Agenda, decisions and minutes

The item to be considered in closed session was withdrawn from the agenda.

This item was withdrawn from the agenda.

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the previous meeting held on Wednesday 12^th October 2016.

The minutes of the meeting held on Wednesday 12^th October 2016, copies of which had been circulated, were agreed by the Chairman, subject to an amendment to the minute for agenda item 12 (planning application 16/02353/OUT).

It was agreed that the minute should include the following wording;

Members expressed that this would be a huge asset to the village to allow local residents the opportunity to remain in that community and hoped that they should be given first priority.

Apologies were received from Councillor Anna Groskop and Councillor Sarah Dyke.

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 David Norris declared a personal and prejudicial interest in agenda item 12 as he was the Chairman of the Wincanton Sports Ground Trust. He would leave the room during discussion of the item.

Councillor Tim Inglefield declared a personal interest, non-prejudicial interest in agenda item 20 (planning application 16/02976/OUT) as he knew the applicant.

Councillor William Wallace declared a personal, non-prejudicial interest in agenda items 20 and 23 (planning applications 16/02976/OUT and 16/02788/FUL).

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

There were no questions from members of the public.

Questions/Comments from representations of Parish/Town Councils

There were no comments or questions from members of the Parish/Town Councils present.

Councillor Tim Inglefield advised members that he had attended an Abbas and Templecombe Parish Council meeting. Following this meeting, it was apparent there were issues with the approved appeal for a development at Slades Hill, Templecombe. He felt that the views of the Committee had been ignored by The Planning Inspectorate when agreeing the terms of the section 106 agreement.

Councillor Tony Capozzoli advised that a member of staff from the Area East Development Team had been awarded a SSDC Gold Star Award. He further advised that grants, such as the Retail Support Initiative, were open to applications that fit the criteria and that new applications were welcomed and encouraged.

Councillor Colin Winder questioned whether the Historic Buildings at Risk in Area East report needed to be discussed in closed session. The Assistant Director (communities) agreed to get clarification from the Conservation Manager.

Councillor Mike Lewis advised that the Heart of Wessex Local Action Group now had available funds for grant aid that could be used towards local business projects.

Members are asked to note that the next scheduled meeting of the committee will be at the Council Offices, Churchfield, Wincanton on Wednesday 7^th December at 9.00am.

Members noted that the next meeting of the Area East Committee would be held on Wednesday 7^th December 2016 at the Council Offices, Churchfields, Wincanton at 9am.

The Chairman made no announcements.

This report was deferred for further information on the project to be made available to Councillors.

The Community Support Assistant presented her report to members. She explained that The Red Lion was a prominent building on Market Place, Wincanton and had closed last year.  She further explained that the building was in a state of disrepair and that the frontage of the building was looking tired.

She advised members that the applicant had secured a 3 year lease of the property, however was subject to a 6 month break clause and was still being marketed as a freehold property.

The Neighbourhood Development Officer further explained to members that they would normally accept a minimum of 3 years lease in order to meet the criteria and that this application was close to the margins of the criteria. However, she did emphasise that this was a prominent building in Wincanton.

The Neighbourhood Development Officer and Community Support Assistant responded to questions from members.

During the discussion, members raised concern that the lease term was very short. If the building were to be sold to another party as it is still being marketed and the business ceases to trade, it may be impossible to reclaim funds back to the District Council, under the current claw back arrangements.

Following the discussion is was proposed and seconded that this application should be deferred to a later meeting of the Committee to allow legal advice to be sought on whether it would be possible to place a charge on the property to safeguard the grant in the event that the building is sold or the business fails.

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

RESOLVED: that the decision for an award for £1840.00, as a 50% contribution to The Red Lion, 3 Market Street, Wincanton be deferred to a later meeting of the Committee.

(Voting: Unanimous)

The Area Development Lead (East) presented his report to members. He explained to members that the demand study would be starting in the near future and that the asset transfer of the Market House was progressing well.

He pointed out that Community and Neighbourhood Plans had been a real focus of the last six months. There were 3 current plans which had now reached the draft stage and he pointed out that the Charlton Horethorne Community Plan had been formally endorsed at the last meeting of the Committee.

He also advised members that the team are continuing to support community hall projects.

He responded to questions from members.

During the discussion, it was suggested that the team look at other successful youth plans in other areas, which aren’t youth club based, to help develop other youth project ideas.

Members raised concern over the funding for the Wincanton Sports Ground Project. The Neighbourhood Development Officer confirmed that this was a project which the team were committed to providing.

Members also discussed Neighbourhood Plans and hoped that they would remain relevant and fit for purpose as the Local Plan is revised. The Area Development Lead agreed that it was a complicated and evolving situation which required a high level of consultation with the Planning Policy and Development Control teams, but discouraged communities from putting off developing a Neighbourhood Plan for this particular reason.

RESOLVED: Members noted the report.

RESOLVED: that the funding of £1800, from the Members Discretionary budget, be reallocated, subject to a contribution of 11% from WRT and also subject to the review being completed and delivered to the Council before the end of January 2017.

REASON:       To be reallocated for a governance review

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

The Area Development Lead (East) presented his report to members. He explained to members that the Wincanton Sports Ground was set up 13 years ago with the support and guidance from SSDC. He further advised that last year, funding was agreed to support the work and to generate further use of the sports ground. He informed members that the organisation does not have formal charity status and requires support to review the future management arrangements. He further explained that this review is critical following changes to business rate fees which are payable on the site.

Councillor David Norris explained the current management structure and explained the need for a review. He pointed out to members that the business rates for the Sports Ground are set to increase and that the work needed to be carried out urgently. He left the room during discussion of the item.

During the short discussion, it was pointed out that money had been awarded by SSDC to the Sports Ground before and that there were alternative means of raising money. However, members agreed that this funding was for a fundamental and crucial review.

Following the discussion, it was proposed and seconded that the funding of £1800, be reallocated to the governance review, subject to the review being completed and delivered to the Council before the end of January 2017.

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

RESOLVED: that the funding of £1800, from the Members Discretionary budget, be reallocated to the governance review, subject to a contribution of 11% from WRT and subject to the review being completed and delivered to the Council before the end of January 2017.

The Area Lead Officer (North/East) presented his report to the Committee. He explained that negotiations were being carried out with the airfield owner to finalise the detail of the S106 agreement, with the involvement of the Councils’ Senior Solicitor and Q.C Mr John Steel.

He advised that the latest draft S106 had been submitted to the airfield owner for his comments. He also advised that the management agreement was in a final form and that the airfield owner was seeking confirmation that the majority of the pilots that use the airfield would accept the terms of this agreement.

The Area Lead Officer was confident that the agreement would be signed before the end of the year.

The Chairman offered his thanks to the Area Lead Officer and to all others that have been involved.

Councillor Tim Inglefield, the Ward Member, also offered his thanks. He further suggested that it would helpful if a further review could be given to the Committee in January if the agreement had not been signed.

RESOLVED: that members noted the report and agreed that an update report would be included on the agenda for the January meeting of the Area East Committee.

The Assistant Director (Communities) added to the Forward Plan reference to the update report on the Henstridge Airfield S106 agreement on the agenda for the Area East Committee meeting in January. She further advised that the annual Countryside Service report would also be included on the agenda for the meeting in January.

It was hoped that the Historic Buildings at Risk in Area East report which had been withdrawn for the agenda this month, would be included on the agenda for the next month’s meeting of the Committee.

RESOLVED:  Members noted the Area East Forward Plan as attached to the agenda subject to the following amendments;

·         Historic Buildings at Risk – December

·         Henstridge Airfield S106 agreement update – January

·         Countryside Service update report - January

Members noted the planning appeals which had been received.

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

Application Proposal: Approval for reserved matters (appearance, landscaping, layout and design) following the approval of 14/01333/OUT (redevelopment and restoration of Lake View Quarry to provide 42 dwellinghouses, 1,000 sq. meters workspace for B1 use and associated community and recreation facilities.

The Area Lead Officer (North/East) presented his report to members. He advised that there had been an extensive dialogue with the applicant over the drainage of the site. He advised members that the drainage scheme now proposed differed from the indicative layout approved at outline planning stage. He pointed out that the amended drainage point is not currently where the water runs to and was concerned that the proposed scheme could be problematic.

He read out an e-mail which had been received from the Somerset County Council Flood Risk Team stating that they were unhappy with the proposed drainage system. The e-mail stated that they were doubtful that the proposed system would be successful due to little capacity for infiltration on the site and were concerned that the current proposal would not adequately address the potential increase in surface water runoff.

He suggested to members that the application should be deferred to allow the agent to provide adequate information in relation to the drainage of the site.

Councillor David Norris, Ward Member, agreed to the suggestion that the application be deferred to a later meeting.

Following the discussion, it was proposed and seconded that the planning application be deferred.

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

RESOLVED: that planning permission 16/01832/REM be deferred to allow further information to be provided to resolve drainage issues.

(Voting: Unanimous)

Application Proposal: Change of use of field no.5176 from agriculture to mixed use of land for agriculture and keeping of game birds and construction of access track

The Planning Officer presented his report to the Committee. He informed members that since writing the report, a further letter of objection had been received which raised concern over the height of the pens and concern that there were conflicting highway and staff details contained in the application form and highway statement.

He further advised that he had received some late plans from the applicant which detailed the sizes of the pens and their positioning on the site.

He informed members that should this application be approved, he suggested that conditions 2, 3 and 6 be amended to include the additional plan numbers which had been received on 31^st October and to include the words ‘with units no more than 1.5 meters in height’ on condition 2.

He also suggested an additional condition 7 which would identify the area in which the flat packed pens would be stored and an amendment to condition 4 which would further clarify the storage of the flat packed pens.

He explained that there were no objections from Natural England, the Environment Agency or the Landscape Architect since an additional plan showing an amended planting scheme had been provided. He also advised members that the SCC Highways did not consider that there would be a significant increase in traffic.

He advised that he had visited the site with the pens in situ and recommended that the application be approved.

Mrs Stainton, the Vice-Chairman of Brewham Parish Council spoke in objection to the proposal. She explained that the PC were concerned about how the different planning applications for the site had been handled and informed members that they would have been happier if all the applications for the site had been referred to Area East Committee for determination at the same time. She advised that the site was overdeveloped and situated on a country lane, which had no passing places and that traffic was a concern.

Mr Leay, a local resident, spoke in objection to the application. It was his view that this was not a suitable location for the proposal and raised concern that there was inconsistent information within the application in respect of staff numbers. He further pointed out that a full transport assessment was missing from the submission. Should the application be approved, he hoped that there would be a condition to control the hours of operation. He further raised concern over wet ground and the potential for disease and an increase in traffic.

Mr Clayton, the applicant, addressed the Committee. He informed members that he had begun trading on the site in 2011. He explained that Swanton Farm was a suitable location and that the farm had a fantastic reputation where he wanted to remain long-term. He pointed out that he provides employment in the area and that the first years rearing had  ...  view the full minutes text for item 119.

Application Proposal: Erection of food processing and packaging building, with new access and parking area and retention of existing building as offices.

The Planning Officer presented his report to members with the aid of a powerpoint presentation. He advised members that following the publication of his report, he now suggested a further condition 8 which would control the external lighting at the application site.

He explained that the application was for a building which would be used for food processing and packaging. He explained that the business was growing but that the application was not for an extension as other buildings would be demolished and recommended that the application be approved.

Dr Dinge, representing the Parish Council, spoke in objection to the planning application. He explained that a B2 use of the site would result in an increase in noise, smells and light pollution and could result in a terrible precedent for the village. He advised that South Barrow had no infrastructure, no school, bad roads, and slow internet. He further advised that there had been no local support for this application and that there are plenty of other sites which would be suitable.

Mrs J Chaudoir, Mrs J Cox, Mr S Chaudoir, Mr A Martin and Mr D Harrison spoke in objection to the application. Their comments included;

·         Buildings are dominant structures which impact the village.

·         Concern over future use of the building for commercial use

·         Site already has permission for 16 ‘glamping’ units and barn conversions which will increase traffic through the village.

·         Concern was raised over light pollution.

·         The business should move to a purpose built business park as the site is unsuitable.

·         Traffic is a major consideration. There are no street lights or footpaths and the road is used by school buses.

·         Road is unsuitable for large vehicles.

·         Permission was granted for a small start-up business only. Current activity is unlawful and the business is operating without permission.

·         The statement that says the site is beyond the 30mph speed limit is incorrect.

·         No benefit is provided to the village.

Mr N Forrest, the agent, addressed the Committee. He described this as a small enterprise which provided local employment. He explained that the planning application provided less total floor area than existing as existing buildings would be demolished. He further advised that lorries would be able to turn around on the site which would reduce existing problems with lorries manoeuvring in the road. He pointed out that the roof ridge had been lowered and the parking, trees and hedges had been identified and thought that the application was acceptable in planning terms.

Councillor Nick Weeks, the Ward Member, advised members that although he wanted to support local businesses, he felt that the roads were inadequate. He further advised that he did not want to see jobs lost or future traffic problems in the village.

Councillor Henry Hobhouse, also Ward Member, advised members that the applicant had done well to develop a successful business. However, he  ...  view the full minutes text for item 120.

Application Proposal: Outline application for the erection of a retirement bungalow with a new vehicular access onto Whitechurch Lane

The Planning Officer presented his report to members with the aid of a PowerPoint presentation. He informed members that a late letter of objection had been received from a local resident who had concerns over the access to the site.

He advised members that the application site was within the rural hamlet of Whitechurch and recommended that the application be refused.

Mr N Ball, who urgently had to leave the meeting before discussion of the item, left a short summary of his comments with the Chairman before he left, which were read out.  His comments included;

·         The applicant has enjoyed the view from Park House for many years and now seeks to deprive the villagers of this view.

·         Inappropriate rural location.

·         Will set a precedent for the adjoining paddock

Mr J Allen and Mr J Dyer spoke in objection to the application. Their comments included;

·         This is not an advantage for the village

·         A precedent could be set by allowing this application

·         Other land is available within the village

·         Concern raised over the consultation process

Mrs A Barton, Mrs Courtenay and Mrs E Archer spoke in support of the application. Their comments included;

·         The site is a small open site and is in the centre of the hamlet

·         The site is opposite a farm building and if the bungalow is built suitably to match, it would fit into the area.

·         It is not relevant that a view could be lost.

·         Applicant has resided in the village for a long time and wants to remain in the village that is familiar to her.

·         If designed correctly, the bungalow could be an advantage to the village.

·         This application is not for an offensive dwelling.

Mrs D Heath, the applicant, addressed the Committee. She advised members that she wished to remain in the village that she knows, alongside her close circle of friends. She pointed out that this was a small site and the dwelling would be single storey.

Mr M Williams, the planning agent, addressed the Committee. He advised members that the SSDC Local Plan supports downsize retirement bungalows and that the Parish Council had offered support to the proposal. He further advised that the single storey bungalow will relate well to existing properties and received no objections from Somerset County Highways.

Councillor Tim Inglefield, Ward Member, advised that Henstridge Parish Council offered support to the application.

Councillor William Wallace, also Ward Member, offered his support to the application and suggested that there were good reasons to grant approval. 

During discussion of the item, it was suggested that a condition to ensure that the bungalow could only be used by the applicant or as a retirement bungalow could be included. However, the Legal Services Manager suggested that this restriction would be unsuitable.

Following the discussion, it was proposed and seconded that the application be approved, contrary to the officer recommendation, subject to conditions  ...  view the full minutes text for item 121.

Application Proposal: Erection of a two storey extension at rear of property

The Planning Officer presented his report to members with the aid of a PowerPoint presentation. He advised members that the extension is to the rear of the property and cannot be seen from the surrounding conservation area. He advised members that he was recommending that the application be approved.

Mr Knight, representing the Parish Council, addressed the Committee. He pointed out to members that the extension was complete. He advised that the PC supported the earlier ‘L shape’ extension which complemented the adjoining cottage, however he was concerned that this was over-development of the site within the conservation area.

Mr G Fysh, representing his father who was the applicant, addressed the Committee. He explained that the property has suffered from damp problems and following the earlier extension, his father had seen this as an opportunity to add an extension which had the potential to be used as wheelchair access for his retired father. He pointed out that the extension was invisible from the road and local materials had been used.

Councillor Mike Beech, Ward Member, offered support to the application. However, he pointed out that this was a retrospective application for a site within a conservation area.

Following the short 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 unanimously.

RESOLVED:  that planning application 16/03866/FUL be approved as per the officer report, for the following reason, subject to conditions;

01.       The proposal by reason of its size, scale and materials, respects the character of the conservation area, and causes no demonstrable harm to residential amenity or highway safety in accordance with the aims and objectives of Policies TA5, TA6, EQ2 and EQ3 of the South Somerset Local Plan and the aims and provisions of the NPPF.

SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:

01.       The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 226.200.SS.X/P and 226.200.SL.P, 226.100.01PP, 226.100.02PP, and 226.100.03PP received 31 August 2016

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

02.       No further work shall be carried out on site unless details of the roof and wall materials have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such approved details, once carried out shall not be altered without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority.

            Reason: In order to ensure that the development accords with the character of the area in accordance with Policies EQ2 and EQ3 of the South Somerset Local Plan.

03.       No further work shall be carried out on site unless full details the new natural stonework walls, including the materials, coursing, bonding, mortar profile, colour, and texture along with a written detail of the mortar mix, have been be provided in writing; this shall be supported with a sample panel to be made available on site and approved in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 122.

Application Proposal: Application to vary condition 2 of planning permission 14/05472/FUL to require restoration of the land within 30 years of the permission rather than 25 years as originally permitted.

The Planning Officer presented his report to members with the aid of a PowerPoint presentation. He advised members that the application was to extend the time period of the approved solar farm from 25 to 30 years.

He emphasised that this increase to the time period was the only change to the approved application and that the application had been referred to the Committee in line with the scheme of delegation, as the application was considered to be a ‘major major’ planning application.

Councillor Colin Winder, the Ward Member, spoke in support of the application.

Councillor Nick Colbert, also Ward Member, spoke in support of the application.

Following the short discussion, it was proposed and seconded that the planning application be approved as per the officer’s report. On being put to the vote, this was carried unanimously.

RESOLVED: that planning application 16/03675/S75A be approved as per the officer report for the following reason;

01.       The benefits in terms of the provision of a renewable source of energy, which will make a valuable contribution towards cutting greenhouse gas emissions, outweigh the limited impact originally envisaged of the proposed PV panels on the local landscape character. As such the proposal accords with the Government's objective to encourage the provision of renewable energy sources and the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework, and Policies SD1, EQ1 and EQ2 of the South Somerset Local Plan 2006- 2028.

SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING:

01.       Notwithstanding the time limits given to implement planning permission as prescribed by Sections 91 and 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended), this permission (being granted under section 73A of the Act in respect of development already carried out) shall have effect from the 12 March 2015.

Reason:  To comply with Section 73A of the Act.

02.       The development hereby permitted shall be removed and the land restored to its former condition within 30 years of the date of this permission or within 6 months of the cessation of the use of the solar farm for the generation of electricity, whichever is the sooner, in accordance with a restoration plan to be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The restoration plan will need to include all the works necessary to revert the site to open agricultural land including the removal of all the structures, materials and any ancillary equipment which shall be removed from the site.

            Reason: In the interests of character and appearance further to policy EQ2 of the South Somerset Local Plan 2006- 2028.

03.       Details of the consolidated and surfaced access shall accord with those agreed in the council's letter of 22.12.2015 (ref: 14/05472/FUL) to be maintained at all times for the life of the development.

            Reason: In the interests of highway  ...  view the full minutes text for item 123.

Application Proposal: Erect treehouse around an oak tree for ancillary residential use in connection with Little Cheriton House or for holiday letting purposes.

(Having earlier declared a personal interest in the application, Councillor William Wallace agreed that he would abstain from voting)

The Planning Officer presented his report to members with the aid of a PowerPoint presentation.

He explained that the structure stood on the ground and was not supported by the tree. He further advised that the position of this treehouse was in the middle of a field and he felt this to be inappropriate. He therefore recommended that this planning application be refused.

Mrs J Montgomery, the Planning Agent, addressed the Committee. She advised members that no objections had been received, including from the SSDC Tree Officer and advised that the treehouse was in a discreet location. She further advised that the treehouse would be bespoke tourist accommodation and would bring economic benefits to the local area. She felt that there was a good demand for this facility which was supported by the local pub and the Parish Council.

Councillor William Wallace, Ward Member, agreed that local amenities such as shops would benefit.

Councillor Tim Inglefield, also Ward Member, spoke in support of the application. He pointed out that the tree is hidden in a valley and that the track, which also cannot be seen, it already there.

During the discussion, it was suggested that should the application be approved, it should be conditioned for holiday use only and that should the tree die or be removed, that the structure would also be removed.

Following the discussion, it was proposed and seconded that the planning application be approved, contrary to the officer recommendation.

On being put to the vote, this was carried 6 in favour with 1 abstention.

RESOLVED:  that planning application 16/02788/FUL be approved, contrary to the officer recommendation for the following reason and subject to the following conditions;

01.       The proposal would provide an additional unit of holiday accommodation to the benefit of the rural economy without adverse impact on the character of the locality or highways safety. As such the proposal complies with policies EP8, TA5 and EQ2 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 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 plans: 07181-17; Plans and Sections; Elevations A-A, B-B, C-C and D-D; and Proposed Parkland Planting received 27 June 2016.

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

03.       The occupation of the holiday accommodation hereby permitted shall be restricted to bona fide holiday makers for individual periods not exceeding 4 weeks in total in any  ...  view the full minutes text for item 124.

Application Proposal: Application to discharge section 106 agreement 02/00896/FUL (agricultural tie) dated 18^th December 2002

The Planning Officer presented his report to members with the aid of a PowerPoint presentation. He explained that the application was for the discharge of a S106 which ties the land to the dwelling. He explained that it was his recommendation that the application be approved. 

Mr N Forrest, the Planning Agent, addressed the Committee. He explained that the application was to discharge a S106 agreement which had been in place since approval was given for an agricultural dwelling in 2002. He explained that there were no current plans for the applicant to seek removal of the agricultural occupancy condition on the dwelling.  He pointed out that following policy changes, it is now unreasonable for these ties to be added to permissions and requested that the application be approved.

Councillor William Wallace, Ward Member, pointed out that the Parish Council had objected to the application.

Councillor Tim Inglefield, also Ward Member, informed members that the Parish Council were concerned about the future of the land and buildings. He offered his support to the application.

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

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

RESOLVED:  that planning obligation 16/02150/DPO be discharged as per the officer recommendation as detailed in the agenda report.

(Voting: unanimous)