Decisions

Earlier - Later

Decisions published

20/02/2020 - Area West Community Grant Request - Allowenshay Mains Water Project (Executive Decision) ref: 1052    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Area West Committee

Made at meeting: 20/02/2020 - Area West Committee

Decision published: 21/02/2020

Effective from: 29/02/2020

Decision:

 

RESOLVED:

That Area West Committee:

 

1.    Agreed a grant of £12,500 be awarded to Allowenshay Mains Water Ltd, to be allocated from the Area West Capital Programme and subject to standard grant conditions.

 

2.    Recommend that a report requesting further funding is made to District Executive for consideration in April or May 2020.

 

Reason:

To consider a financial contribution towards the provision of mains water to the hamlet of Allowenshay.

 

(Voting: Unanimous)


19/02/2020 - The Future of Local Government in Somerset: Delivering together for the people of Somerset ref: 1049    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: South Somerset District Council

Made at meeting: 19/02/2020 - South Somerset District Council

Decision published: 20/02/2020

Effective from: 19/02/2020

Decision:

 

RESOLVED:

That Full Council:-

 

1.

agreed that a full business case should now be prepared, which fully explores Option 2 (Collaboration and Integration), being the preferred way forward at this time. This business case should come back to District Executive/Council in July 2020, along with clear recommendations and delivery plan.

 

 

2.

agreed option 2 – Collaboration and Integration as this council’s current preferred option for the future of local government to take forward through community consultation and engagement.

 

 

3.

agreed that a joint Project Board should be created, with the Leader of the Council being the representative from each Council, to oversee the work during the next stage.

 

Reason:

To determine the way forward for local government in Somerset.

(Voting: 31 in favour, 5 against, 7 abstentions)

Wards affected: (All Wards);


19/02/2020 - Membership of Committees - Appointment of New Councillor to Licensing Committee ref: 1050    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: South Somerset District Council

Made at meeting: 19/02/2020 - South Somerset District Council

Decision published: 20/02/2020

Effective from: 19/02/2020

Decision:

 

RESOLVED:

That in accordance with Section 16 (1) Local Government and Housing Act 1989 and the duty therein to give effect to the wishes of the political group to which seats on any committee are allocated, the Council confirmed that:-

a)     Councillor Jeny Snell be appointed to the Licensing Committee

Reason:

To confirm an amendment to the Licensing Committee membership following the appointment of Councillors to various committees and working groups at Council on 21st May 2019.

(Voting: unanimous in favour)

Wards affected: (All Wards);


19/02/2020 - SSDC Council Plan 2020-2024 ref: 1045    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: South Somerset District Council

Made at meeting: 19/02/2020 - South Somerset District Council

Decision published: 20/02/2020

Effective from: 19/02/2020

Decision:

 

RESOLVED:

That Full Council agreed to:-

 

a.

endorse the new Council Plan 2020-2024 and vision, values and aims it includes;

 

 

b.

confirm the annual action plan and key performance indicators for 2020-2021;

 

 

c.

note the detailed milestones and desired outcomes for each Priority Project.

 

Reason:

To adopt the South Somerset District Council (SSDC) Council Plan 2020 – 2024, Annual action plan 2020-2021 and a revised set of Key Performance Indicators.

(Voting: unanimous in favour)

Wards affected: (All Wards);


19/02/2020 - Questions Under Procedure Rule 10 ref: 1051    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: South Somerset District Council

Made at meeting: 19/02/2020 - South Somerset District Council

Decision published: 20/02/2020

Effective from: 19/02/2020

Decision:

Councillor Colin Winder submitted the following questions under Procedure Rule 10:-

 

 


19/02/2020 - Capital, Investment and Treasury Strategies 2020/21 to 2022/23 ref: 1048    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: South Somerset District Council

Made at meeting: 19/02/2020 - South Somerset District Council

Decision published: 20/02/2020

Effective from: 19/02/2020

Decision:

 

RESOLVED:

That Full Council agreed to:-

 

a.

approve the Capital Strategy, Investment Strategy and the Treasury Management Strategy 2020/21 to 2022/23;

 

 

b.

approve the proposed borrowing and investment limits included in the Capital Strategy;

 

 

c.

approve the annual Minimum Revenue Provision statement for 2020/21.

 

Reason:

Full Council must approve the annual capital, investment and treasury strategies before the start of the financial year in line with the CIPFA Prudential Code.

(Voting: 42 in favour, 0 against, 2 abstentions)

Wards affected: (All Wards);


19/02/2020 - Council Tax Setting 2020/21 ref: 1047    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: South Somerset District Council

Made at meeting: 19/02/2020 - South Somerset District Council

Decision published: 20/02/2020

Effective from: 19/02/2020

Decision:

 

RESOLVED:

That Full Council agreed to:-

 

a.

approve the formal council tax resolutions referred to in paragraphs 5 to 14;

 

 

b.

approve the individual tax settings as follows:

 

i.     that the Somerset County Council; Police and Crime Commissioner for Avon and Somerset and Devon and Somerset Fire and Rescue Authority has stated that amounts shown in paragraphs 8 to 11 respectively of this report in precept issued to the Council, in accordance with Section 40 of the Local Government Act 1992 (as amended), for each of the categories of dwelling:

 

ii.     that the total amount of council tax for each band of property in the South Somerset area for 2020/21 be as given in the table below:

 

A-

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

987.43

1,184.91

1,382.39

1,579.89

1,777.36

2,172.33

2,567.29

2,962.27

3,554.72

 

 

 

NB The above figures exclude all town/parish precepts.  The Police & Crime Commissioner for Avon and Somerset approved their figures on the 5th February 2020, Somerset Fire and Rescue on the 18th February 2020 and Somerset County Council on the 19th February 2020.

 

iii.     that, having calculated the totals of each precepting authority’s amounts (including town and parish precepts), The Council (in accordance with Section 30(2) of the Local Government Act 1992) (as amended) hereby sets the amounts shown at TOTAL in the table shown at Appendix A as the council taxes for the financial year 2020/21 for each category of dwelling.

 

 

c.

note that if the formal Council Tax Resolution is approved, the total Band D Council Tax as follows:

 

 

2019/20

£

2020/21

£

Increase

%

South Somerset District Council

167.11

172.11

2.99

Somerset County Council

1,151.64

1,176.31

3.99

Somerset County Council (Adult Social Care)

88.09

112.89

Police and Crime Commissioner for Avon and Somerset

217.81

227.81

4.59

Devon And Somerset Fire and Rescue Authority

86.52

88.24

1.99

 

 

1,711.17

1,777.36

3.87%

Town and Parish Council (average)

91.05

97.09

6.63%

 

1,802.22

1,874.45

4.01%

 

Reason:

To approve the final council tax resolutions for 2020/21.

(Voting: unanimous in favour)

 

Wards affected: (All Wards);


19/02/2020 - 2020/21 Revenue and Capital Budgets and Medium Term Financial Plan ref: 1046    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: South Somerset District Council

Made at meeting: 19/02/2020 - South Somerset District Council

Decision published: 20/02/2020

Effective from: 19/02/2020

Decision:

 

RESOLVED:

That Full Council agreed to:-

 

a.

approve the Net Revenue Budget for 2020/21 of £15,207,150, as set out in the Revenue Account Summary (paragraph 40) and in detail in Appendix A for the District Executive and four Area Committees, subject to any final amendments;

 

 

b.

approve a 2020/21 Council tax annual increase of 2.99%, increasing the annual Band D rate by £5.00 to £172.11. Full Council to note this new annual rate comprises £170.26 for SSDC services, raising £10,448,932, and £1.85 on behalf of the Somerset Rivers Authority, raising £112,315;

 

 

c.

approve the prioritisation of Business Rates pooling gain to Regeneration as detailed in paragraph 38;

 

 

d.

approve the new capital programme as shown in Appendix D, with includes an additional funding request of £1.887m as detailed in paragraph 62.

 

Reason:

To approve the proposed budget and council tax for 2020/21. This report is based on the Medium Term Financial Plan (Revenue Budgets.

(Voting: 43 in favour, 0 against, 1 abstention)

Wards affected: (All Wards);


12/02/2020 - Retail Support Initiative Grant Application - (Executive Decision) ref: 1044    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Area East Committee

Made at meeting: 12/02/2020 - Area East Committee

Decision published: 13/02/2020

Effective from: 12/02/2020

Decision:

RESOLVED:

That £2,500 be awarded from the Area East revenue reserve budget, RSI element, ring-fenced for the Wincanton Top-up scheme, as a 40% contribution to the exterior improvements at 14 Market Place, Wincanton subject to the standard condition contained at the end of Appendix A.

 

(Voting: unanimous in favour)

 

Reason:  To agree a grant towards exterior improvements at 14 Market Place, Wincanton.  

Wards affected: Blackmoor Vale (pre 2019 boundary review); Bruton; Camelot; Cary (pre 2019 boundary review); Ivelchester (pre 2019 boundary review); Milborne Port; Northstone (pre 2019 boundary review); Tower; Wincanton;


12/02/2020 - Community Capital Grant Request (Executive Decision) ref: 1043    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Area East Committee

Made at meeting: 12/02/2020 - Area East Committee

Decision published: 13/02/2020

Effective from: 12/02/2020

Decision:

RESOLVED:

(a)

That a contribution of up to £12,000 (31% of total project cost) be approved from the Community Grants existing capital budget towards the provision of a new nine seat, fully accessible mini bus for community transport, subject to the standard conditions set out in Appendix A.

 

 

(b)

That officers explore capacity building options for SSCAT to increase their financial sustainability and fund this from the Area East community revenue budget, with the exact amount to be agreed with the Chair of Area East Committee and Ward Members for Bruton, Castle Cary and Wincanton.

 

(Voting: unanimous in favour)

 

Reason: To agree a contribution towards the provision of a new nine seat, fully accessible mini bus for community transport and to support capacity building/feasibility work that would aim to make SSCAT a sustainable community transport service.

Wards affected: Blackmoor Vale (pre 2019 boundary review); Bruton; Camelot; Cary (pre 2019 boundary review); Ivelchester (pre 2019 boundary review); Milborne Port; Northstone (pre 2019 boundary review); Tower; Wincanton;


27/11/2019 - Planning Application 19/02646/OUT** - Land OS 0002 South of Coat Road, Martock ref: 1033    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Area North Committee

Made at meeting: 27/11/2019 - Area North Committee

Decision published: 09/02/2020

Effective from: 27/11/2019

Decision:

Application Proposal: Outline application for the erection of 120 dwellings together with associated infrastructure.

 

Prior to the commencement of this item, the Committee resolved to receive a confidential briefing from the Senior Planning Lawyer. 

 

The Agency Planning Officer advised that there were two planning applications to be determined at the same site.  The first was an outline application for 120 houses with details to be confirmed at the Reserved Matters stage and the second was a full application.  He noted that since writing his report, the on-line petition in opposition to the applications had attracted a further 7 signatures and now totalled 428.  Ash Parish Council had also objected to the increased traffic and Martock Parish Council had commissioned a highway consultant, SLR, to provide a transport assessment review of the applicant’s transport assessment which concluded the sustainability of the site was not optimised due to a lack of pedestrian links from the site.  The Highway Authority were invited to comment on the findings of the report but declined to comment further.  They had not raised any objections to the proposed development.

 

The Agency Planning Officer advised that the applicant had increased the overall number of car parking spaces at the site by 41 to 311 spaces in total.  The proposal included a play area, attenuation ponds, underground tanks, landscaping, informal spaces and a range of dwellings.  The applicant had provided information to the Local Flood Authority to enable Wessex Water to adopt the site and the attenuation ponds by a management company.  He concluded that the key considerations were the principle of development and the access.  Because a previous application for 95 home was approved for the site, the principle of development was accepted at the site.  Martock was identified as a rural centre in the Local Plan and therefore suitable for growth.  A strategic plan target of 230 dwellings was proposed over the plan period and agreeing the application would take the number 115 over that target.  Despite the increase in numbers, it was not considered unacceptable for being a sole reason for refusing the application.  He concluded that the harm was not so significant to outweigh the benefits of the development and so the recommendation was to approve the application.

 

The Committee were addressed by a representative of Ash Parish Council, a representative of the highway consultants engaged by Martock Parish Council, the Chairman of the Youth Parish Council, the Vice Chairman of Martock Parish Council and 6 local residents in opposition to the application.  Their comments included:-

 

·         The services used by the proposed development will be in Yeovil and the most direct route for residents would be through Ash which was 1 lane wide down the main road.

·         The road through Ash was already carrying more traffic than ever perceived.

·         The applicants transport assessment did not optimise accessibility from the site, particularly pedestrian and cycle links to the village. 

·         Development was welcomed in Martock on the right site.  The applicants had held a public consultations but had taken no notice of public concerns or suggestions.

·         Martock was less than 10 dwellings short of its Local Plan target.

·         The Environment Agency had acknowledged that their flood maps did not include a complete map of the area and the site will not be safe from flooding for its lifetime.  A more reliable flood risk assessment was required.

·         The proposed development would exceed the Local Plan housing target for Martock by 48% with 8 years remaining in the life of the Plan.

·         There is insufficient local employment, insufficient GP’s, the local school was at capacity as was local traffic through the village.  Most residents commuted out of the village to work.

·         The additional houses would impact on the environment as the consumption of gas, water and electricity would increase.  It would also impact on local wildlife.  Trees should be planted not houses.

·         The statutory NHS consultee, based in Bristol, did not contact the local surgery, CCG or Symphony and did not submit any comment on the application.  Martock GP surgery had 3 GP’s at one point for 10,000 patients and an additional 300 patients would impact even further on their service.

·         The small business units in Martock are full so residents from the new development would have to seek employment elsewhere so increasing car journeys.  Public transport was limited from the village

·         The application was the same as that rejected by the Regulation Committee on 16 July.  On whose authority was legal advice sought on that decision?

 

The Senior Planning Lawyer clarified that specialist legal advice had been sought on the reasons for refusal of the previous application following the Regulation Committee decision in July and it was normal practice to do this when there was the likelihood of an appeal against a decision.  Advice was sought on the strength of the Council’s case at appeal and that advice was presented to the Regulation Committee in a confidential meeting.  It was not unusual for a developer to twin-track a planning application.  It was for the Committee to determine the application in line with planning policies.

 

The Agent for the applicant said that following the previous application, they had tried to overcome the reasons for refusal.  The site was allocated in the emerging Local Plan, the access arrangements were not objected to, the transport review conducted by Martock PC provided clarity and the site would provide 35% affordable housing.

 

One of the Ward Members, Councillor Louise Clarke, said education was an issue in the village and the 93 houses already given permission in the village would fill the proposed additional classroom at the school.

 

The other Ward Member, Councillor Neil Bloomfield, said there was some crossover between the figures in the adopted Local Plan and the emerging Local Plan.  Martock now had a Neighbourhood Plan which had not been mentioned in the report. He said a further 45 social houses would impact on the community services provided by the Parish Council and Martock was already within 10 dwellings of the allocated housing in the emerging Local Plan.  He referred to carbon efficiencies at the site and the lack of consideration for flooding issues.  He felt the application was not materially different other than the additional car parking spaces.

 

During discussion, varying views were expressed.  Members expressed frustration at developers securing planning permissions and then not building the houses.  It was also mentioned that the lack of genuine reasons to refuse the application was partly the fault of the National Planning Policy Framework.   Reference was also made to the recently declared Climate Emergency, the impact on local infrastructure and that the village had changed since the permission granted 4 years previously.

 

It was proposed and seconded to refuse the application because the proposal for 120 dwellings would take the level of growth for Martock to 335 dwellings over the plan period. This would represent a scale of growth which was 48% over the indicative target for the Rural Centre, and also the development was considered unsustainable.

 

This proposal was put to the vote and carried by 7 votes in favour, 4 against and 0 abstentions.

 

RESOLVED:

That planning application 19/02646/OUT be REFUSED permission, contrary to the officer’s recommendation, for the following reasons:

 

1.      The proposal for 120 dwellings would take the level of growth for Martock to 335 dwellings over the plan period. This would represent a scale of growth which is 48% over the indicative target for this Rural Centre as set out in Policy SS5 of the South Somerset Local Plan (2006-2028). As such, the development would be a significant increase over that envisaged in Policy SS5 and would be contrary to the intended growth strategy and settlement strategy and therefore contrary to Policies SD1, SS1 and SS5 of the South Somerset Local Plan (2006-2028).

 

2.    The development is considered unsustainable by reason of:

a)     Martock’s lack of self-containment, leading to 80% out-commuting and

b)     the failure to ensure that carbon dioxide emissions are minimised through construction techniques, especially considering the Council’s declared Climate Emergency, contrary to the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy EQ1 of the South Somerset Local Plan (2006-2028).

 

(Voting: 7 in favour, 4 against, 0 abstentions)

 

NB: As the application is two-starred and Area North Committee has resolved to refuse the application, it will now be referred to the Council’s Regulation Committee for determination.

Wards affected: Martock;