Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the previous meeting held on Wednesday 8^th June 2016.

The minutes of the meeting held on Wednesday 8^th June 2016, copies of which had been circulated, were agreed and signed by the Chairman.

Councillor Winder hoped to see the Brewham Parish Design Statement, which had been endorsed at the previous meeting, be adopted and implemented. The Assistant Director (Communities) agreed to seek clarification from planning about its status with regard to the planning application.

Apologies of absence were received from Councillor Nick Colbert and Councillor Sarah Dyke-Bracher.

In accordance with the Council’s current Code of Conduct (adopted July 2012), 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.  A DPI is defined in The Relevant Authorities (Disclosable Pecuniary Interests) Regulations 2112 (SI 2012 No. 1464) and Appendix 3 of the Council’s Code of Conduct.  A personal interest is defined in paragraph 2.8 of the Code and a prejudicial interest is defined in paragraph 2.9. 

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.  As a result of the change made to the Code of Conduct by this Council at its meeting on 15^th May 2014, 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.  If you have a prejudicial interest you must comply with paragraphs  2.9(b) and 2.9(c) of the Code.

In the interests of complete transparency, Members of the County Council, who are not also members of this committee, are encouraged to declare any interests they may have in any matters being discussed even though they may not be under any obligation to do so under any relevant code of conduct.

Planning Applications Referred to the Regulation Committee

The following members of this Committee are also members of the Council’s Regulation Committee:

Councillors David Norris, Sarah Dyke-Bracher, Tony Capozzoli and Nick Weeks.

Where planning applications are referred by this Committee to the Regulation Committee for determination, in accordance with the Council’s Code of Practice on Planning, 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 David Norris declared a personal, but non prejudicial interest in the planning application for Haynes Publishing, High Street, Sparkford (agenda item 15).

Councillors William Wallace, Mike Lewis and Anna Groskop all members of SCC (Somerset County Council) would only declare a personal interest in any business on the agenda where there was a financial benefit or gain or advantage to SCC which would be at a cost or to the financial disadvantage of SSDC.

Councillors Mike Lewis and Henry Hobhouse declared a personal and prejudicial interest on the planning application for Haynes Publishing, High Street, Sparkford (agenda item 15). They would leave the room during discussion of the item.

a)     Questions/comments from members of the public

b)     Questions/comments from representatives of parish/town councils

This is a chance for members of the public and representatives of Parish/Town Councils to participate in the meeting by asking questions, making comments and raising matters of concern.  Parish/Town Council representatives may also wish to use this opportunity to ask for the District Council’s support on any matter of particular concern to their Parish/Town. The public and representatives of Parish/Town Councils will be invited to speak on any planning related questions later in the agenda, before the planning applications are considered.

Lilian Elson, representing Holton Heritage Trust, addressed the Committee. She expressed her concern over the verge and hedge cutting, and in particular night cutting, that was occurring around Holton. She was concerned that wildlife and verges were being destroyed.

Following her comments, the Chairman thanked her for speaking and advised that she should ensure that her comments were also passed to Somerset County Council. It was also pointed out that the verges needed to be cut for the reason of safety.

Councillor Colin Winder requested a copy of the enforcement notice which had been served at Moor Lane, Wincanton. The Assistant Director (Communities) agreed to contact Legal Services to source a copy of the document.

There were no reports from members representing the Council on outside organisations.

Members are asked to note that the next scheduled meeting of the committee will be at the Council Offices, Churchfield, Wincanton on Wednesday 10^th August 2016 at 9.00 am.

Members noted that the date of the next meeting would be Wednesday 10^th August 2016 at The Council Offices, Churchfield, Wincanton at 9am.

The Chairman made no announcements.

The Transport Strategy Officer addressed the Committee and also introduced Andy Chilton, Manager of South Somerset Community Accessible Transport. The Chairman agreed that agenda items 8 and 9 could be presented together, rather than being considered as separate items.

The Transport Strategy Officer provided several updates to his report;

·         Somerset County Council had now appointed a consultant called STC and that a report would be produced in approximately 3 months’ time. This was an amendment to page 10, paragraph 1.2 of the agenda.

·         Taylor Wimpey confirmed that £5200 of travel vouchers had been reimbursed to date, not £3000 as specified in the agenda. This was an amendment to page 13, paragraph 4.5 of the agenda.

The Transport Strategy Officer responded to questions from members. During the discussion, members expressed concern that S106 provisions are not often spent on sustainable transport schemes and that money should be sought from developers.

The Chairman suggested that he would like to arrange a meeting with Helen Vittery at Somerset Council Council, the Area Development Lead and the Transport Strategy Officer to look into Travel Plans delivered through S106’s with a view to establishing a system to better target funds to providing the transport and accessibility where it’s needed.

Councillor Mike Lewis requested a comparison of CAT bus journeys for 2014-15, similar to the statistics provided in the report for 2015-16. Andy Chilton confirmed that he was happy to provide this information. He also advised members that the was hoping to submit an application for Lottery funding and that he was looking at ways of working more closely with after-school clubs.

The Chairman thanked them both for attending.

RESOLVED: that members noted the report.

This item was discussed alongside item 8 of the agenda with the agreement of the Chairman.

RESOLVED: that members noted the report.

The Assistant Director (Communities) presented her briefing report to members. She explained that the first Strategic Regeneration Board meeting was held in early June and that it was still a new process. She advised that there would be three Area East Regeneration Board meetings a year, the Strategic Board meetings would occur more frequently. She further advised that the Area East meetings had been arranged around the Chairman’s availability, however if he was unavailable, the Vice-Chairman would be invited to attend in his place.

The Chairman had attended the last Strategic Regeneration meeting and took forward an outline proposal for Moor Lane, Wincanton.  Since this meeting the Regeneration Officer (Area East) had been invited to prepare an application for feasibility resources, which would be submitted at the next Strategic Regeneration Board meeting on 5^th August. 

She advised members that the date of the next Area East Regeneration Board meeting would take place on Tuesday 26^th July.

She responded to questions from members.

RESOLVED: that members noted the report.

The Assistant Director (Communities) advised that she had no amendments to make to the Forward Plan.

It was suggested that a planning tour would be arranged for August or September which would have an economic focus. The Assistant Director (Communities) welcomed any suggestions for businesses which could be included on the tour.

RESOLVED: that the Area East Forward Plan be noted.

Members noted the planning appeals which has been received and dismissed.

Councillor Mike Lewis expressed that although he was pleased that the appeals had been dismissed, he was disappointed that costs had been awarded to the applicant on the appeal for Land at Gainsborough, Milborne Port due to the lack of Highway comments provided during consideration of the planning application.

The Assistant Director (Communities) agreed to discuss this with the Development Control Manager.

Members noted the schedule of planning applications to be determined by Committee.

Application proposal: Outline application for the erection of a detached dwelling with all matters to be considered at this stage.

The Area Lead (North/East) presented the report to members with the aid of a PowerPoint presentation, which included photographs of the site and plans of the proposal. He advised the Committee that although this planning application was technically submitted as an ‘outline’ planning application, is could now be considered as a ‘full’ planning application and that an application for reserved matters would not follow should the application be approved.

He advised members that the application site was outside of the development boundary and that highways did not support the proposed access. He further advised that the application was in a Conservation Area and that the development would erode the character of this area. He therefore recommended that the Committee refused the planning application.

Juliet Love, a resident of Woolston, spoke in objection to the scheme. She advised members that there had been substantial objection from the residents of Woolston and that she was representing 8 of these objectors. She raised concern that the proposed dwelling was not in-keeping with the area and would be detrimental to the heart of the hamlet. She also raised concern over the materials to be used and the hedgerow which would act as a screen could die or be removed. She also expressed her worry that this could set a precedent within Woolston.

Ursula Inglis-Jones, a resident of Woolston, spoke in objection the proposal. She explained to the Committee that she thought the lane was too narrow and dangerous to support additional traffic. The lane was occasionally blocked by cows crossing and during periods of ice and snow, ambulances could not gain access to properties along the lane. She also pointed out that it was too far to walk to the nearest village and that the hedgerow which could offer screening could die back.

Matt Williams, the planning agent, addressed the Committee. He emphasised that at the previous meeting, members were content with the proposed access. He also pointed out that the dwelling would be built from natural stone and that a planning condition could be included to ensure that the hedge is retained in perpetuity. He also pointed out that this was a genuine proposal for the applicants to downsize and that the Parish Council had offered support to the scheme.

Peter Randall, the applicant, addressed the Committee. He explained that the proposed dwelling would be smaller than the house they currently live in but would be large enough for family members to visit, or if needed in future years, able to accommodate a carer.

Councillor Hobhouse, Ward Member, explained that he had no problem with the proposed access, however did have concerns over the height of the building and the conservation area being affected. 

Councillor Weeks, also Ward Member, spoke in support of the application. He suggested that people should expect some change to communities within a Conservation  ...  view the full minutes text for item 36.

Application proposal: Outline planning Application seeking permission for mixed use redevelopment (residential/commercial) together with associated works and access ways.

Councillor Henry Hobhouse and Councillor Mike Lewis left the room during the discussion of this item.

The Area Lead (North/East) presented his report to members with the aid of a PowerPoint presentation showing the site and dwellings to be retained. He explained that the scheme had been submitted as an outline application; however approval of the layout details were being sought.

He advised members that there was a listed building on site which, by approval of the scheme, would be surrounded by more open space. He further pointed out that the proposed layout included a generous amount of green area on the site.

He pointed out to Committee that the existing buildings were largely redundant and too large for the current owners; however a small level of employment/office buildings were proposed as part of the application. He advised that planning policy encouraged the re-development of brown field sites and that no highway/access issues had been raised by Somerset County Council.

He advised members that he was recommending that the planning application be approved, but suggested an additional condition to ensure that the employment site should be available prior to occupation of the twenty-first dwelling.

The Chairman read out an extract of an e-mail which he had received from Sparkford Parish Council to re-iterate their concerns over the drainage issues in the village.

Matt Frost, the planning agent, addressed the Committee. He advised members that this brownfield site had been redundant for many years and had been properly marketed for three years. It was his view that this site was not suitable for a sole commercial use and was better suited to a shared use.

He pointed out to members that the scheme complied with policies and that he had taken into account the views of the Parish Council, the planning department and the community to develop a well-designed area with plenty of open space. He also advised that the application was supported by a Flood Risk Assessment and an indicative Drainage Strategy.

During the discussion, the possible provision of both a footpath over the adjoining railway line and a play area were discussed, as well as drainage issues.

Following the discussion, it was proposed and seconded that the planning application be approved subject to conditions, including additional conditions to ensure the provision of employment buildings prior to occupation of the twenty-first dwelling and a biodiversity condition and an additional S106 obligation.

On being put to the vote, this was carried 5 in support, 1 against and 1 abstention.

RESOLVED: that planning permission 16/00725/OUT be approved, subject to

a)         The prior completion of a section 106 agreement or unilateral undertaking (in a form acceptable to the Council's solicitor(s)) before the decision notice granting planning permission is issued to:-

1)         Secure a contribution of £4,299 per dwelling towards the increased demand for outdoor playing space, sport and recreation facilities to the satisfaction  ...  view the full minutes text for item 37.

Application proposal: Erection of a new dwelling (Revised Scheme)

The Planning Officer presented his report to the Committee with the aid of a PowerPoint presentation showing the proposed plans and photographs of the site.

He provided members with an update to the report; late letters from local residents had been received offering support to the proposal. Their comments included support for the residents who were wishing to remain in the village and that they thought the building would blend in well with the surrounding area.

The Planning Officer clarified that the Devon Bank was no longer proposed, but that the application site would be subject to a landscaping condition. He also advised members that some of the letters of objection which had been received raised concern that a precedent would be set and pointed out that all future applications would be considered on their own merits.

Mrs P Thompson addressed the Committee and spoke in objection to the scheme. She advised that she was grateful for the opportunity to attend the meeting as she lives adjacent to the site. She advised that she was representing 10 other objectors, including a couple who live directly opposite the site and were unable to attend the meeting. She pointed out to members that she thought that the proposal would be detrimental to neighbour amenity within the village. She also raised concern over the height of the building, the party wall, the narrow road and light pollution. It was also her view that should the application be approved, she would like to be assured that adequate screening would be conditioned. She also pointed out that the orientation of the house should be adjusted.

Mrs P Thompson spoke in objection to the proposal and expressed his concern over the proposed dwelling. It was his view that the proposed house would be damaging to the area.

Robert Kearley, the applicant, addressed the Committee. He explained to members that he had lived in Henstridge for a number of years and hoped build his own home in the village. He explained that he had consulted with his neighbours and the Parish Council and was now pleased with the final plans which had been submitted. He pointed out that the orientation of the house was in-line with others on the street. He advised members that he would be happy to comply with a landscaping condition.

Councillor William Wallace, Ward Member, sympathised with the concerns on the neighbours and understood their fears and questioned the proximity of the new dwelling to the boundary wall.

Councillor Tim Inglefield, also Ward Member, said that he had no concern of overlooking and that the design of the house was good and following a site visit he agreed with the case officer recommendation.

In the short discussion which followed, concern was raised over the landscaping and light pollution which would affect neighbouring properties.

It was proposed and seconded that the planning application would be approved as per the officer report, subject to additional conditions  ...  view the full minutes text for item 38.

Application proposal: Removal of condition 1 (occupancy) attached to 13/03252/S73A

The Planning Officer presented his report to members with the aid of a PowerPoint presentation. He explained that the application had been deferred from the May Area East Committee and explained that the applicant had provided the additional information which had been requested by members.

Following a short discussion, members were content that a business case had now been submitted.

It was proposed and seconded that the planning application be approved as per the officer recommendation.

On being put to the vote, this was carried 8 in favour, with 1 abstention.

RESOLVED: that planning permission be approved as per the officer recommendation.

Justification

The removal of the occupancy restriction is considered to be acceptable on the basis that it would make a positive contribution to the future of this important local business and would have no adverse planning impacts.

SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING

01.          Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), there shall be no extensions to this building, and no outbuildings or other structures erected within the residential curtilage without the prior express grant of planning permission.

Reason: To safeguard the character and appearance of the building to accord with Policy EQ2 of the South Somerset Local Plan.

(Voting: 8 in favour, 0 against and 1 abstention)

Application proposal: The continued use of Henstridge Airfield, for both recreational and business use subject to conditions and a 106 Agreement to cover that which cannot be lawfully conditioned against.

The Chairman welcomed Mr John Steel Q.C.

The Planning Solicitor reminded members that following the March meeting where conditions were looked at in detail, the matter had been deferred to allow the amendments to these conditions to be drafted by the officers and Q.C and are detailed in the officer report. It was also confirmed that members were unconstrained by their previous consideration of variations to restrictions, which were made subject to officers bringing forward an appropriate monitoring and enforcement regime. It was for the Committee to now decide whether the application along with the conditions and s106 agreement was acceptable taking into account what was considered at the previous meeting and what was said today.

The Area Lead Planning Officer (North/East) explained to members that this planning application was returning to Area East Committee for determination following the deferral of the application at the March meeting and continued to provide several updates to the officer report;

·         A letter had been received from Simon Hoare MP, North Dorset. He thought the previous report was well covered and urged the Committee to approve the levels included within the previous report.

·         A letter had been received from the Chairman of Fifehead Magdalen Parish meeting. They hoped a balance between the local and wider residents could be found and pointed out that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

·         A letter had been received from the Compton Abbas Airfield Chairman which challenged the way the operations of their airfield had been detailed.

The Area Lead (North/East) Planning Officer confirmed that there are safety reasons which mean aerobatic flying should occur directly above the airfield, to allow recording and observe and a safe place to land.

He also confirmed that the applicant would be happy to look at further restrictions on the 150 slots per year which has been proposed. He has suggested that these 150 slots could be restricted to no more than 8 per week, over no more than 4 days per week. This suggested change would mean that there would be 3 days per week where there would be no aerobatic flying.

It was pointed out that an aircraft, which was over the weight limit and oversized for the airfield, had landed at the airfield. This aircraft was a turbo-prop aircraft on which there were special circumstances which meant that this landed at the airfield.

The Planning Officer pointed out that the application, if approved, would allow restricted aerobatic flying and training, however would now be enforceable through a S106 agreement.

No new development on the site and no increase to opening hours were proposed, however an increase in base aircraft to 120 was proposed.

The Planning Officer suggested some amendments to proposed conditions which he thought would be necessary;

·         In relation to the 4^th point  ...  view the full minutes text for item 40.