Agenda, decisions and minutes

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

The minutes of the previous meeting held on Wednesday 14^th September, copies of which had been circulated, were agreed and signed by the Chairman.

Councillor Tim Inglefield pointed out that he had not seen details of the police prosecutions which were discussed at the previous meeting. He had hoped that these would have been included within the minutes. The Assistant Director (Communities) advised that she now had this information and that this would be circulated to the members of the Committee.

An apology of absence was received from Councillor William Wallace.

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, 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 Nick Colbert declared a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in Agenda Item 22 – Planning Application 16/03458/OUT – as his wife and himself were the applicant and advised that he would leave the room during discussion on the item.

Councillor Mike Beech declared a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in Agenda Item 23 – Planning Application 16/03265/LBC – as the applicant was his partner and advised that he would leave the room during discussion of the item.

Councillors Mike Lewis and Anna Groskop, 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 the cost or to the financial disadvantage of SSDC.

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.

Questions/Comments from members of the public

Julia Wilde addressed the Committee and introduced herself as the new Community Relations Officer for RNAS Yeovilton. She explained that she would be happy to help deal with any issues/problems which local residents were experiencing with RNAS Yeovilton. She provided her contact telephone number on which she could be contacted, which was 01935 455226.

Questions/Comments from representatives of parish/town councils

There were no comments or questions from members of the public present.

Councillor Colin Winder expressed his upset that two planning appeals for sites in Castle Cary were being considered at one combined appeal inquiry by The Planning Inspectorate. It was his view that the local residents are being disadvantaged and that the Committee had dealt with the two applications separately and that the planning inspector should have dealt with them in the same way. Cllr Hobhouse agreed with Cllr Winder that there were concerns about the way that the appeals system is operating and this is a wider issue affecting other small market towns. Members agreed that a letter should be sent to the Secretary of State detailing the member’s concern.

The Assistant Director (Communities) agreed to draft a letter expressing the concern of the Committee.

Councillor Colin Winder also raised concern over possible flooding at Verrington Lane where approval had been given for 9 bungalows. He had hoped that the Environment Agency and the various authorities could meet to look at drainage issues.

He also raised the possibility of looking at the development of a train station in Sparkford following an announcement that additional funding had been made available for new stations. The Assistant Director (Communities) agreed to follow up this enquiry.

Councillor Nick Weeks advised members that he had attended a SWAMP meeting in Bridgwater. He advised that a new board had been set up at SCC to advise the LPAs on flooding issues round planning applications, as County were apparently the lead flood authority. He understood that some SRA money was being used and that up until this time no contact or discussions had taken place between SSDC’s planning department and the new board, which was a concern to the Chairman.

Councillor Henry Hobhouse advised that the Lovington/Alford flood plain was being reviewed. 

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 November at 9.00am.

Members noted that the next meeting of the Area East Committee would be held on Wednesday 9^th November 2016 at the Council Offices, Churchfields, Wincanton at 9am.

The Chairman advised the District Executive Committee had approved a protocol for funding economic feasibility studies where there is ‘in principle’ support. He further advised that the Council’s Economic Development Team were liaising with landowners to better understand the issues associated with bringing forward the Wincanton Business Park extension.   

He informed members that the newly appointed Chief Executive Officer will be attending the next Area East Committee meeting on 9^th November at 9am.

He also asked members to let him know if they had any suggestions for a venue to hold the Area East Committee Christmas lunchtime meal in December.

RESOLVED: that the Charlton Horethorne Community Plan formally endorses by the Committee.

REASON: To present a summary of the findings and actions from the Charlton Horethorne Parish Plan and to ask members of Area East Committee to formally endorse the Plan.

The Area Team Lead (East) presented his report to members. He advised members that the Area Development team had been involved to offer advice and support; however gave his praise to the very committed group from Charlton Horethorne who had delivered the plan.

He explained that the Community Plan covered land use and broader issues and had been developed with good engagement from the local residents and the Parish Council. He further advised that the Parish Council had adopted the document and although it held no statutory weight, it would be used by the PC when considering planning application consultation responses.

Mr Geoff McHugh, a representative of the steering group addressed the Committee. He explained to members that following a meeting in the village last August, a steering group had been set up to develop the Community Plan. He explained that a questionnaire had been sent to all homes within the parish, which included questions about the school and the church and that 60% of these were returned completed.

He thanked South Somerset District Council for the grant which had been awarded towards development of the plan and thanked the Ward Members and the Area Development Team for their help and support.

Following the discussion, it was proposed and seconded that the Charlton Horethorne Community Plan be endorsed by the Committee.

On being put to the vote, this was carried unanimously.

Councillor Anna Groskop congratulated the group and expressed her hope that this would be fully considered by the planning department when considering planning applications within Charlton Horethorne.

The Area Development Lead Officer (East) confirmed that the document would be circulated to the planning department and that it was hoped that the Parish Council would refer to it when providing planning application consultation responses.

RESOLVED:              that the Charlton Horethorne Community Plan be endorsed by the Committee.

(Voting: Unanimous)

The Assistant Director (Communities) addressed the Committee. She advised that the agenda for the November meeting of Area East Committee was rather heavy and suggested that some items of discussion may be moved to the December agenda.

She also advised that the Welfare Safety annual report scheduled for the March meeting should read “Welfare Benefits Service”.

She further pointed out that a workshop would be arranged to discuss S106 agreements.

RESOLVED:              that the Area East Forward Plan be noted as outlined in the agenda subject to the amendments.

Members noted the Community Right to Bid nomination for the Former Countess Gytha Primary School Site in Queen Camel.

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

Application Proposal: Outline application for the development of 8 dwellings with all matters reserved, except access

The Planning Officer presented his report to members with the aid of a PowerPoint presentation which included photographs and plans. He advised members that he thought the development of the houses on this site would remove the separation of the village of Charlton Adam to the hamlet of Broadway. He explained that it was his recommendation that the application be refused.

Lilian Elson, a representative of the CPRE, spoke in objection to the application. She explained that the development was contrary to the SSDC Local Plan and was out of character for the surrounding area.

Mr Ambler spoke in objection to the application. He explained to the Committee that he lived next door to the site. He explained that the photos showing the infill of the old quarry were mis-leading and that the amount of infill is in fact very small. He also expressed his concern that the development could cause flooding.

Mrs Hodges, Mrs Stratton, Mrs Hamm and Mr Adams spoke in support of the application. Their comments included;

·         Broadway had never been considered as a separate hamlet

·         There is a need for housing in the village

·         These homes will be ideal starter home for young families

·         Yeovilton is expanding and more homes are required

·         The homes would support the school and the pub

·         The site is located within easy reach of the A37 and A303

·         These homes will enhance the village

·         These homes would allow families to downsize homes and stay in the village

·         The development is described as a ‘ribbon development’. Existing houses in the area could be described as the same

·         The development is not out of character

Shaun Travers, the planning agent, addressed the Committee. He advised members that the site contained 3 affordable homes and had one discreet access. He suggested that the linear design of development matched the existing design in the area and that there is a housing need in the area. He hoped that members would approve the small addition to the village and pointed out that the applicant had agreed to a financial contribution towards sports, arts and leisure facilities for the local community.

Councillor David Norris, Ward Member, explained to members that this application had generated a lot of interest within the village. He described the site as a treasured open space and suggested that the proposal wasn’t sensitive to the environment and that the development had a higher density when compared to the surrounding existing developments. He pointed out that The Charlton’s were in the process of creating a Community Plan which may demonstrate a housing need and further advised that there were less sensitive areas in the village.  He informed members that the Parish Council had objected to the scheme and recommended that the application be refused.

On discussion of the item, members pointed out that there was a lot of support from the local residents who had attended the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 90.

Application Proposal: Outline planning application for residential development consisting of 3 dwellings, with all matters reserved, except for means of access

The Planning Officer presented his report to members with the aid of a PowerPoint presentation. He explained that planning applications had previously been refused on the site, however this application had a significant reduction in the number of houses, which was now for 3 dwellings. He advised that he had received no objection from the SCC Highways department. He advised the Committee that is was his recommendation that the application be approved.

Ms Hodder, Mrs Redman, Mr Briggs, Mrs Hocking and Mrs Elson spoke in objection to the application. Their comments included;

·         Planning applications have been consistently refused on this site due to problems with the access.

·         The access to the site is a 90 degree turn from the existing close.

·         A site visit should be undertaken.

·         The access will have a direct impact on the residents of numbers 4 and 5 Higher Kingsbury Close.

·         Cars will be accessing the site by driving very close to the corner of the house at 5 Higher Kingsbury Close, which would be dangerous.

·         Refuse bins might be stored close to existing properties if large refuse vehicles are unable to access the new site.

·         The new access will result in a loss of privacy to numbers 4 and 5 Higher Kingsbury Close.

·         The new homes will not enhance the village.

·         Application is contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework.

·         The extra load on the utilities could overload the system.

·         Large vehicles will have to reverse into the site.

Councillor Sarah Dyke, Ward Member expressed her concern and reservations over the application. It was her view that more houses on the land could be more beneficial and that the land had more to offer than 3 large dwellings. She also explained to members that she had concerns over the access and the vehicular noise which would result in a significant disturbance to residents of Higher Kingsbury Close. She suggested that the application be deferred to allow a site visit to be undertaken.

Following the discussion, it was proposed and seconded that planning application 16/02370/OUT be deferred to a future meeting of Area East Committee to allow a site visit to a take place. On being put to the vote, the proposal was lost 2 votes in favour and 7 against.

Members raised concern over the design and the access to the site. It was suggested that a turning area within the development would be welcomed as well as additional parking for existing residents.

Following the further discussion, it was proposed and seconded that the application be approved as per the Planning Officer’s recommendation, subject to an additional condition for the applicant to provide details of the refuse storage areas which would need to be agreed by the Local Planning Authority and an additional informant which requested additional car parking on site for existing residents of Higher Kingsbury Close.  On being put to the vote,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 91.

Application Proposal: Outline application for the erection of a single storey dwelling and formation of access

The Planning Officer presented his report to members with the aid of a PowerPoint presentation. He explained that this was an outline planning application and that this was an application for a modest bungalow. He further explained that the SSDC Highway consultant considered that a safe access could be achieved. He recommended that the application be approved.

Mr John Knight, a representative of the Parish Council, addressed the Committee. He spoke in objection to the application. He explained to members that it was the view of the Parish Council that this would be over-development of the site, which would leave minimal garden space and the access would be dangerous. He further explained that a Parish Plan, which had been endorsed by the Committee, failed to highlight a requirement for housing. He pointed out that there had been no support from the local community.

Mr Currie and Mrs Hurstwaite spoke in objection to the application. Their comments included;

·         Severe concerns have been raised by the Parish Council.

·         The lane is dangerous, only 3 meters wide and steep in parts.

·         Vehicles enter the lane at excessive speed

·         There is no turning point for large vehicles

·         Hedgerows and bushes will need to be removed.

·         There is a well-established walnut tree which could be damaged.

·         This is garden grabbing and will be out of keeping with the area.

·         There will be loss of light and an increased risk of flooding

·         The road is frequently used by walkers and school children.

·         There is no benefit to local residents

Mike Williams, the planning agent, addressed the Committee. He advised members that the site was surrounded by modern properties and that the planning officer had a robust reason for approval and that there were no technical reasons to refuse the planning application. He further advised that the council did not have a 5 year land supply and that dwellings in sustainable locations should be favoured. It was his view that this was a modest dwelling, outside of a conservation area which would not look out of place. He hoped that the Committee would approve the application.

Councillor Mike Beech, Ward Member, explained that the site and the access were on a very narrow single lane road which was used as a route to a school.  He pointed out that the proposed dwelling would have very little garden area and felt that this was over development of the site. He expressed his concern over the access, highway safety and the walnut tree.

During the discussion, members were concerned over the access to the site and it was suggested that this site was inappropriate for a dwelling and that the site would be overdeveloped and cramped.

The Development Manager clarified that the access itself does not require planning permission.

Following the discussion, it was proposed and seconded that the planning application be refused, contrary to the Planning Officer’s recommendation. On being put to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 92.

Application Proposal: Outline application, with some matters reserved, for residential development, associated landscaping, cycleway and footpath links and new vehicular access

The Planning Officer presented his report to members with the aid of a PowerPoint presentation. He explained that the site had been allocated within the Local Plan and secured through a legal agreement, as a site for a new primary school. He further advised that the developer was offering to transfer an existing plot of land adjacent to the existing school to Somerset County Council, if they will agree to release the existing application site from the obligation. This was considered to be of considerable planning benefit. 

However, he further advised that the developer does not consider the financial obligations which have been requested to be viable. The developer has provided a viability assessment, which had been passed to the District Valuer (DV), however the DV was unable to agree with the developers assessment. He therefore recommended that the planning application be refused.

He provided members with an update to the report. The report detailed that the DV’s assessment of the site had concluded, in his draft response, that the developer could afford 35% affordable housing on the development. On receipt of a final copy of this assessment, this figure has now been replaced with 20%.

The SSDC Development Valuer addressed the Committee. She informed members that this was a complex site and unique situation, which in reality involved and linked two sites, at the request of changing the location of the school from Somerset County Council. She explained that the developer had submitted a viability assessment which that showed the financial requests were not viable to the developer and explained that the District Valuer had carried out a similar assessment and considered the financial requests to be reasonable. As, in the opinion and interpretation of the DV, some of the costs applied by the developer were too remote from the site in question or considered to be ‘double counting’ and therefore the DV excluded these costs in their assessment of viability. She explained that the DV stated that the developer could afford the 20% affordable housing request as well as other S106 contributions which have been requested; however different valuers could interpret costs differently under the formal RICS Guidance, particularly in such a complex case.

The Development Control Manager clarified that should the application be approved, the developer would not be making any financial contributions or providing affordable homes on the development.

Mr R Tudgay, representing the Town Council, addressed the Committee. He explained to members that the Town Council support the application and hoped that approval could be given without delay.

Mr D Farrow, representing Somerset County Council and the existing Wincanton Primary School, addressed the Committee. He spoke in support of the application. He described the school as a good school, which was rapidly growing in numbers. He advised members that the staff at the school were working hard to ensure that the lack  ...  view the full minutes text for item 93.

Application Proposal: Refurbishment of the restaurant including extensions (totalling 9.7 sqm) with alterations to the elevations, including new cladding to roof and new drive thru booths. Reconfiguration of the drive thru lane to accommodate the introduction of side by side ordering with a new signage island and associated works to the site. Installation of 2 no. customer order displays with overhead canopies, a goal post height restrictor and new fascia signage. OPTION A.

The Planning Officer presented her report to members with the aid of a PowerPoint presentation. She explained that there were two additional planning applications which were being considered by the Committee. She further explained that a site meeting had been arranged and had been attended by most of members of the Committee.

It was agreed that planning applications 16/02910/ADV and 16/02913/ADV would be considered by the Committee at the same time.

Councillor Mike Lewis, Ward Member, thanked the members of the Committee that had attended the site visit. He sought clarification from the Planning Officer that the application included no further illuminated signage on the building. The Planning Officer confirmed that there would be one additional illuminated sign on the building and any additional illuminated signage would be within the site, at a low level and not on the building.

During the discussion, concern was raised over the parking on the site and litter around the site. Concern was also raised about the planting around the site boundary which acted as a screen to adjoining properties.

Following the discussion, it was proposed and seconded that the planning application be approved as per the officer’s recommendation, subject to an additional informative to recommend additional hedgerows/planting around the boundary of the site.

On being put to the vote, this was carried unanimously.

RESOLVED:              that planning permission 16/02909/FUL be approved as detailed in the officer’s report subject to additional informative, for the following reason;

01.          The proposal maintains the visual character of the area and causes no

demonstrable harm to residential amenity or highway safety in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework and policies EQ2, EQ7 and TA6 of the South Somerset Local Plan (2006-2028).

SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:

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 not be carried out otherwise than in complete accordance with the details received on 05 July 2016 and submitted plans numbered;

a.         Location Plan, Drawing No. 6632_AEW_1009_0001

b.         Block Plan, Drawing No. 6632_AEW_1009_0002

c.         Amended Existing Site Plan, Drawing No. 6632_AEW_1009_0003 RevC

d.         Amended proposed Site Plan, Drawing No. 6632_AEW_1009_0004 RevC

e.         Amended proposed elevation drawing No. 6632_AEW_1009_0005 RevB

f.          COD Canopy, Butterfield Signs, Sign Type 8

g.         Goal post height restrictor, Butterfield Signs

Reason: In the interests of proper planning and for the avoidance of doubt.

Informatives:

01.       The applicant's  ...  view the full minutes text for item 94.

Application Proposal: Installation of 4 no. new fascia signs with the relocation of 3 no. existing fascia signs

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

On being put to the vote, this was carried unanimously.

RESOLVED:              that planning permission 16/02910/ADV be approved as detailed in the officer’s report the following reason;

01.       The proposal, due to the siting, form, materials and design of the fascia signs,

would not adversely affect residential amenity or highway safety in accordance with the aims and objectives of Policy EQ2 of the South Somerset Local Plan (2006-2028) and the National Planning Policy Framework.

SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:

01.       (a) All advertisements displayed and any land used for the display of

advertisements shall be maintained in a clean and tidy condition to the reasonable satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

(b) Any hoarding or similar structure or any sign, placard, board or device erected or used principally for the purpose of displaying advertisements shall be maintained in a safe condition to the reasonable satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

(c) Where any advertisement is required under these Regulations to be removed, the removal thereof shall be carried out to the reasonable satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

(d) Before any advertisement is displayed on land in accordance with the consent now granted, the permission of the owner of that land, or of a person entitled to grant such permission, shall be obtained.

(e) The consent now granted is limited to a period of five years from the date hereof.

Reason: To accord with The Town and Country Planning (Control of

Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007

02.       The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out otherwise than in complete accordance with the details received on 05 July 2016 and submitted plans numbered;

a. Location Plan, Drawing No. 6632_AEW_1009_0001

b. Block Plan, Drawing No. 6632_AEW_1009_0002

c. Amended Existing Site Plan, Drawing No. 6632_AEW_1009_0003 RevB

d. Amended proposed Site Plan, Drawing No. 6632_AEW_1009_0004 RevB

e. Amended Existing and Proposed Elevations 6632_AEW_1009_0005 RevB

Reason: In the interests of proper planning and for the avoidance of doubt.

(Voting: unanimous)

Application Proposal: Installation of 8 no. freestanding signs, 1 no. side by side directional sign and 2 no. banner units

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

On being put to the vote, this was carried unanimously.

RESOLVED:              that planning permission 16/02913/ADV be approved as detailed in the officer’s report, the following reason;

01.       The proposal, due to the siting, form, materials and design of the signs, would not adversely affect residential amenity or highway safety in accordance with the aims and objectives of Policy EQ2 of the South Somerset Local Plan (2006-2028) and the National Planning Policy Framework.

SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:

01.           (a) All advertisements displayed and any land used for the display of advertisements shall be maintained in a clean and tidy condition to the reasonable satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

(b) Any hoarding or similar structure or any sign, placard, board or device erected or used principally for the purpose of displaying advertisements shall be maintained in a safe condition to the reasonable satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

(c) Where any advertisement is required under these Regulations to be removed, the removal thereof shall be carried out to the reasonable satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

(d) Before any advertisement is displayed on land in accordance with the consent now granted, the permission of the owner of that land, or of a person entitled to grant such permission, shall be obtained.

(e) The consent now granted is limited to a period of five years from the date hereof.

Reason: To accord with The Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007

02.       The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out otherwise than in complete accordance with the details received on 05 July 2016 and submitted plans numbered;

a. Location Plan, Drawing No. 6632_AEW_1009_0001

b. Proposed Site Plan, Drawing No. 6632_AEW_1009_0008

c. Totem 4 2 Bay, Butterfield Signs

d. Totem 3 Pre Sell Boards, Butterfield Signs

e. Side by Side Lane Sign, Butterfield Signs

f. Directional Sign, Butterfield Signs

g. New Double Sided Banner Unit, Butterfield Signs

Reason: In the interests of proper planning and for the avoidance of doubt.

(Voting: unanimous)

Application Proposal: Section 73 application to vary conditions 1 & 4 of approval 11/03159/FUL, to allow for an increase in permitted retail sales area

The Planning Officer presented his report to members with the aid of a PowerPoint presentation. He explained that the application had been referred to the September meeting where it had been resolved to defer the decision to allow further information to be requested on the impact of the existing store on the High Street.

He advised that that a unilateral undertaking had now been agreed which ensured that the Boots store on the High Street would remain for a minimum of five years.

Following the short discussion, it was proposed and seconded to approve the planning application, as per the officer’s recommendation.

On being put to the vote, this was carried unanimously.

RESOLVED:              that planning application 16/02971/S73 be approved as detailed in the officer’s report, subject to a s106 agreement, for the following reason;

01.       The proposed medical centre and pharmacy would be of an appropriate scale, with a suitable design and layout, parking and access arrangements, that would not be prejudicial to visual amenity, the character of the locality or highways safety. It is considered that it has been demonstrated that the provision of a pharmacy within the medical centre, which would meet a specified need, would not be prejudicial to the vitality and viability of the town centre. Safeguarding conditions could reasonably ensure that the pharmacy would be restricted to ensure that it caters for the demonstrated need. As such the proposal complies with policies SD1, EP9, EP11, EP12, EP14, EQ2, TA5 and TA6 of the South Somerset Local Plan 2006 - 2028 and the policies contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.

SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:

01.       The development shall carried out generally in accordance with the previous approved plans, namely plans 06010 50A;06010 51; 06010 52A; 06010 53A; 06010 54B; 06010 55A; 06010 56A; and 06010 57. With regard to the ground floor pharmacy drawing 06010 51 shall be superseded, in part, by drawing titled Planning Application (drawing number 1309/C215742/GF received 07/07/16 as set out by condition 4 below.

Reason: To define the development hereby approved.

02.       The sales area hereby approved shall remain as a pharmacy and for no other retail use within use class A1 of the Use Classes Order 1995 (as amended).

Reason: To ensure that the pharmacy meets the need identified and to safeguard the vitality and viability of the town centre in accordance with policies EP11 and EP14 of the South Somerset Local Plan 2006 - 2028.

03.       The goods and services to provided by the pharmacy hereby approved shall be limited to those specified on the "restricted list of pharmacy products and services to the public" provided as Appendix 1 attached to this permission.

Reason: To ensure that the pharmacy meets the need identified and to safeguard the vitality and viability of the town centre in accordance with policies EP11 and EP14 of the South  ...  view the full minutes text for item 97.

Application Proposal: Refurbishment of free-standing outbuilding to create an annexe to house (guest bedroom and living space) (revised application)

The Planning Officer introduced her report and with the aid of slides and photographs, summarised the details of the application.

She advised that the application had been referred to the September meeting of the Committee and had been deferred to a later Committee to allow clarification of the proposed roof materials. She further advised that the applicant would be using natural slate rather than tin which was originally proposed.

Councillor Anna Groskop, Ward Member thanked the applicant for amending the roof materials.

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

On being put to the vote, this was carried unanimously.

RESOLVED:              that planning application 16/02374/FUL be approved as per the officer’s recommendation for the following reason:

01.       The proposal, by reason of its size, scale and materials, respects the character of the area, and causes no demonstrable harm to residential amenity.  It also preserves the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and setting of the Listed Building in accordance with the aims and objectives of policies EQ2 and EQ3 of the South Somerset Local Plan (2006-2028).

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.       No work shall be carried out on site to any external roofs unless particulars of the materials to be used, including a sample, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

            Reason: To safeguard the significance of the heritage asset, in accordance with the provisions of chapter 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework and policy EQ3 of the South Somerset Local Plan (2006-2028).

03.       No work shall be carried out to fit the roof lights unless details of the units have been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Unless otherwise agreed in writing, the roof lights shall be top hung and flush with the roof covering. Such approved details once carried out shall not be altered without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority.

            Reason: To safeguard the significance of the heritage asset, in accordance with the provisions of chapter 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework and policy EQ3 of the South Somerset Local Plan (2006-2028).

04.       No work shall be carried out to fit any doors, windows, boarding or other external opening unless details of the design, materials and external finish of these elements have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This will include detailed drawings including sections of at least 1:5. Such approved details, once carried out shall not be altered without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority.

                        Reason: To  ...  view the full minutes text for item 98.

Application Proposal: Refurbishment of free-standing outbuilding to create an annexe to house (guest bedroom and living space) (revised application)

On being put to the vote, this was carried unanimously.

RESOLVED:  that planning application 16/02567/LBC for listed building consent be granted for the following reason:

01.       The proposal by reason of its size, scale, design, materials and position, and its limited/informed intervention into the historic fabric of this listed building, is considered to respect the historic and architectural interests of the building and is in accordance with policy EQ3 of the South Somerset Local Plan (2006-2028), and the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework.

SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING:

01.       The works hereby granted consent shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this consent.

            Reason:  As required by Section 16(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

02.       No work shall be carried out on site to any external roofs unless particulars of the materials to be used, including a sample, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

            Reason: To safeguard the significance of the heritage asset, in accordance with the provisions of chapter 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework and policy EQ3 of the South Somerset Local Plan (2006-2028).

03.       No work shall be carried out to fit the roof lights unless details of the units have been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Unless otherwise agreed in writing, the roof lights shall be top hung and flush with the roof covering. Such approved details once carried out shall not be altered without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority.

            Reason: To safeguard the significance of the heritage asset, in accordance with the provisions of chapter 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework and policy EQ3 of the South Somerset Local Plan (2006-2028).

04.       No work shall be carried out to fit any doors, windows, boarding or other external opening unless details of the design, materials and external finish of these elements have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This will include detailed drawings including sections of at least 1:5. Such approved details, once carried out shall not be altered without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority.

            Reason: To safeguard the significance of the heritage asset, in accordance with the provisions of chapter 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework and policy EQ3 of the South Somerset Local Plan (2006-2028).

05.       No work shall be carried out on site unless particulars of the materials (including the provision of a sample panel) to be used for external walls  have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

            Reason: in the interests of the special architectural and historic interests of the listed building

06.       No work shall be carried out to fit any new WCs, Bathrooms, Kitchens or Utility rooms unless details of all new  ...  view the full minutes text for item 99.

Application Proposal: The erection of a bungalow

(Having earlier declared a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest (DPI) in the application, Councillor Colbert left the room during consideration of the item)

The Planning Officer presented his report to members with the aid of a powerpoint presentation. It was his recommendation that the planning application be refused. He advised that this was an outline application within flood zones 2 and 3 and that the Environment Agency had objected to the planning application.

Councillor Colin Winder, Ward Member, spoke in support of the application. He advised members that he had never known the site to flood and thought that the flood zone maps were out of date.

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

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

RESOLVED:  that planning application 16/03458/OUT be refused as detailed in the officer’s report for the following reasons;

01.       The proposed dwelling would be located within Flood Zones 2 and 3 where residential development that would result in people and property being at risk from flooding and is only acceptable in exceptional circumstances. No such circumstances have been demonstrated and furthermore it has not been demonstrated that, sequentially, there are no other suitable sites available that would not be at risk of flooding. Accordingly the proposal is considered to fail the required Sequential Test and in these respects, the proposal is contrary to the aims and objectives of the NPPF (in particular paragraphs 14, 55, 100 and 101), and Policy EQ1 of the South Somerset Local Plan.

02.       It has not been adequately demonstrated that a safe and efficient means of access to the site can be achieved, contrary to policy TA5 of the South Somerset Local Plan.

(Voting: 5 votes in favour and 1 against)

Application Proposal: Removal of old mixed tiles on kitchen roof and replacement with natural grey slate tiles to match existing ones, insertion of two roof lights to north east roof elevation (over kitchen) and internal alterations to kitchen ceiling

The Planning Officer presented her report to the Committee.

Following a short discussion, it was noted that the application was only before the Committee because of the relationship of the applicant with a District Councillor. It was proposed and seconded that listed building consent be approved, subject to the conditions as detailed in the officer report.

On being put to the vote, this was carried unanimously.

RESOLVED:  that planning application no. 16/03265/LBC for listed building consent be granted for the following reason:

01.         The proposal, by reason of its materials and design, respects the character of the area and causes no demonstrable harm to the Historic Environment in general accordance with the aims and objectives of policy EQ3 of the South Somerset Local Plan (2006-2028) and the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012).

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.         No work shall be carried out on site to the roof unless particulars of the materials (including the provision of samples where appropriate) to be used for re-roofing have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such particulars will include the detailed finish (rough sawn, hand tooled, etc.) Slate hooks shall not be used.

Reason: In the interests of the special architectural and historic interests of the listed building in accordance with Policy EQ3 of the South Somerset Local Plan.

03.         The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Details and drawings received on 26 July 2016, 01 August 2016 and 04 August 2016.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

(Voting: Unanimous)