Agenda and minutes

There were no apologies for 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.

There were no declarations of interest made by Members of the Committee.

Members are asked to note that the next scheduled meeting of the committee will be at the Council Offices, Churchfield, Wincanton on Wednesday 12 February 2020 at 9.00 am.

Members noted that the next scheduled meeting of the Area East Committee would be at the Council Offices, Churchfield, Wincanton on Wednesday 12 February 2020 commencing at 9.00 am.

There were no questions from members of the public present.

The Chairman advised that it had been brought to his attention that the decision taken by the Committee the previous month relating to Agenda item 10: Churchfields Offices, Disposal - Inclusion of public car park, needed to be reviewed in light of new information which the Committee were not aware of at the time of the decision.  He proposed that under Part 4 of the Council’s Constitution - Rules of Procedure (Standing Orders) a Motion to rescind a Previous Decision be taken relating to this item.  This proposal was seconded and when put to the vote, was confirmed by 10 votes in favour and 1 abstention.  This was subsequently confirmed in writing by the Members.

The Chairman thanked Members and advised that the report would be re-presented at the next meeting in February 2020.

The Chairman also advised that he had requested temporary emergency accommodation for homeless people and families be found within Area East to assist local people in need.

Councillor Mike Lewis advised that he had attended Cary Moor Parish Council meeting the previous evening were concerns of light pollution from an industrial site were discussed.  He asked if there was anything the Council could do to overcome the problem, which was the angle at which the lights were positioned.

Councillor Colin Winder spoke of this concern relating to UPVC (plastic) windows being installed in Listed Buildings.  He said that there appeared to be several instances of properties having their windows replaced in Wincanton at the moment and he was concerned that they may be happening without proper consent. 

The following response was provided by the Lead Specialist for Development Management:-

“The installation of UPVC windows in Listed Buildings needs listed building consent 99% of the time. The only instances where such materials would be potentially allowed would be in more modern additions or replacing existing plastic or metal windows that may have been installed prior to listing.

I note Cllr Winders concern regarding instances he may have observed where UPVC windows have been installed in Listed Buildings in Wincanton.

The first thing he could do is check online to see if the property benefits from listed building consent, the second thing he could do is submit an enforcement complaint using the online form which would trigger the Council investigating the matter.

We have found from experience that complaints regarding UPVC windows in listed buildings can trigger a chain reaction of complaints from unhappy homeowners who point to others they claim have done the same, so Members should be aware of this.

In my opinion it would not be cost effective to send a letter to each Listed Building owner reminding them of their responsibilities with regard replacement windows. We currently offer free-application advice and are working to provide online guidance on replacement windows. In the future we are planning to introduce charges for Listed Building pre-application queries.

The Town Council or neighbourhood plan team may choose to undertake a local project of Listed Building owner education which we could support with the appropriate technical knowledge.”

During a short debate, Members felt that any instances of windows being replaced with plastic in listed buildings should be reported to the Lead Specialist for Development Management.

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

The Locality Team Leader introduced the report, noting that the Chapter listed a good list of projects to take forward in the then following 12 months, although some may take longer to complete.

During discussion, Members made the following comments:-

·         The geographical location of each project should be included.

·         Details of the volunteer health walks to be circulated to Members.

·         The column relating to Healthy, Self-Reliant Communities should be listed first as communities were central to the Council’s work.

·         In the Environment column, include businesses in the last point: Support community and business led initiatives that combat climate change.

At the conclusion of the debate, Members were content to agree their Area Chapter for 2020/21 with the proposed amendments.

The Locality Team Leader advised that the preferred site for the new Customer Access Point (CAP) was the Balsam Centre in Wincanton.  He confirmed that a pass was not required to enter the building and it had private interview rooms in case of any confidential issues.

During discussion, it was suggested that the Customer Access Point should be at the Town Hall along with the Town and County Council.  It was noted that there were accessibility issues to overcome and if the Town Hall building became accessible in the future then the decision could be revisted.

Councillor Mike Lewis asked if the Haynes Motor Museum at Sparkford had been investigated as a future venue for the Area Committee as it was centrally located.  The Democratic Services Specialist agreed to investigate this option and Members agreed to defer the decision on their future meeting venue to the next meeting of the committee.

The Locality Manager advised that a grant application for Community Accessible Transport would be presented in February 2020.

It was also noted that a presentation on Affordable Housing would be presented in February 2020.

Members noted the Area East Committee Forward Plan.

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

Application Proposal: Installation of a CCTV camera system comprising of a network of wooden pole mounted cameras, related cabinets and ducting, plus ancillary and related equipment.

The Planning Consultant introduced the report and advised that the site was on the edge of the district and the solar array was already installed.  The permission included the installation of 5 CCTV cameras on 6m high steel poles.  The application now proposed 15 cameras on 3m poles with no wider range of vision other than the boundary fence.  The security fencing was 2m high so the cameras would be 1m above.  As the site was not on the skyline and, the principle of development was already established, he recommended approval of the application. 

The Agent for the applicant advised that the cameras were required to deter intruders and prevent theft.  He said it was necessary to have full CCTV coverage of the perimeter site for insurance purposes.  There would be no pre-recoded message if a camera was activated but an officer in a control centre would challenge the person.  The lighting would be infra-red and the cameras were directed away from nearby properties.

The Ward Member, Councillor Robin Bastable, said he had not received any representations regarding the application and he could not see a problem with the proposal.

During a brief discussion it was noted that the audio challenge should not be unduly intrusive.  It was also noted that Cucklington village had received community benefit from the applicants which had been used in part to resurface the village hall car park.

The recommendation to grant permission was proposed and seconded and unanimously agreed by Members.

RESOLVED: That planning application 19/01786/FUL be GRANTED permission for the following reason:

01.       The proposal to install a CCTV camera system, comprising of a network of 20 wooden pole mounted cameras, a control cabinet, ducting and other small ancillary and related equipment, all in association with the existing solar array development for the same temporary period as the solar park itself would respect the character of the area and would cause no demonstrable harm to landscape character and visual amenity, neighbour amenity, highway safety, flood risk or biodiversity. As such, the proposal is in accordance with the aims and objectives of the NPPF and Policies SD1, EQ1, EQ2, EQ4, EQ5, EQ7, TA6 and TA6 of the South Somerset Local Plan.

SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING:

01.  The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

       Reason:  To accord with the provisions of section 91(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

02.  The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved drawings:

       Drawing no. 1088-0200-01: Site Boundary Plan

       Drawing no. 26377-1-B: CCTV Layout - Site Layout - Planning Application (Proposed Additions)

       Drawing no. 26377-1-C: CCTV Layout - Site Layout - Planning Application (Overall Security Design)

       Drawing no. GBSG SD-1B: GBSG Standard Detail - Wooden Post Detail

       Brochure:  ...  view the full minutes text for item 126.

Application Proposal: Outline planning application with all matters reserved for the erection of 5 dwellings

The Chairman advised that although he lived in the village of North Cadbury, he could not see the application site from his property and so he had no interest to declare.

The Planning Consultant introduced the report and advised that that the site was formerly occupied by a large agricultural building.  He noted that a class Q application to convert the barn had been refused for technical reasons.  The site had permission for 3 dwellings and it was now proposed to build 5 dwellings on the site.  There were third party objections to the proposal but the Highway Authority and the Council’s own Highway Consultant had not raised any objections to the application.  The site was accessed from an unlit lane with no pavements and the village school was some 900m distance.  It was remote from the village and in an unsustainable location therefore his recommendation was to refuse the application.

The Committee were then addressed by the Chairman of North Cadbury PC and two local residents in opposition to the application.  Their comments included:-

·         The junction of the lane and the A359 was very dangerous with more traffic accidents than were stated in the report.

·         Applications had been submitted for two then three and now five dwellings. Would it stop there? There was no attempt to address sustainability and the road junction had accidents on a regular basis.

·         Pollution from silage effluent had killed nearby trees which the Environment Agency were aware of.  The development was unsustainable.

The Agent for the applicant said that since gaining approval for 3 dwellings, the planning policies had changed to allow 5 to be built.  The policies also supported development on brownfield sites and the proposal was only for 2 above what already had permission.  Tree contamination surveys had been carried out and the footpath to the south of the site would not be affected.  He concluded that housing was needed across the district and he asked Members to support the application.

One of the Ward Members, Councillor Henry Hobhouse, said the number of accidents at the junction with the A359 was very high, nevertheless, he supported the application.

The other Ward Member, Councillor Kevin Messenger, said he had visited the site and could not understand where the silage effluent spoken of came from.  He said that although the access lane was narrow it was for road users to exercise caution and he would support the application.

During discussion, Members were generally supportive of the proposal.  It was felt if more properties were built then the village could become more sustainable although concern was expressed that the Highway Authority had not objected to the poor access junction.  It was proposed and seconded to approve the application as the proposal was considered to be acceptable in the location, because the distance to the village was the same as other neighbouring residential developments to the west of the site, the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 127.

Application Proposal: Outline application with all matters reserved save for access for the erection of an agricultural workers dwelling

The Planning Consultant introduced the report and advised that there was a proven need for an agricultural workers dwelling at the farm although it would be clearly seen from the road to the north.  The height of the dwelling would be approximately 7m and the access would be through the existing farm yard.  Because of the visual impact, his recommendation was to refuse the application.

The Ward Member, Councillor Sarah Dyke, said the visual impact would be minimal as the farm buildings nearby were already substantial.  She said there were no objections from the Parish Council or local residents and the applicant had already discussed mitigation by keeping to a single storey

The Agent for the applicant said the need for the dwelling was proven and the only issue was landscaping and visual impact.  He said the floor level could be reduced by 1m and an earth bund could be positioned to the north.  He said the site was not isolated and the bungalow would be fully linked to the farm.

During discussion, Members were in favour of the proposal as they felt it would break the mass of the agricultural buildings and there was a need for farm workers to be near their cattle.  They suggested that conditions of approval include the occupier being in agricultural employment and constructed of local stone. 

It was proposed and seconded to grant permission as the proposal was considered to be acceptable in the location, being necessary for the purposes of providing accommodation for an agricultural worker, and would cause no demonstrable and unacceptable harm to the landscape character and appearance of the locality, being sited in close proximity to the existing agricultural buildings. In addition the proposal would cause no adverse impact on residential amenity, highway safety, flood risk or biodiversity.  On being put to the vote, the proposal was unanimously granted permission.

RESOLVED: That planning permission for 19/01680/OUT be GRANTED contrary to the officer’s recommendation for the following reason:-

01.          The proposal is considered to be acceptable in this location, being necessary for the purposes of providing accommodation for an agricultural worker, and would cause no demonstrable and unacceptable harm to the landscape character and appearance of the locality, being sited in close proximity to the existing agricultural buildings. In addition the proposal would cause no adverse impact on residential amenity, highway safety, flood risk or biodiversity. As such it accord with Policies SD1, SS1, SS2, HG9, EQ1, EQ2, EQ4, TA5 and TA6 of the South Somerset Local Plan and relevant guidance in the NPPF.

Conditions

Outline / reserved matters – time limits

Accord with plans

Single storey/details of floor levels, ridge and eaves heights

Access details

Boundary treatments

Landscaping details

Surface water disposal

Electric vehicle charging point

External lighting details

Agricultural occupancy

Removal of permitted development rights (extensions, outbuildings, means of enclosure)

Informatives

CIL

Lighting

(Voting: unanimous in favour)

Application Proposal: Erection of two single storey dwellings and formation of vehicular access

The Planning Consultant introduced the report and reminded Members that they had recently considered two applications for new dwellings nearby and there was a need for consistency as officers did not consider the site as a sustainable location.  He noted the site was a former nursery and existing buildings to the north would be demolished.  A consideration was the distance to local services like shops, pub and church. Design guidance recommended a walk of no more than 800m.  He advised that his recommendation to refuse the application was based on its remote location and not on residential; impact or visual amenity.

The Chairman of Yeovilton Parish Council said they supported the application as it was a redundant nursery and two single storey dwellings would improve the area.  She said a fit person could walk to nearby amenities in 20 minutes.

The Agent for the applicant said there were no objections on visual or residential amenity and the Committee had approved an application for a dwelling nearby the previous month, citing that the location was sustainable.

All of the Ward Members spoke in support of the application and said it was a suitable infill plot for single storey dwellings.

In response to a question, the Planning Consultant confirmed that the site was within noise zone B and not C.  During discussion, Members voiced their support for the application but asked that the noise contours from RNAS Yeovilton be retested as it was felt they were outdated.  It was proposed to grant permission because the village of Yeovilton, along with Ilchester and Limington, acted as a cluster providing residents with the necessary local services. Also the proposal would cause no significant adverse impact and harm on the character of the area, on the nearby designated heritage asset, residential amenity, highway safety, flood risk or biodiversity.  On being put to the vote the proposal was granted permission by 11 votes in favour, 0 against and 1 abstention.

RESOLVED: That planning application 19/00454/OUT be GRANTED permission, contrary to the officer’s recommendation for the following reason:

01.          The proposal lies in a settlement that the Committee considers, along with Ilchester and Limington, acts as a cluster providing residents with the necessary local services in accordance with Policy SS2 of the South Somerset Local Plan (2006-2028). In addition the proposal would cause no significant adverse impact and harm on the character of the area, on the nearby designated heritage asset, residential amenity, highway safety, flood risk or biodiversity. As such it accord with Policies SD1, SS1, SS2, EQ1, EQ2, EQ3, EQ4, EQ5, TA5 and TA6 of the South Somerset Local Plan and relevant guidance in the NPPF.

Conditions

Outline / reserved matters – time limits

Accord with plans

Single storey/details of floor levels, ridge and eaves heights

Implementation of ecological measures

Details of protection of trees and hedges (prior to commencement)

Implementation of tree and hedge protection works (prior to commencement)

Noise  ...  view the full minutes text for item 129.