Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the previous meeting held on Wednesday 11^th September 2019.

The minutes of the previous meeting held on Wednesday 11^th September 2019, copies of which had been circulated, were agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

There were no apologies of absence.

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.

Councillor Lucy Trimnell declared a personal and prejudicial interest in agenda item 11 (planning application 19/00655/OUT) as she had signed a petition against this planning application prior to becoming an elected member and would leave the room during discussion of the item.

Members are asked to note that the next scheduled meeting of the committee will be at the Council Offices, Churchfield, Wincanton on Wednesday 13^th November at 9.00am.

Members noted that the date of the next scheduled meeting of the Committee would be at the Council Offices, Churchfields, Wincanton on Wednesday 13^th November at 9am.

A member of the public spoke to advise members that she had some confusion over consistency of planning enforcement on buildings which were listed or within conservation areas. She questioned whether SSDC still had a Conservation Officer and provided examples of listed building consents, which she has obtained for her property over the years. She informed members that she was aware of some residential properties situated close to her that had not applied for relevant consents and felt that it was important that enforcement action was taken.

The Chairman advised that there would be a joint Area East / Area South Committee meeting, which would be immediately followed by a Regulation Committee meeting to consider planning applications 14/02554/OUT and 15/03942/FUL which were for a major application for land at Upper Mudford, Primrose Lane, Yeovil. The meeting would be taking place at 9.30am on Tuesday 29^th October at The Council Offices, Brympton Way, Yeovil.

He also reminded members that a members site visit had been arranged to view the Upper Mudford development site on the 22^nd October at 9am.

He also reminded members that there was a scheduled meeting of the Regulation Committee on Tuesday 15^th October to consider a planning application for land rear of the public house, Broadway Road, Charlton Adam (18/03298/OUT). He also explained that there was also another planning application on the agenda for land off Shiremoor Lane, Merriott.

In response to this announcement, Councillor Colin Winder expressed concern over the access to the planning application site for the proposed development in Charlton Adam. The access will be across land owned by the adjoining public house and he was concerned that there could be some legal concerns for future owners of the properties. He agreed to raise this at the Regulation Committee.

The Chairman also advised that the Annual Parish and Town Council meeting had been arranged for the 10^th October.

He also advised that a visit to Dawes Twines museum had been arranged for members.

Councillor Hayward Burt advised that Templecombe Train Station had received the Best Small Station Award at the National Rail Awards. He commended the Friends of the Templecombe Station volunteers that work very hard at the station.

Councillor Colin Winder requested that SSDC issue a press release to advise when the Churchfields Office would be open to the public. The Chairman agreed that a notice should be displayed on the door and that once a decision had been made to confirm working arrangement for staff in Area Office and the location of the Area East Committee, he would ensure that a press release would be issued.

Councillor Mike Lewis felt that SSDC had been very supportive to local communities during the Highways England A303 consultation and hoped that the same level of support would continue be given to residents once the work to dual the A303 had commenced.  

Members noted the planning appeals which had been received, allowed or dismissed by The Planning Inspectorate.

Members noted the Area East Committee Forward Plan.

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

Application Proposal: Outline planning permission is sought for the development of up to 60 residential dwellings (Use Class C3), together with associated highways and drainage infrastructure, public open space and landscaping. Details of access are submitted for approval with all other matters (Layout, Scale, Appearance and Landscaping) reserved for later approval.

The Planning Specialist presented his report to members. He explained that the application was an outline application for up to 60 dwellings and that all matters, except access, would be considered by a later reserved matters application. 

He explained to members that there was a slight error in the report where a sentence on page 37 of the agenda had part of a sentence omitted. He clarified that the comments of the County Highway Authority should read; ‘However, the matter which has created concern is the pedestrian infrastructure and how new residents who wish to walk to the local services are accommodated bearing in mind Brewham Road has no current infrastructure in place.’

He summarised a number of late letters of representation, which had been received since the report had been published. He explained that there were 2 letters of objection and 1 letter in support, however advised that they contained no new information that had not already been covered within his report. He advised of one point which had not been covered within his report, which had been submitted from the owner of 1 Bruelands. He explained that although the owner of 1 Bruelands had been contacted by the developer to negotiate the possible sale of some land adjoining the site, that negotiations had not continued from the developer.

Using a PowerPoint presentation, he provided plans to show the location of the site and photographs of the site and access. He also pointed out the position of the River Brue and the existing residential development of Bruelands.

He explained that the layout plan which had been provided was an indicative plan, however did show how 60 dwellings could be positioned on the site. He also showed the position of the proposed large attenuation pond and advised members that both the Environment Agency and Lead Local Flood Agency were satisfied with the proposal subject to a detailed drainage condition. 

He also detailed the access and visibility splay as proposed, explaining that the proposed visibility splay was more than normally required.  He also explained that the proposal included a new pavement to link the development to the town, which would be situated the south of the development, adding that a priority system for vehicles approaching from the west, was also proposed on the road along the north of the site. The proposal had been considered and audited by Somerset County Council and had passed the tests which were carried out.

Photographs on the site and the surrounding area, to include the access, were shown to members.

The Planning Specialist advised that a number of planning applications for housing developments had recently been approved in Bruton, which totalled  ...  view the full minutes text for item 78.

Application Proposal: Construction of a Photovoltaic Park with associated equipment including access track and cable route (without complying with Condition 2 of planning permission 17/00242/S73A, to extend the operational time to 40 years)

The Planning Specialist presented his report to members, explaining that the site was situated between Henstridge and Milborne Port.

Using a PowerPoint presentation, he provided plans to show the location of the site and photographs of the site and access. He explained to the Committee, that the application was to extend the life of the application by an additional 15 years.

He explained that no technical objections had been received from any statutory consultations and therefore recommended that the application be approved. 

Councillor Hayward Burt explained that Templecombe Parish Council had not been consulted by the district council.

In response to a question from a member, the Planning Specialist advised that any financial community benefits which may be provided by the developer were not a planning consideration.

Following the discussion, it was proposed and seconded that the application be approved, as per the officer recommendation.

On being put to the vote this was carried 10 votes in support, with 2 abstentions.

RESOLVED:  that members approved application 19/0379/S73A for the following reason;

01.       The proposal to vary the operational lifespan of the solar farm for a temporary period of 40 years is considered acceptable, and has no material impact on the temporary nature of the permission, which continues to respect the character of the area and causes no demonstrable harm to neighbour amenity and highway safety or the impact on the setting and local environment. The proposal is in accordance with the aims and objectives of the NPPF and Policies SD1, TA5, EQ1, EQ2, EQ4, EQ5 and EQ7 of the South Somerset Local Plan.

Subject to the following conditions;

01.       The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans which form parts of the planning permissions dated 19th October 2015 (ref 15/02718/FUL) and 10th March 2017 (ref 17/00242/S73A):

·           Planning Layout Drg. No. 1253-0201-01 Issue 04;

·           Site Location Plan Drg. No. 1253-0200-05 Issue 01;

·           Construction Access and Cable Route Drg. No 1253-0201-05;

·           Proposed Compound Area Drg. No. 1253-0201-20 Issue 01;

·           CCTV Detail Drg. No. 1253-0204-00 Issue 01;

·           Steel and Timber Fencing Detail 22 degrees Panel Angle - Drg. No. 1253-0205-03 Issue 01;

·           Mounting System Detail Drg. No. 1253-0206-09 Issue 01;

·           Bowden Lane Inverter Station Detail SMA SC Drg. No. 1253-0207-14 Issue 01

·           Bowden Lane Satellite Mounting System Drg. No. 1253-0207-20 Issue 01

·           Spares Container Detail  Drg. No. 1253-0207-40 Issue 01;

·           SSE DNO Access Road Section - Drg. No. 1253-0208-10 Issue 01;

·           Private Switchgear - Drg. No. 1253-0208-54 Issue 01;

·           DNO Switchgear  Drg. No. 1253-0208-71 Issue 01;

·           Water main easement - Drg. No. 1253-0200-50 Issue 01;

·           Drg. No. 1510728 4 Module Quer ES120 1/ 2; and

·           Drg. No.1510728 4 Module Quer ES120 2 /  ...  view the full minutes text for item 79.

Application Proposal: Replacement windows

The Case Officer addressed the Committee. He advised that it was his recommendation that the application be deferred to a later meeting, to allow time for the applicant to submit more detailed drawings for consideration.

The Conservation Specialist advised that the drawings provided showed 16mm edged glazing and it was his opinion that it would be difficult to create windows to match the existing design of windows of this size. He therefore had suggested to the applicant that alternative design of window should be submitted for consideration.

It was proposed and seconded that the planning should be deferred to allow the applicant to negotiate an acceptable proposal with the development control team.

On being put to the vote this was carried unanimously.

RESOLVED:  that planning application 19/01275/LBC be deferred to allow the applicant to negotiate an acceptable proposal with the Development Control team.

(voting: unanimous)

Application Proposal: Application to remove agricultural occupancy condition (condition 1) of permission 780953.

The Planning Specialist presented her report to members. She explained that the application was to remove an agricultural tie from an existing bungalow.

Using a PowerPoint presentation, she provided plans to show the location of the site and photographs to show the property and surrounding area. She explained that the bungalow was situated close to Tintinhill in an area of open countryside.

She summarised policy HG10 of the SSDC Local Plan and explained to members that there was no evidence to suggest that the bungalow had been marketing on the open market. It was therefore her suggestion that the application should be refused.

A representative of the Parish Council addressed the Committee. He explained to members that the agricultural tie linking the property to land and agricultural buildings had recently been removed and so were no longer linked to the property. He therefore felt that there was no longer a need for the agricultural tie. He explained to members that it would be unlikely that the bungalow would sell and offered support to the application to remove the agricultural tie, to allow the owners to rent the property.

The agent addressed the Committee. She explained that the bungalow required restoration works which would be costly to the owners and the state of the property would reduce its value if sold. She felt that the condition was no longer required.

Councillor Paul Rowsell, Ward Member, offered his support for the application.

Councillor Tony Capozzoli, also Ward Member, spoke in support of the application.

Councillor Charlie Hull, also Ward Member, offered his support for the application adding that this would help the housing shortage.

During the discussion, some members felt that as no marketing had been carried out, it was difficult to be sure that there was no local demand for a property with an agricultural tie and that the property should have been marketed.

It was proposed and seconded that the application should be approved contrary to the officer recommendation as this was a unique application where the land holding had been released leaving the property with no land and in an inhabitable state.

On being put to the vote this was carried 7 votes in support and 6 against.

RESOLVED:  that planning application 19/01505/S73A be approved contrary to the officer recommendation for the following reason;

01.              The land holding has been released leaving the property with no land, the property is empty and it is unviable to restore to a habitable standard at the reduced value reflecting the agricultural tie, and with acknowledgment of the personal circumstances in this case.

(voting: 7 votes in support, 6 against)