large meetings and explained that this was a very important venue for Castle Cary and Ansford.

During the discussion, one member suggested that car boot sales were a successful way to raise money.

In response to a question from a member, the Specialist – Economy clarified that the recommendation was for a grant of £27,500, rather than the £40,000 which had originally been requested. 

Councillor Nick Weeks, also Ward Member, praised the Caryford Community Hall Association and agreed that the hall would be a valuable asset to the community. He offered his full support to the proposal.

It was proposed and seconded that the ‘in principle’ community grant contribution of £27,500 be endorsed and referred to District Executive for consideration.

On being put to the vote, this was carried unanimously.

RESOLVED:  that members agreed;

1)            an ‘in principle’ contribution of up to £27,500 from the Area East Capital Reserve as a 4.8% contribution towards the extension and refurbishment of Caryford Hall

2)            to note that, if agreed by District Executive, this and the £12,500 contribution previously agreed by Area East Committee in December 2018 will result in a total contribution of £40,000 (7%) towards the extension and refurbishment of Caryford Hall, subject to standard grant conditions and the agreement of District Executive.

(voting: unanimous)

Members noted the Area East Forward Plan.

One member suggested that it would be useful to have a feedback report following the food festival.

One member suggested that a planning enforcement report should be added to the Forward Plan, unless the Development Control Team felt that a briefing would be more useful.

The Locality Manager agreed that a Town and Parish Workshop would be held in the autumn.

RESOLVED:  that members noted the Area East Forward Plan.

Members noted the appeals which had been received and allowed.

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

The Specialist Officer – Planning presented her report to members.

She explained to members that there two separate applications for the same site, one being a full planning application and the other being listed building consent.

She advised that the application was for a single dwelling within the walled garden of Horsington House.

Using a PowerPoint presentation, she provided maps to show the location of the site as well as the position of listed buildings, public rights of way and the adjoining conservation area. She explained that the church was a Grade 2* listed building.

She also pointed out the proposed access and the position of the proposed dwelling, highlighting buildings to be demolished and proposed parking areas. She explained that the access to the site would be reached along Church Lane and past the church.

She also provided photographs of the site and pointed out that outbuildings used for storage would be demolished.

She provided drawings to show the proposed elevations, sections and site layout. She explained that there were high walls surrounding the site.

She advised members that the design of the dwelling included a flat green roof, substantial areas of glazing and the use of pre-weathered coloured zinc and natural stone.

The Specialist – Planning advised members that Horsington was considered to be an SS2 location and given the lack of a five-year land supply, it was felt that modest development was acceptable. She advised members that the application had been considered in detail by Historic England, who supported the scheme. She added that the Conservation Officer also offered support to the application. She explained that views of the dwelling were fairly well contained due to the high walls, however noted that some parts of the proposed dwelling would be viewable from the public right of way to the south of the site. She also advised that the access was already a shared access and that the addition of one further dwelling was unlikely to cause any significant issues.

She recommended that the application be approved subject to conditions as detailed in the report.

Members of the public spoke in objection to the applications. Their comments included;

·         The description given to the planning application is deceptive. It should read; a development within a Grade 2 listed walled garden in the grounds of Horsington House.

·         Some residents have been kept outside of the loop and not notified about the application.

·         The report is biased and one sided.

·         The proposal does not provide employment or enhance community facilities or services. Nor does it address the affordable housing need.

·         RPS and highways reports have been ignored.

·         The Parish Council object to the application and the proposed access.

·         The dwelling is not in-keeping with the surrounding listed buildings.

·         The narrow access lane runs across the private garden of Horsington House and Horsington House West. There is an alternative access route which runs from the A357 which would be more suitable. Church Lane is very narrow.

·         The vehicles using this lane will  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13.

Application Proposal: Demolition of outbuildings, the erection of a dwelling with associated works and landscaping

As the full planning application, which was the prior item on the agenda, had been fully considered, there was very little discussion.

It was proposed and seconded that the planning application be refused for the same reasons as the previous application on the agenda (18/02218/FUL). On being put to the vote, this was carried unanimously.

RESOLVED:  that members agreed to refuse planning application 18/02220/LBC, contrary to the officer recommendation, for the following reasons;

1.      The proposed development, by reason of its siting, nature, layout and design, will result in the loss of a historic walled garden and will fail to respect the setting, character and special historic interest of this site, adjacent listed buildings as well as the adjacent conservation area and fails to reinforce local distinctiveness contrary to the aims and objectives of policies EQ2 and EQ3 of the South Somerset Local Plan.

2.      The proposed development, by reason of the proposed use of the historic carriage route as a vehicular access to the site, will be detrimental to the tranquil character and nature of the setting of this group of listed buildings contrary to the aims and objectives of policy EQ3 of the South Somerset Local Plan.

(voting: unanimous)

Application Proposal: Repairs & alterations to existing Forge Building to provide additional guest accommodation in conjunction with use of the remainder of the property as bed & breakfast accommodation

The Case Officer presented his report to members. He explained that the application formed part of a wider scheme where the main property was used as bed and breakfast accommodation, following approval for this use in 2016. It was now proposed to provide additional accommodation in the forge building. He advised members that there was also a listed building application which was also included on the agenda for consideration.

Using a PowerPoint presentation, he provided images to show the site and surrounding area, explaining that works on site were largely complete following the 2016 planning approval. He pointed out the prominent position of the building in the High Street and provided images to show the main building, the forge building and the proposed parking area. He explained that the alterations would not be visible from the highway.

He also provided images to show the proposed floor plans and elevations, explaining that there were three suites proposed for the first floor and one suite on the ground floor.

He explained to members that local residents had raised concern over the lack of parking spaces available.

A representative from the Town Council addressed members. He explained that the Town Council offered support to the application, however commented that car parking was a concern. He suggested that the applicant had made provision for some off-site parking, which the Town Council welcomed.

The planning agent addressed the committee. He advised members that the application was part of a wider development following approval for conversion to bed and breakfast use in 2016. He pointed out to members that all statutory consultees supported the application, including the Town Council. He added that there were letters of support received from local residents. He explained that the property had been significantly improved.

He noted that there were concerns over parking, however he informed members that the application provided the necessary levels of parking. The confirmed that the applicant had agreed to work with the Town Council to consider suitable off-site parking arrangements. He explained that the building would be unsuitable for use as a workshop or as a residential unit, adding that this would be a viable use for the building.

Councillor Anna Groskop, Ward Member, offered her support to the application, however advised that car parking in Bruton was an ongoing issue. She explained that there were terrible problems with parking close to the site, however pointed out that this was not the applicants fault. She hoped that work could be done to encourage visitors not adding to the car parking problem, such as public transport or off-site parking. This suggested the use of an informative.

During the discussion, members offered their support and agreed that car parking in Bruton was a concern.   

The Senior Planning Advisor confirmed that a planning condition could be added to ensure that a ‘Tourist  ...  view the full minutes text for item 15.

Application Proposal: Repairs & alterations to existing Forge Building to provide additional guest accommodation in conjunction with use of the remainder of the property as bed & breakfast accommodation

As the Case Officer had presented his report for the concurrent full application which was the previous report on the agenda, members only briefly discussed the application.

It was proposed and seconded that the application should be approved, as per the agenda report, subject to an additional condition to ensure that a Tourist Traffic Plan was developed in conjunction with the Ward Member, Somerset County Council and Town Council to be agreed by the Planning Department.

On being out to the vote, this was carried unanimously.

RESOLVED:  that planning application 18/03101/LBC be approved, as per the officer recommendation, subject to an additional condition to ensure that a Tourist Travel Plan be submitted and approved by the Planning Department in consultation with the Ward Member, Somerset County Council and the Town Council for the following reason;

For the following reason;

01.       The proposal, by reason of its materials and design is considered to respect the historic and architectural interests of the building and is in accordance with policy EQ3 of the South Somerset Local Plan, and the provisions of the NPPF.

Subject to the following conditions;

01.       The works hereby granted consent shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this consent.

            Reason:  As required by Section 16(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

02.       The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans and drawings. The external surfaces of the development shall be of materials as indicated in the application form and no other materials shall be used without the prior written consent of the local planning authority.

            Plans Titled-

            -056.000 A Location Plan

            -0560.P.019 Block Plan

            -0560.P.017 Forge Elevation as Existing

            -0560.P.018 A Forge as Proposed

            -0560.P.030 Proposed Parking Plan

            -0560.P.016 Forge Floor Plans

            -0560.SK.10 Proposed Forge Internal Elevation

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

03.       No work shall be carried out fit the new staircase until details of the new staircase, including detailed design, materials and finish are to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This will include detailed drawings including sections of at least 1:5. Such approved details, once carried out shall not be altered without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority.

            Reason: To safeguard the significance of the heritage asset, in accordance with the provisions of chapter 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework and policy EQ3 of the South Somerset Local Plan (2006-2028).

04.       No work shall be carried out to fit any new WCs, Bathrooms, Kitchens or Utility rooms unless details of all new services to such rooms, including details of routes of foul water and any ventilation or extraction have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16.

The Case Officer presented his report to members. He explained that since the report had been published, an additional letter of objection had been received.

He advised members that the application was for a front and rear extension to the dwelling and the creation of a new access and parking area. Using a PowerPoint presentation, he provided images of the site. He pointed out the position of the neighbouring listed building. He also provided images to show the proposed elevations and floor plans.

The Case Officer advised members that objections to the application had been received from neighbouring properties.

The applicant addressed the Committee. She explained that her family had lived in the house for many years and that the home was no suitable as the family had outgrown the home. She pointed out that extensive renovation was required and she hoped that the extensive front garden area could be used to provide an extension to the property. She pointed out that the front garden was a lot lower than the road and that the front of the extension would be cut into the hill. She explained that there were lots of different materials used in the village and explained that privacy at Jasmine cottage would remain.

Councillor Mike Beech, Ward Member, spoke in support of the application. He pointed out that the dwelling was detached and was situated on ground much lower than the road. He also pointed out that the Parish Council offered support to the application and explained that there were other front extensions on nearby properties.

The Senior Planning Advisor advised members that the property had an extensive rear garden and felt that the front extension was overbearing and would result in an unacceptable intrusion, however would not overshadow or provide loss of light to adjoining properties. He added that the applicant did not seek pre-application advice.

During the short discussion, one member commented that there were other buildings along same stretch of road with front extensions. Another member commented that he would prefer to see the extension on the rear, however supported the application.

It was proposed and seconded that the application should be approved, contrary to the Case Officer recommendation as the application met the aims of policies EQ2 and EQ3.

On being put to the vote, this was carried unanimously.

RESOLVED:   that planning application 18/03964/HOU was approved, contrary to the Case Officer recommendation, subject to standard conditions to ensure development is started before 3 years, that materials and plans are as agreed, for the following reason;

01.          The proposal is considered to accord with Policies EQ2 and EQ3 of the South Somerset Local Plan (2006-2028) and the guidance set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), in that the development preserves and enhances the character of the area and the setting of nearby Listed Buildings by virtue of its size, scale, design materials and local impact.

Subject to the following conditions;

01.       The development hereby permitted shall be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 17.