Agenda, decisions and minutes

RESOLVED:  that the following agenda items 2 and 3 be considered in Closed Session by virtue of the Local Government Act 1972, Schedule 12A under Paragraph 3: “Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information).” 

The Conservation Officer, with the aid of photographs, detailed a number of examples of case work relating specifically to historic buildings at risk in Area East.

He explained that the item would be discussed in confidential session due to the complex financial and personal issues which relate to the owners of the properties. He further explained that items on the risk register and pre-application discussions would need to remain confidential. 

The Conservation Officer responded to members’ questions on points of detail regarding specific cases.

RESOLVED: that members noted the report.

The Committee welcomed the Assistant Director (Health and Well-Being) to deliver his report to members. He provided an update on the performance of the Wincanton Sports Centre and advised members that the end of year figures for 2015/16 and the half year results for 2017-18 contained within the report.

He informed members that the switchover in management to LED was working well and that there had been a growth in income.

During the discussion, it was noted that there was a small catchment area of customers for the centre due to its rural location. Public transport options to the centre were discussed.

He further advised that the management at the centre were working hard to encourage further use of the swimming pool and that an extension to the gym area was being considered 

Members offered praise to LED and to the facility.

RESOLVED: that the report be noted

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the previous meeting held on Wednesday 9^th November 2016.

The minutes of the previous meeting held on Wednesday 9^th November, copies of which had been circulated, were agreed and signed by the Chairman.

An apology of absence had been 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.

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.

Councillor Henry Hobhouse declared a personal interest in agenda item 12 (Community Capital Grant Request for Castle Cary Moat Garden Committee towards the purchase of the Moat Garden). He left  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.

Questions/Comments from members of the public

Colin Kay, addressed members to express his concern over the proposed Waste Transfer Station at Dimmer and for the safety of residents that live along and use the B3153. HGV’s cannot pass on this road and felt that a further increase in traffic would be dangerous for vehicle drivers, horse riders and cyclists. He further advised that there were numerous houses for sale within Clanville and though that this was due to the traffic issues. He suggested that there are many accidents on the road which go unreported.

Trevor Tuck, representing Sparkford Parish Council, addressed the Committee. He explained to members that there were still ongoing drainage/sewerage issues in Sparkford which had not yet been resolved by Wessex Water. He described a recent problem in Sparkford where sewerage had overflowed onto Church Road in Sparkford following a heavy amount of rain. He advised that the current system in insufficient and is unable to cope and hoped the planning department would consider this issue when determining planning applications.

The Assistant Director (Communities) agreed to pass these comments to the Development Manager.

Questions/Comments from representatives of parish/town councils

Pek Peppin, representing Castle Cary Town Council, addressed the Committee. She explained to members that the Waste Transfer Station which was proposed at Dimmer, was being considered by the Somerset Waste Board and the Somerset Waste Partnership without public consultation. She advised that the road was inadequate and had previously been described by a Planning Inspector as being ‘no more than a county lane’. She advised members that the lorries using this road were dangerous and that in some parts, cannot pass on the lane. She hoped that the decision would be made following a full consultation with residents and Parish/Town Councils.

Martin Roberts, representing Cary Moor Parish Council, addressed the Committee. He further explained the problems which were occurring on the B3153 due to HGV’s on the road. Although he supported recycling, he was surprised and upset that a full consultation hadn’t been carried out for the proposed scheme at Dimmer. He hoped that the decision could be delayed to allow further consultation with local residents and SSDC for this project.

Vicki Nobles, representing the Care for Cary group, addressed the Committee. She further hoped that the decision which was due to be made on the 16^th December could be delayed. She further hoped that a break clause could be added to any agreement to ensure that SSC are not locked into a contract where no savings were being made. She hoped a formal request to delay the decision could be made to allow a review to be carried out to ensure that there were no better options which could be considered.

Members unanimously agreed that a formal letter to the Somerset Waste Board would be sent to request that the decision is delayed to allow public to review the proposal. It was further agreed that a copy of this letter would be sent to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 132.

Councillor Sarah Dyke advised members that the Access for All Solutions ‘Aspirations and Challenges’ event was being held on the 19^th January at The Gateway, Yeovil. 

Members are asked to note that the next scheduled meeting of the committee will be at the Council Offices, Churchfield, Wincanton on Wednesday 11^th January 2017 at 9.00 am.

Members noted that the next scheduled meeting of the Area East Committee would be held on Wednesday 11^th January 2017 at The Council Offices, Churchfields, Wincanton at 9am.

The Chairman advised that the Annual Town and Parish Council meeting was being held on Monday 23^rd January 2017. He hoped members would encourage attendance from the Parish/Town Councils.

RESOLVED:  that members awarded £1840 as a 50% contribution to The Red Lion, 3 Market Place, Wincanton

·         £1,500 from the Community Development budget revenue element

ring-fenced for the RSI

·    £340 from the Community Development budget, Wincanton top-up, revenue element ring-fenced for the RSI

REASON:       towards pub front improvements and signage;

All awards to be subject to the following standard conditions:

(a)        The grant award may be used by SSDC for promotional/publicity purposes

(b)        Grants are paid for approved works/purchases on production of receipted invoices and subject to a visual inspection to confirm completion

(c)        Awards are subject to feedback being supplied within 12 months

(d)        Applicants will normally be expected to draw down the grant within 6 months of the offer

(e)        That appropriate consents are obtained

(f)        Works requiring listed building/planning consents or building regulations will be required to be signed off by the appropriate officer prior to the release of funds

(g)        If, within 3 years of a grant award, the business ceases to trade, the District Council reserves the right to reclaim the grant on the following basis: year one – 100%; year 2 – 75%, year 3 – 45%

(Voting: 8 in support, 1 abstention)

The Community Support Assistant explained that the application had been discussed at the November meeting of the Area East Committee, but had been deferred and had now returned to Committee for a decision.

She explained that the property had been previously advertised online as being available to purchase at auction, which was an error and had now been removed from the internet. She further clarified that the owner of the property would not be willing to accept a charge on the property to safeguard the grant in the event that the building would be sold or if the business failed.

Following the discussion, it was proposed and seconded that the grant be awarded as detailed in the agenda report. On being put to the vote, this was carried 8 votes in favour with 1 abstention.

RESOLVED:  that members awarded £1840 as a 50% contribution to The Red Lion, 3 Market Place, Wincanton, towards pub front improvements and signage;

·         £1,500 from the Community Development budget revenue element

ring-fenced for the RSI

·    £340 from the Community Development budget, Wincanton top-up,

revenue element ring-fenced for the RSI

All awards to be subject to the following standard conditions:

(a)        The grant award may be used by SSDC for promotional/publicity purposes

(b)        Grants are paid for approved works/purchases on production of receipted invoices and subject to a visual inspection to confirm completion

(c)        Awards are subject to feedback being supplied within 12 months

(d)        Applicants will normally be expected to draw down the grant within 6 months of the offer

(e)        That appropriate consents are obtained

(f)        Works requiring listed building/planning consents or building regulations will be required to be signed off by the appropriate officer prior to the release of funds

(g)        If, within 3 years of a grant award, the business ceases to trade, the District Council reserves the right to reclaim the grant on the following basis: year one – 100%; year 2 – 75%, year 3 – 45%

(Voting: 8 in support, 1 abstention)

RESOLVED:      Members agreed to extend the allocation to Galhampton Village Hall and the Castle Cary & Ansford Fairfield project

Reason:              To allow a further 6 months to the project.

(Voting: Unanimous in favour)

RESOLVED:       Members agreed to top up the Community Capital Budget by £17,000

Reason:              To be reallocated from the Parish Infrastructure Budget

(Voting: Unanimous in favour)

RESOLVED:       Members agreed a contribution of up to £6,904 (36% of the total project costs) from the Community Capital Budget to Sutton Montis Village Hall Committee

Reason:              Towards the refurbishment of Sutton Montis VH, subject to the standard conditions set out in appendix A

(Voting: Unanimously in favour)

RESOLVED:       Members agreed a contribution of up to £5,800 (48% of the total project costs) from the Community Capital Budget to Castle Cary Moat Garden Committee (Charity number1169894)

Reason:              Towards the purchase of the Moat Garden, subject to undertaking an access audit and the standard conditions set out in appendix A; with funding released following exchange of contracts.

(Voting: Unanimous in favour)

RESOLVED:       Members agreed a contribution of up to £5,326 (15% of the total project costs) from the Community Capital budget to Carymoor Environmental Centre towards the ‘Going Underground’ project

Reason:              Towards the £35,156 project, subject to the standard conditions set out in appendix A

(Voting: Unanimous in favour)

RESOLVED:       Members agreed a contribution of up to £1,937 (41% of the total project costs) from the Community Capital Budget to Henstridge Village Hall

Reason:              Towards the purchases of tables and chairs.

(Voting: Unanimous in favour)

The Area Development Team Lead and the Neighbourhood Development Officer presented the report to members. The 6 recommendations on the agenda report were discussed and voted on individually.

Recommendation 1;

Following discussion of the Galhampton Village Hall and Castle Cary and Ansford Fairfield project, it was proposed and seconded that this be agreed as detailed in recommendation 1 of the agenda report. On being put to the vote, this was carried unanimously.

Recommendation 2;

Following a short discussion, it was proposed and seconded that members agree to top up the Community Capital Budget from the Parish Infrastructure Budget as detailed in recommendation 2 of the agenda report. On being put to the vote, this was carried unanimously.

Recommendation 3;

Following a short discussion, it was proposed and seconded that members agree the contribution to Sutton Montis Village Hall, as detailed in recommendation 3 of the agenda report. On being put to the vote, this was carried unanimously.

Recommendation 4;

(Having earlier declared a personal interest, Councillor Hobhouse left the room during discussion of this item)

Anne Jelliffe spoke in support of the grant application for the Moat Garden. She explained that she had always assumed that this valuable land had belonged to the Town Council and was upset when she realised that it was going to be sold. She explained that a charity had been set up to purchase the land which was used by so many residents and visitors to Castle Cary.

Following the short discussion, it was proposed and seconded that the grant be awarded as detailed in recommendation 4 of the agenda report. On being put to the vote, this was carried unanimously.

Recommendation 5;

Following the short discussion, it was proposed and seconded that the grant be awarded as detailed in recommendation 5 of the agenda report. On being put to the vote, this was carried unanimously.

Recommendation 6;

Following the short discussion, it was proposed and seconded that the grant be awarded as detailed in recommendation 6 of the agenda report. On being put to the vote, this was carried unanimously.

RESOLVED:  that members agreed the recommendations as detailed in the agenda report, subject to the standard conditions set out in appendix A of the report as follows;

1)    Members agreed to extend the allocation to Galhampton Village Hall and the Castle Cary & Ansford Fairfield project for a further 6 months.

2) Members agreed to top up the Community Capital Budget by £17,000 from the Parish Infrastructure budget.

3) Members agreed a contribution of up to £6,904 (36% of the total project costs) from the Community Capital Budget to Sutton Montis Village Hall Committee towards the refurbishment of Sutton Montis VH, subject to the standard conditions set out in appendix A

4) Members agreed a contribution of up to £5,800 (48% of the total project costs) from the Community Capital Budget to Castle Cary Moat Garden Committee towards the purchase of the Moat Garden, subject to undertaking an access audit and the standard conditions  ...  view the full minutes text for item 137.

The Assistant Highway Service Manager presented his report. He explained that there were no updates to the report.

He advised members that the Alford scheme of resurfacing would be a priority project going forward.

During the discussion, flooding at Cockhill, Castle Cary was mentioned. The Assistant Highway Service Manager explained that he was working to resolve these issues.

RESOLVED:  members noted the report.

The Area Lead Development Officer informed members that the Welfare Benefits update report and the Local Housing Needs report would be scheduled for the March meeting of the Area East Committee. He further advised that the Village Halls report to be removed from the Area East Forward Plan would be covered within the Area Development Service Plan report.

He further advised that there would be a report on Tolbury Mill would be scheduled for the February meeting of the Committee.

RESOLVED:  members noted the Area East Forward Plan subject to the following amendments;

·         Welfare Benefits Service report –Move to March

·         Local Housing Needs  report – Move to March

·         Village Halls in Area East – Removed

·         Tolbury Mill report - February

Members noted the appeal decisions which had been received.

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

Application Proposal: Development of 68 homes and associated car parking, public open space and infrastructure

The planning officer presented his report to members with the aid of a PowerPoint presentation which included photographs and plans of the proposed scheme.

He explained to members that the application had been approved at Area East Committee approximately one year, subject to a S106 agreement but that issues had arisen in terms of viability of the scheme. He explained to members that the financial obligations which had been agreed would remain the same, but that there was now a reduction in the amount of affordable homes proposed.  It was now proposed that only 20% of the scheme would be affordable, which amounted to 12 homes. He advised that the District Valuer had confirmed that this was viable. He further advised there had been some minor alterations to the design of the dwellings and a revised footpath route and recommended that the application be approved.

During the discussion, the new footpath route was indicated on the plans and drainage within the site was discussed.

Mr Bishton, representing the Bruton Trust, spoke in support of the application. He explained to members that this was the only large available space for housing in Bruton. He spoke favourable of the design and the works which had already been carried to alleviate flooding.

Mr H Sedman, the applicant, addressed the Committee. He explained to the Committee that their aim was to build unique and contemporary homes that Bruton could be proud of. He was disappointed that due to dramatic increases in build costs, they had not started works on site, but following a viability appraisal and the revisions to the application, he was happy that the houses could now be provided.

Councillor Anna Groskop, Ward Member, spoke in support of the application. She informed the Committee that suitable land is in short supply and that there is a huge demand for housing in Bruton. She advised that the Town Council support the application and hoped that the area of green land within the site would be for recreational use only.

During the discussion, concerns over flooding were raised. It was also suggested that cycle paths within the site would be welcomed.

Following the discussion, it was proposed and seconded that the planning application should be approved as per the officer recommendation and subject to conditions as detailed in the agenda report.

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

RESOLVED:  that planning permission be approved, as per the officer recommendation, subject to the prior completion of a section 106 planning agreement (in a form acceptable to the Council's solicitor(s)) before the decision notice granting planning permission is issued to secure;

(i)      Contributions towards offsite recreational infrastructure, to the satisfaction of the Assistant Director (Wellbeing) broken down as:

·         £9,167 towards enhancing the youth facility provision at Jubilee Park, Bruton.

·         £24,695 towards enhancing the playing pitch provision  ...  view the full minutes text for item 142.

Application Proposal: Erection of affordable dwelling for elderly persons

The Planning Officer presented his report to members with the aid of a PowerPoint presentation which included photographs and illustrative plans.

He explained that he had received 2 additional letters of representation since the report was published, one was a letter of support and the other was a letter in objection to the proposal.

He explained that a similar application for a bungalow had recently been approved at Area East Committee within the same hamlet of Whitechurch, however pointed out that this application site differed slightly. He recommended that the application be refused.

Mr S Cullum and Mrs J Bates spoke in objection to the planning application. Their comments included;

·         This is a blot on the landscape which will impact the village

·         There is no shop, bus service or facilities in the hamlet and the owner will require a vehicle

·         A number of residents object to the application

·         Letters of support were from residents outside of Whitechurch

·         A precedent will be set

·         The last bungalow was an infill, this site is not an infill, it is outside of the hamlet

Mr H Bentley-Marchant, Mrs D Heath, Mr Duffy and Mrs Donald spoke in support of the application.  Their comments included;

·         The bungalow would allow the applicants to remain within the community

·         Other houses have been approved within the hamlet

·         The bungalow will barely be visible from the lane

·         Downsizing would allow the applicant to remain close to the land which they farm

·         Bungalow should be approved to allow applicant to retire in their own home

Mr Raymond, the applicant, addressed the Committee. He advised members that he had lived in Whitechurch for over 40 years and that he wished to remain on the land in a bungalow. He explained that with the help of his family he hoped to continue farming on the land.

Mr Williams, the planning agent, addressed the Committee. He explained that he was disappointed that the similar application for a retirement bunglow which had been recently approved was not mentioned within the report. He pointed out that this site was only 100m south of the application site. He pointed out that the application was for a small bungalow, which was next to existing farm buildings and would not look out of place.

Councillor Tim Inglefield, the Ward Member, explained that although he recognised that the applicant had lived and played an important part in the community, he expressed his concern that the site was situated north of the natural boundary of Whitechurch. He was further concerned that the bungalow could impact the view of the countryside.

During the discussion, members mentioned the Rural Action Plan and suggested that a site visit be arranged to allow members to view the site.

It was proposed and seconded that the application be deferred to a later meeting of the Committee to allow a site visit to take place.

On being put to the vote, this proposal was not  ...  view the full minutes text for item 143.