Agenda, decisions and minutes

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the previous meeting held on the 14^th October 2020.

The minutes of the Area East Committee held on Wednesday 14^th October 2020,

copies of which had been circulated, were agreed as a correct record and would be signed by the Chairman.

An Apology for absence was received from Councillor Hayward Burt.

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 Henry Hobhouse, Paul Rowsell and William Wallace.

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 declared a non-pecuniary interest on Item 8, she rents an office space in the Balsam Centre.

Councillor Nick Colbert declared a non-pecuniary interest on Item 16, he had purchased a property from the applicant in the past.

Members are asked to note that the next scheduled meeting of the committee will be held virtually using Zoom virtual software on Wednesday 13^th January at 9.00 am.

Members noted that the next scheduled meeting of the committee would be held at 9.00am on Wednesday 13^th January 2021 using Zoom virtual software.

There were no questions from members of the public present. A question was emailed to Councillor Mike Lewis regarding planning and phosphates and would be passed onto the relevant officer.

The Chairman reminded Members of the Briefing with the Planning Lead and Strategic Planner that was requested by Cllr Colin Winder. This would start after the conclusion of this meeting.

Councillor Colin Winder brought a planning enforcement issue to Members attention that he had been made aware of by a member of the public. Cllr Robin Bastable confirmed he had also received the same details and had reported it to the planning enforcement officer. An investigation and site visit will be conducted by the enforcement officer.

RESOLVED:   That Members Awarded £10,000 to the Balsam Centre for the delivery of the Healthy Living Centre work programme from the Area East Discretionary / project budget.

Reason:           To consider the allocation of funding to the Balsam Centre.

(Voting: 9 in favour, 1 against and 1 abstention )

The Locality Officer presented the report for the allocation of funding to the Balsam Centre. She explained the grant will come from the Area East Discretionary Budget and that a representative from the Balsam Centre was present should there be any questions. She recommended the award of £10 000 be given to the Balsam Centre.

The Balsam Centre Representative informed Members that they had still been able to carry out most of the activities and that a volunteer who coordinated the Covid19 response during lockdown has been recognised by the Wincanton Town Council.

During discussion from Members, there was a query raised about the viewing of the accounts and the surplus for 2018/2019 showing on the Charities Commission website. There were discussions around whether there were other organisations that would benefit from this funding.

In response to questions raised the Representative for the Centre explained that the charity now holds a level of reserves as required by the Charity Commission and they currently have 6 months’ worth that has been built up since 2015.

The Chairman informed Members that as a charity, the accounts were in the public domain and accessible through the internet.

The Locality Manager explained that the budget to support Healthy Living Centres was established but that the Balsam Centre is the only eligible organisation for this specific funding, so this budget is sat in the Area East Reserves.  If other schemes or organisations needed support, he urged them to get in touch to see what we could do to help.

One member expressed firm support for the Balsam Centre and allocation of funding and highlighted the risks to the centre in this current crisis if the support was not given.

It was proposed and seconded to award the £10,000 to the Balsam Centre for the delivery of the Healthy Living Centre programme and on being put to the vote, was approved with 9 vote for, 1 against and 1 abstention.

RESOLVED:   That Members Awarded £10,000 to the Balsam Centre for the delivery of the Healthy Living Centre work programme from the Area East Discretionary / project budget.

Reason:           To consider the allocation of funding to the Balsam Centre.

(Voting: 9 in favour, 1 against and 1 abstention)

RESOLVED:   Members agreed to award a grant of up to £12,226 (23.5% of total project cost) from the Area East Capital Programme towards the provision of new Play Area at the Charlton’s Memorial Playing Field.

Reason:          To consider the awarding of a capital grant to Charlton Adam Parish Council towards assistance in funding the Project Charlton’s new play area at the Charltons Memorial Playing Field.

(Voting: Unanimous)

The Locality Officer presented the report which provided details of funding for Project Charlton, working on behalf of Charlton Adam Parish Council. The application was for the relocation and new play equipment at the Charlton Memorial Playing Field.

Significant consultation within the local community had been carried out to gain a wide range of views. The relocation of the play area meant that it would be more accessible, had better supervision being nearer to the community hall and therefore more safeguarding. He clarified the other sources funding that had already been secured and that SSDC were being asked to fund £12,226.

A Representative of The Charlton’s explained how Covid had affected their fundraising efforts but that this grant would enable them to complete the first phase of the project of acquiring the equipment and be a push to complete the project.

Local Ward Members fully supported the plan and the relocation of the play area. It would have better accessibility for all and be a space for families to use not just the play area but also have access to the green open spaces.

There were no further discussions and after being proposed and seconded, it was put to the vote and approved unanimously.

RESOLVED:   Members agreed to award a grant of up to £12,226 (23.5% of total project cost) from the Area East Capital Programme towards the provision of new Play Area at the Charlton’s Memorial Playing Field.

Reason:          To consider the awarding of a capital grant to Charlton Adam Parish Council towards assistance in funding the Project Charlton’s new play area at the Charlton’s Memorial Playing Field.

(Voting: Unanimous)

RESOLVED:  That Members agreed to:

1.    Consider the inclusion of Active Travel routes in the draft Area Chapter for 21/22.

2.    Release funds allocated in the area reserve for Community Planning, Derelict sites (Castle Cary), Rural business units and the Retail Support Initiative and ring-fence £35,370 to be held in reserve and used towards the development and delivery of Active Travel Schemes in Area East.

3.       Award a total of up to £20,000 (£10,000 from the Community Grants and Discretionary budgets, £10,000 from the area reserve) towards the Wincanton to Bruton Active Travel route feasibility study, subject to standard community grant conditions, regular updates and DX agreement.

Reason:          To update Members of the Area East Committee on a number of local schemes which, combined appear to be an emerging theme as a priority for the Area.   

(Voting Unanimous)

The Locality Manager presented the report which asked Members to consider the inclusion of Active Travel routes in the Area Chapter for 21/22. He explained that this will show a clear indication of SSDC support for this type of project and will establish a local fund to enable other schemes to move forward. There was a request to fund the Wincanton to Bruton Rail to Trail project. A representative from Rail to Trail was in the meeting to answer any questions. He explained that the project did meet the criteria of the grant scheme but because of the scale of the project, and the relationship it would have with similar projects in the area, it was being suggested to create a programme of work for Area East. Funds would be used from the Area Reserve to fund the feasibility study. This project would have significant health and wellbeing benefits as well as economic and environmental benefits.

Representative from Rail to Trail highlighted funding issues due to Covid. Local surveys and surveys across the county showed people are in support of this project.

There is the potential for the trail to reach further across Somerset.

There was a long discussion on the subject and several Members spoke in support of the project. A number of comments included:

·         Despite there being positive feedback from local residents, there were landowners that voiced their concerns at Parish Council meetings and there were reservations on how the trail would be physically feasible.

·         What would the money for the study be spent on as £20,000 seemed a lot of money for a feasibility study.

·         Would there be safe parking places for bikes and scooters etc.

·         Any more information on the ongoing project would be greatly received so we can help gather support on the project.

·         This would be a great area for walking and cycling and is beneficial to everyone’s health and is also safe.

·         Hoped that the start of this Active Travel project in Area East would spread to other Areas in South Somerset.

·         £10,000 up to £20,000 sounded like good value for money for the feasibility study and the amount reflects the huge amount of work that would need to be undertaken.

In response to queries the Locality manager clarified that the recommendation should be amended to say up to £20,000 and base it around a phased approach to ensure the feasibility of the route first. A breakdown of the study would be circulated to members. An ongoing update would be given as part of the Area Chapter Update and give detailed feedback on how the money is being spent and what the need is going forward.

After no further discussions it was proposed and seconded to approve the recommendations, and on being put to the vote, was approved unanimously.

RESOLVED:  That Members agreed to:

1.    Consider the inclusion of Active Travel routes in the draft Area Chapter for 21/22.

2.    Release funds allocated in the area reserve for Community Planning, Derelict sites  ...  view the full minutes text for item 223.

Councillor Mike Lewis asked for an update on the impact of Covid19 in area East and particularly Wincanton and what further support may be needed.

Members discussed the planning appeals, specifically the dismissal of the BMI site. There was a short discussion on the procedure of appeals and how they are dealt with.

Members then noted the planning appeals.

Proposal: The erection of a single story extension to dwelling.

The Case Officer presented the application as detailed in the agenda and reminded members the application had been deferred at the Area East Committee meeting in September as the applicant wanted to put forward a new design that wasn’t shown in the plans at the time.

With the aid of a PowerPoint presentation, he then proceeded to show the site and proposed plans, including:

·         Linear format of the building and existing extension

·         The new extension would not keep the existing linear format and would sit between the existing building and neighbouring boundary.

·         The applicant had made sure there would be no parking to the North East boundary of the site after an objection from a neighbour.

·         The new extension materials to be used were Blue Lias stone and timber windows and doors with a tiled gabled roof – the roof element being the change to the original proposal.

He explained that the building is considered a non-designated heritage asset and the conservation officer had formally objected to the proposal.

The Parish Council had supported the application and one letter of objection was no longer a concern as it related to the parking that had been resolved.

His key considerations were the extension to a converted agricultural building and that any proposal should enhance and conserve the character of the original building. He considered this not the case with this proposal due to the position of the extension and there are no public benefits to offset harm caused.  There were no residential amenity concerns or highways concerns. The application therefore was recommended for refusal.

The applicant then addressed Members and some of the comments included were:

·         Thanked Councillors Charlie Hull and Tony Capozzoli for the positive support they had given to his family.

·         Pre application advice that was undertaken was positive of the proposed plans that contradicted the current Planning Officers recommendations and he expressed his disappointment.

·         Had worked with the council throughout the application process.

·         The buildings within the Wellham complex had evolved over the years.

The Ward Member Councillor Charlie Hull spoken in support of the application and some of the following views were expressed:

·         Fully supported the application, had completed a site visit and feels the plans are in keeping with the barn and area.

·         Would add value to the area and neighbours were supportive.

·         Recognised the applicant had incurred avoidable expenses relating to the application.

·         Believed the harm of the extension proposal is negligible.

·         There were a number of public benefits. The family supported the community, the local school and employed people within the community. This application supported the growth of their family and to allowed their home to grow with them.

·         Thanked the applicant for the steps taken to comply with council.

Ward Member’s Councillor Tony Capozzoli and Councillor Paul Rowsell also spoke in support of the application. Councillor Capozzoli commented that the materials to be used and the amend plans that had been submitted were  ...  view the full minutes text for item 227.

Proposal: The removal of conditions 3 and 4 from approval 13/00400FUL to allow the residential Stable Block at Higher Farm Barn to become independent from the main house, remaining residential in use, and not restricted to holiday lets.

The Lead Specialist, Development Management presented the application as detailed in the agenda and with the aid of a PowerPoint presentation, proceeded to show the site and proposed plans. She explained the relevant history of the property.

·         2009 and 2011 there was refusals for permanent residential property due to sustainability issues.

·         2013 approval was given for use of holiday accommodation or ancillary accommodation. The conditions being proposed to be removed are within this 2013 approved application.

·         2018 refusal of the removal of these conditions due to a procedural reason and because of the unsustainable location and an unacceptable adverse impact on the residential amenity of the occupiers of higher farm barn.

The new application now proposed a landscaping scheme between the garden area and the parking area and trees lining the edge of the main garden to resolve the refusal reasons of overlooking. She had concerns with how much light these trees might block out for the permanent residential dwelling and also how they would be enforced once conditions were removed and work had been completed.

Her key considerations for refusal were sustainability and residential amenity. The phosphates and impact on Somerset Levels was also a reason for refusal. The SCC Ecology confirmed a Habitat Regulation assessment would be required. She confirmed this was an additional reason for refusal and explained the details of why a Habitat Regulation Assessment would be needed.

The applicants then addressed Members and some of the following comments included were:

·         They had lived in the Barn for a number of years, and built up their business in the stable block, employing up to 4 local staff at their peak.

·         Converted the stable block/annexe whilst running the holiday let.

·         They would continue to be custodians for these buildings as they intend to remain in their home.

·         Confirmed with solicitor that a covenant could be put in place ensure the trees remain.

·         Felt the landscaping scheme would be non-intrusive and effective.

·         Wish to remain in the local are to continue to run the Air b&b which in turn, provides tourist opportunities for the local businesses.

·         Thanked Councillor Sarah Dyke for her support and taking the time to visit the property.

The Agent then spoke in support of the application. Some of his comments included:

·         There had been a legal right of appeal due to the absence of a decision but the applicants had held back from this relying on local decision making.

·         Transformed the stable block and introducing surface water drainage benefitting the neighbourhood.

·         There have been no objections from any consultees.

·         Residential use is in the same classification of residential lettings which was given consent.

·         Double row of staggered trees would provide adequate screening.

·         Phosphates issue should not be relevant as there are no new residential units  ...  view the full minutes text for item 228.

Proposal: Application to remove planning condition 4 (agricultural tie) of approval 781603.

The Case Officer, Planning presented the application as detailed in the agenda and with the aid of a PowerPoint presentation, proceeded to show the site. She explained policy HG10 that related to this condition. Her key consideration was whether the proposal complied with this policy and whether it had been proven that the dwelling is no longer required for an agricultural worker. The agent confirmed the land had now been sold off. The house had five acres attached to it and the property was vacant.

The reason for refusal was because the applicant had not demonstrated that there was no need for a dwelling with restricted occupancy to serve local need. It had not given anyone the opportunity to buy this at a reduced rate and live locally which is contrary to Policy HG10 of the Local plan.

The Agent then addressed the committee. Some of his comments included:

·         The property is within a village location not out in the countryside.

·         There are approvals for residential development within Yeovilton so no reason why a replacement dwelling could not be granted as it is within the village.

·         The building is no longer relevant to a farm.

·         No other surrounding properties have an agricultural tie.

Ward Member Councillor Tony Capozzoli spoke to members in support of this application. He knows the area very well and explained the dairy farm was sold off years ago.

He referenced a similar application where the Committee approved it contrary to the Officers recommendation.

Ward Members Councillor Charlie Hull and Councillor Paul Rowsell agreed that the historic policy is very outdated and seconded the approval of the application.

During a short discussion it was highlighted by Members that there had been time for the applicant to have to followed the policy and market the property.

The Lead Specialist suggested reason for approval being: The removal of the agricultural tie is acceptable as the property does not relate to any agricultural holding. Accordingly, the application is considered to accord with the aims and objectives of policy SD1 of the South Somerset Local Plan. The condition that no garage be erected without permission would also be imposed.

It was then proposed and seconded to approve the application contrary to the officer’s recommendation. On being put to the vote this was carried by ten votes for and one against.

RESOLVED:  It was resolved to go against the officer’s recommendation and approve the application for the following reason:

01.         The removal of the agricultural tie is acceptable as the property does not relate to any agricultural holding. Accordingly the application is considered to accord with the aims and objectives of policy SD1 of the South Somerset Local Plan.

SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION:

01.         Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2020, no garage shall be erected without the written permission of the Local Planning Authority and the approval by the LPA of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 229.