Agenda and minutes

Venue: Council Chamber - Council Offices. View directions

Contact: Jo Boucher, Case Services Officer (Support Services) - 01935 462011  Email: jo.boucher@southsomerset.gov.uk

Items
No. Item

67.

Minutes

To approve the minutes of the previous meeting held on 16 July 2019.

Minutes:

Councillor Sue Osborne requested that the signing of the minutes of the Regulation Committees held on 16th July 2019 copies of which had been circulated, be deferred as two members of the public wished to make representation on these minutes in public question time. 

 

Councillor Linda Vijeh also believed that in anticipation of this application going to higher authority the published draft minutes are not an accurate record of the recorded transcript of the meeting that had been received by herself and interested members of the public and wished to defer from the signing of the minutes.

 

The committee agreed to defer the signing of the minutes in order to hear from members of the public.

 

Following the item Public Question Time it was agreed that the signing of the minutes of the Regulation Committee held on 16th July 2019 be deferred to a future meeting.

 

Councillor Neil Bloomfield also requested that an amendment be made to minute 63 (Item 6 Planning Application 19/00064/FUL) to remove his name from the second paragraph on page 6 as this was not common practice to include the name of the proposer.

68.

Apologies for Absence

Minutes:

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Jason Baker who was substituted by Councillor Paul Maxwell, Councillor Adam Dance who was substituted by Councillor Mike Stanton, Councillor David Recardo who was substituted by Councillor Kevin Messenger and Councillor Colin Winder who was substituted by Councillor Linda Vijeh.

69.

Declarations of Interest

Minutes:

There were no declarations of interest.

70.

Public Question Time

Minutes:

Two members of the public wished to raise several points regarding the published draft minutes of the Regulation Committee held on 16th July 2019 and some key issues they believed were omitted from these minutes.  They requested that these comments be included within the minutes and are summarised as follows:

 

·         Listed building setting - Believe that the significant Grade II* listed church was not accorded its full title and that this needs to be recognised.

·         Acknowledge that there is no doubt there is going to be some harm and that housing will have an impact on the Grade II* listed church and best views of the church are as one drives to the west.

·         136 letters of objection had been sent by local residents.

·         Reference to the Forge Field high court case which refer to setting of listed building.

·         Ecology – lack of effort to identify whether protected species are present on site and insufficient detail for the Council to make a decision.

·         Increase in car usage generated by the new development therefore contrary to SSDC Strategy for Climate Change emergency and low carbon living. 

·         Drainage – more detail required for the maintenance and management of the system.

·         That the procedural issues of the discussion particularly in relation to the final discussion and allowing for the fairness of the debate were not fully noted.

 

The Senior Planning Lawyer advised the committee that it was for the members of the committee to sign off the minutes and not to be altered by members of the public.  If members are minded to agree with the comments made these will be noted and the draft minutes of the 16th July 2019 be amended and re circulated to members to agree and sign off at a later date.

 

She wished to clarify that the minutes are not a full verbatim transcript of what happened at committee but purely a summary of the points raised and read in line with the officer’s report.

 

The Senior Planning Advisor explained that the four key issues raised by members of the public and councillors – a) heritage asset and setting impact and design; b) drainage; c) ecology and d) traffic/highways impact were all covered in the Officer’s Report and by the Committee in its deliberations. Notwithstanding this, further detailing of the minutes could be carried out to reflect committee member concerns - but it should be noted that they are a summary of the discussion and in his opinion were sufficient to show that the Committee had properly considered and assessed the scheme.

 

Councillor Linda Vijeh felt that there were some key points that were not included in the draft minutes specifically to the special circumstances of this application and the procedural issues of the discussion and requested that the minutes of 16th July 2019 be deferred from signing to address these points. 

 

The committee agreed to defer the signing of the minutes of the Regulation Committee held on 16th July 2019 to a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 70.

71.

Planning Application 18/01602/FUL - Former BMI Site, Cumnock Road, Ansford pdf icon PDF 749 KB

Minutes:

Application Proposal: Demolition of existing buildings, conversion of and alterations to listed buildings to form 11 no. dwellings, the erection of 70 no.dwellings (total 81 no. dwellings) and associated works, including access and off-site highway works, parking, landscaping, open space, footpath links and drainage infrastructure.

 

The Specialist – Development Management introduced the report and explained that this application had been referred by Area East Committee with a recommendation for refusal for the following four reasons: 

1.    Scheme too dense.

2.    Lack of on site parking.

3.    Internal estate being unadoptable.

4.    Insufficient number of protected trees being retained.

 

He then proceeded to give a detailed presentation and with the aid of slides showed the proposed site and plans.  He pointed out the access to the site and listed buildings around the site. 

 

He referred to the key considerations being principle of development; impact on listed buildings; local character; residential amenity; trees; highways and with the aid of slides gave attention to all these issues.

 

The Specialist – Development Management advised that the Tree Officer felt that the planting scheme provided as part of the application, was of high quality and included a high number of quality species and suggested these trees be protected by a TPO.

 

He explained that the parking numbers do fall below the optimum guidance of the parking strategy being between190 – 207, and agreed that the development fell 19 spaces short of this optimum figure, however pointed out this site was close to the town centre and that the highways authority had raised no objection.

 

He acknowledged the issue of the estate roads being adopted but advised this was not a material consideration and was between the highway authority and the developer to agree.  He noted however that if the road is un-adopted the agent has agreed to a Section 106 agreement which would require a management company to maintain the estate road and could be subject to an Advance Payment Code (APC) which would require the development to provide a bond or payment to the highway authority to bring to an adoptable standard.

 

He also explained the request from the Area East Committee that should members be minded to approve the application that conditions be included for the following:

 

·         Condition the specific boundary treatments with Beechfield House.

·         Secure a stone wall in the north eastern corner of the development to prevent pedestrian access to Upper High Street.

·         Adding an informative note stating the Council will instigate a Tree Preservation Order to protect all new trees planted; to replace those protected trees on the site which will be felled.

 

He therefore concluded that after considering all of the responses and advice, as outlined in the agenda report, his proposal was to approve the application subject to the conditions as set out in the agenda report.

 

In response to questions from Members, the Specialist – Development Management and Lead Specialist – Planning advised:

 

·         No TPO trees had been removed.

·         Understand that Castle Cary has exceeded the minimum  ...  view the full minutes text for item 71.

72.

Planning Application 18/01603/LBC - Former BMI Site, Cumnock Road, Ansford pdf icon PDF 636 KB

Minutes:

Application Proposal: Demolition of existing buildings, conversion of and alterations to listed buildings to form 11 no. dwellings, the erection of 70 no.dwellings (total 81 no. dwellings) and associated works, including access and off-site highway works, parking, landscaping, open space, footpath links and drainage infrastructure.

 

The Specialist – Development Management gave a brief presentation of the application.  He advised members that given there is no permission in place for residential use of the site, the conversion of the buildings or demolition of the pump house it may be unjustified and not provide any benefits or viable re-use of these buildings. 

 

He confirmed that his recommendation formally stands for approval as set out in the agenda report but wished that members be updated given the decision made regarding the full application 18/01602/FUL.

 

During a short debate the Specialist – Development Management and Lead Specialist sought clarification regarding reasons for refusal and if members were minded to refuse the application suggested the following wording:

 

‘The demolition of and intervention into the listed buildings, including demolition, to facilitate the conversion of the listed factory building and warehouse, is harmful. Given there is no permission granted for their conversion, the harm is unjustified, and is contrary to policy EQ3 of the South Somerset Local Plan (2006-2028) and the provisions of the NPPF.’

 

This was then proposed and subsequently seconded that planning permission be refused, contrary to the officer’s recommendation for the reasons as read out by the Specialist – Development Management. 

 

On being put to the vote this was carried by 10 votes in favour, 2 against and 0 abstentions. 

 

RESOLVED:

 

That planning application 18/01603/LBC be refused for the following reason:

 

1.    The demolition of and intervention into the listed buildings, including demolition, to facilitate the conversion of the listed factory building and warehouse, is harmful. Given there is no permission granted for their conversion, the harm is unjustified, and is contrary to policy EQ3 of the South Somerset Local Plan (2006-2028) and the provisions of the NPPF.

 

(voting: 10 in favour, 2 against, 0 abstentions)

73.

Date of Next Meeting

The next scheduled meeting of the Regulation Committee will be held on Tuesday 17th September 2019 at 10.00am. However this meeting will only take place if there is business to conduct.

 

 

Minutes:

Members noted that the next scheduled meeting of the Regulation Committee will be held on Tuesday 17th September 2019 at 10.00am. However this meeting will only take place if there is business to conduct.