Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the previous meeting held on Wednesday 14^th August 2019.

The minutes of the previous meeting held on Wednesday 14^th August 2019, 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 Paul Rowsell and 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 Tony Capozzoli, Henry Hobhouse, Paul Rowsell, William Wallace 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.

There were no declarations of interests.

However, Councillor Charlie Hull pointed out that he had previously made his views clear on agenda item 12 (planning application 18/03298/OUT) and would not participate in the vote.

Members are asked to note that the next scheduled meeting of the committee will be at the Council Offices, Churchfield, Wincanton on Wednesday 9^th October at 9.00 am.

Members noted that the date of the next scheduled meeting of the Committee would be at the Council Offices, Churchfields, Wincanton on Wednesday 9^th October at 9am.

There were no questions from members of the public.

The Chairman advised that a short presentation was scheduled to be held immediately after the meeting to provide members with information relating to a current outline planning application for 2 dwellings, which had been submitted by SSDC.

He also advised members that a special Area East and Area South Committee meeting to consider the planning application for the Mudford Key Site would be held on Wednesday 2^nd October at the SSDC Offices in Yeovil.

He also reminded members that the next meeting of the Regulation Committee was taking place on 17^th September.

He advised members that SSDC website training for Parish Council clerks had been arranged for the afternoon and evening of 24^th September. This training was being held at the Connect Office, Petters House, Yeovil.

He also advised that the Annual Town and Parish Council meeting had been arranged for the evening of 10^th October.

In respect of an enforcement complaint that was being considered for a site in Wincanton, a response would be issued to the Wincanton Ward Members shortly.

Councillor Robin Bastable advised members that he was concerned for the well-being of a resident within his ward that was living in very isolated conditions. Some members were aware of the history of this resident and it was decided that a confidential report would be prepared and considered by the Committee on a later agenda as there was a long and complicated history to this case.

Another member commented that the public were still finding it difficult contacted the Council over the telephone.

There were no reports from members.

The Locality Manager presented his report to members. He explained that the report had been prepared with input from the Customer Focus Manager, the Commercial Property, Land and Development Manager and the Lead Democratic Services Specialist.

He explained to members that there were a number of considerations when considering the future working arrangements for Area East, such as having a customer access point in Wincanton and the requirement for an area to allow staff to work in Area East. He also explained that a new venue for holding the Area East Committee meetings would need to be identified.

He advised members that a decision had been made to dispose of the Churchfields building and offices. He added that the nursery had moved out of the building and that the police would be moving out of the building in the near future. As the building will be unoccupied from this point it will be inappropriate for SSDC staff to use the building due to lone working issues.

He informed members that the Balsam Centre had been able to offer some space to accommodate a customer access point. He also explained that some support could be given to customers when accessing council services and that office space for SSDC staff to use would also be considered.

He added that discussions over the future location of the Area East Committee meeting were still being considered, advising that the Memorial Hall in Wincanton was an option which was being considered.

He suggested that a further report will be prepared and could be considered by the committee in November. The Chairman requested that the report return for consideration in October if possible.

During the discussion, some members felt that it would be useful to hold the committee meeting in the same venue each month. Members also pointed out that accessibility and parking provisions were an important consideration.

Another member suggested that the Wincanton Town Council building should be considered, however it was pointed out that the meeting room was on the first floor and that parking and accessibility was a concern. 

The Locality Manager explained that accessibility and the availability of a hearing loop were important considerations. He confirmed that the Town Council building would be considered along with other venues in Area East.

Another member explained that the perceived accessibility of a venue was important and that car parking and access to the venue was important.   

In response to a question from a member, the Locality Officer explained that the use of different venues for each month had not been considered due to the cost implications. He explained that the meetings would meet each month in the same location. He also confirmed that he would include details of the proposed costs for any possible venues in the next report to the Committee.

During the discussion, members agreed that it would not be appropriate to use different venues for holding Area East Committee meetings and that the use of one venue would the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 62.

Members noted the Area East Forward Plan.

Members requested a further report on the future arrangements for Area Working in Area East, which would be considered by the committee in October or November.

Members also requested a confidential report on the wellbeing of a resident, which had been raised earlier in the meeting. 

Members requested a update report on the Somerset Environment Strategy and suggested that this be considered in March or April next year.

The Locality Manager advised that a community grant application report would be referred to the Committee in December.

RESOLVED:  that members noted the Area East Committee Forward Plan.

Members noted the planning appeal which had been received.

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

Application Proposal: Outline application for residential development of up to 24 No. dwellings, access via the existing Fox and Hounds Public House access, provision of orchard, public open space and associated infrastructure

The Planning Consultant presented his report to members. He explained to members that the application was for outline planning permission, for up to 24 dwellings.

Using a PowerPoint presentation, he provided images of the site as well as plans to show the extent of the site and an illustrative layout. He also pointed out the proposed access to the site. He provided photographs showing the public footpaths around the site and the access. He also pointed out the location of the conservation area and listed buildings in close proximity to the site.

He explained to members that a previous application to develop the site with up to 26 dwellings, had been refused. He explained that there now were less dwellings proposed and that additional landscaping had been added to the proposal. He clarified that there was now a different access to the site, which was proposed through the public house car park.

He informed members that the application was an outline application, however the access was not a reserved matter and clarified that members were considering the access to the site.

He drew members attention to a development of 8 houses which had been approved across the road from the site and provided a plan to show these dwellings, which had not yet been built, with the proposed outline application.

He also explained to members, that although the proposed dwellings would be set back from the road, that the roofs would be visible from the road.

He explained that he had read the Charlton Community Plan, however pointed out that it carried limited weight and that he had considered the policies within the NPPF and the SSDC Local Plan.

He introduced a representative from the Somerset County Council Highways Authority and a representative from the Lead Local Flood Agency and explained that they were available to answer any questions in relation to the highway access or drainage concerns.

He referred to a letter from Foot Anstey Solicitors dated 9^th September and explained that the agent has submitted a response to this letter, both of which letters had been referred to all committee members. He explained that reference to an outline application site in Mudford had been mentioned within this letter, however he explained that in his opinion, they were not comparable sites as the Mudford site was inappropriate due to the prominence of the site and the way in which it protruded from the settlement boundary.

The Planning Consultant explained that condition 27 related wholly to the access, however he would be able to amend the condition to clarify this further. He also explained that following comment that condition 26 was not a lawful condition, he explained that he had discussed this was the councils solicitor, who was content that this was a lawful condition and added  ...  view the full minutes text for item 66.

Application Proposal: Application for reserved matters following approval of 13/03318/OUT (approved at appeal) for erection of 34 dwellings to include details of access, layout, scale, appearance and landscaping

The Planning Consultant presented his report to members. He explained to members that the application was for approval of reserved matters following an outline permission which was granted on appeal. He explained that the original outline application was for up to 44 dwellings, however the current reserved matters application being considered was for a maximum of 34 dwellings.

Using a PowerPoint presentation, he pointed out the location of the site. He also pointed out the conservation area and any listed buildings which were close to the site. He provided photographs to show the site and plans to show the proposed dwellings. He also pointed out which of the proposed dwellings would be single storey and which would be two storey dwellings.

He confirmed the heights of the proposed dwellings in relation to existing dwellings on Greenway Close. The also clarified the distances from the existing dwellings on Greenway Close to the proposed new dwellings, ranging from approx. 20m to approx. 35m in distance. He explained that there were no specific policies in relation to minimum distances, however general guidance had been fully detailed within his report.

He advised that the road layout of the site had been designed in consultation with Somerset County Council Highways and that Wessex Water had raised no objection to the layout. He explained that the existing culverts and land drainage facilities had been considered and that a representative from the Lead Local Flood Agency was available should members have any questions. He pointed out condition 7 which addressed concerns over drainage and flooding on the site.

He provided further photographs of the site to show existing dwellings and the proposed access to the site.

He clarified that following the appealed approval, the principle of development had already been established and following some amendments to the site, he considered the impact on the residential amenity for existing residents to be of an acceptable level.

He summarised some late letters of representation that had been received in respect of drainage, overlooking and access. He referred to a letter from a property called Panorama, in which concerns were raised over the stability and damage which might be made to a supporting wall. He advised that although he had responded to the letter, that it was a civil matter and not a planning consideration.

He advised that Wincanton Town Council had recommended that the application be approved, subject to tree protection measures to the trees on the western boundary. He explained that an additional condition had been suggested in relation to tree and hedgerow protection.

The Planning Consultant also recommended that condition 22 be amended as it referred to an incorrect name.

Members of the public addressed members to speak in objection to the application. Their comments included;

·         There are privacy issues for residents of Greenway Close.

·         Drainage concerns have  ...  view the full minutes text for item 67.