Agenda, decisions and minutes

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the Area South (Informal) Committee held on 6^th April 2022.  The draft minutes can be viewed at:

https://modgov.southsomerset.gov.uk/ieDocHome.aspx?bcr=1

The minutes of the Area South (Informal) Committee held on Wednesday 6^th April 2022, copies of which had been circulated, were agreed as a correct record and were signed by the Chairman.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Barbara Appleby, Nicola Clark, Wes Read and Peter Seib. 

Councillor Jeny Snell joined virtually but would not be able to vote.

In accordance with the Council's current Code of Conduct (as amended 26 February 2015), which includes all the provisions relating to Disclosable Pecuniary Interests (DPI), personal and prejudicial interests, Members are asked to declare any DPI and also any personal interests (and whether or not such personal interests are also "prejudicial") in relation to any matter on the Agenda for this meeting. 

Members are reminded that they need to declare the fact that they are also a member of a County, Town or Parish Council as a Personal Interest.  Where you are also a member of Somerset County Council and/or a Town or Parish Council within South Somerset you must declare a prejudicial interest in any business on the agenda where there is a financial benefit or gain or advantage to Somerset County Council and/or a Town or Parish Council which would be at the cost or to the financial disadvantage of South Somerset District Council. 

Planning Applications Referred to the District Council’s Regulation Committee

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

Councillors Peter Gubbins, Tony Lock, Peter Seib and Andy Soughton.

Where planning applications are referred by this Committee to the Regulation Committee for determination, Members of the Regulation Committee can participate and vote on these items at the Area Committee and at Regulation Committee. In these cases the Council's decision-making process is not complete until the application is determined by the Regulation Committee.  Members of the Regulation Committee retain an open mind and will not finalise their position until the Regulation Committee.  They will also consider the matter at Regulation Committee as Members of that Committee and not as representatives of the Area Committee.

Councillor David Gubbins wished to declare along with his fellow ward members Councillors Karl Gill and Andy Soughton, that although they had attended previous meetings regarding Item 7 Planning application 21/02466/COU and spoken of their views, these were stated on the understanding that they reserved the right to alter or amend them once they had seen the officer’s report and therefore would attend this meeting with an open mind and not declare an opinion until they had heard the debate.

Councillor Graham Oakes declared a personal interest on Item 7 Planning application 21/02466/COU as he had known the landlord of the Quicksilver Mail for over fifty years. 

Councillor Andy Kendall declared a personal interest on Item 7 Planning application 21/02466/COU as a member of his family lived on Hendford Hill although not near the application site.

Councillor Kaysar Hussain wished to declare that as a local shop owner there had been frequent discussion regarding on Item 7 Planning application 21/02466/COU within his shop but that he had not stated his opinion to anyone during discussion.

There were no questions from members of the public.

There were no Chairmans Announcements.

This is an opportunity for Members who represent the Council on outside organisations to report items of interest to the Committee.

Councillor John Clark reported that the Westfield Community Association had successfully applied for a pocket park grant and since built the Westfield community garden, which is a huge success and being used a great deal. 

21/02466/COU: Proposed change of use from care home to accommodation for people experiencing homelessness (sui generis).

The Planning Consultant introduced himself and clarified the reason for his involvement to ensure these proposals were considered independently and could not be construed as being biased.  He said the report was an assessment of planning policy and consideration of all the material considerations raised by statutory consultees and other parties. He confirmed he had visited the application site and Pathways. He then introduced the Lead Specialist, Planning who would present the report.

With the aid of a powerpoint presentation the Lead Specialist, Planning then proceeded to show the site and proposed plans. He highlighted:

·         Change of use of existing care home into use as a homeless accommodation to provide 39 single occupancy rooms, communal room, kitchen space, storage space, outdoor amenity and parking provision.

·         Existing care home which was approved in 2008 and has been vacant for a long period of time.

·         Existing windows within the property with a degree of overlooking to neighbouring property.

·         Only key changes to building being proposed included ev charging points, mix of cycle and vehicle parking, bin stores and conversion of some patio doors into windows.

·         Adjacent listed building and area of rough ground which although is within the same ownership is not part of this planning application.

·         Land Registry have confirmed the fenced strip of land between the pub car park and outdoor seating area is owned by the operator but is not part of this application site.

·         Limited alternative development within this scheme.

·         Plan for location of proposed CCTV and with significant number of cameras within the building to increase internal observation to ensure all areas are covered.

·         Explained extant planning permission which included a 20 bed facility on the grounds and is a factor because it is capable of being developed albeit it is not of a use class that serves the current applicant.

He updated members on the significant number of representations received following publication of the agenda report which included:

·         Detrimental impact upon town.

·         Negative impact upon the Quicksilver and nearby nursery.

·         Problem being moved away from town centre.

·         Impact upon values.

·         High volumes of traffic and pedestrian safety issues.

·         Ongoing need for car accommodation.

·         Impact upon safety in local area.

·         Large local elderly and vulnerable population.

·         Need for smaller type facilities.

·         Already is use for people in need of support.

A petition had also been received from resident of Windermere Close again setting out their objections and further submissions had also been received from Hands of Hendford Hill (HOHH) including:

·         Copies of communication with police.

·         Examples of police service objections to planning applications in other parts of UK.

·         Concern about lack of information about Pathways as part of on line application documents.

·         Comments upon SSDC Housing Service consultee response.

·         Correspondence to SSDC relating to the date of committee.

·         Refer to Western Gazette Article.

·         Submission of further objection report dealing with community safety, fear of crime, impact upon conservation area, ecology,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

The Director, Service Delivery presented the report.  She explained the intention was to use the monies of the charitable trust for suitable accommodation when the opportunity arose, however there were covenants around how this money is to be used.

She also wished to update members of an error within the agenda report, where the capital fund for replacement properties should read £453,112 and not £452,937 as stated. 

In response to members’ questions the Director, Service Delivery confirmed that the charitable trust is tied up in a way that the monies cannot be used for anything else even going forward into a new authority.  She confirmed this would have to be agreed by the charities commission and would be highly unlikely.

There being no further debate, members acknowledged the requirement as trustees to approve the annual accounts. It was proposed, and unanimously agreed, to approve the Annual Accounts and note the update in the annual report with the amendment to the capital fund figure as previously stated.

(voting; unanimous)

(Resolution passed without dissent)

Members questioned the lack of communication regarding the Birchfield Group and that they had not met for a number of years.  During a short discussion it was agreed this was a health and safety issue which members needed to be kept updated on and would seek further information from the relevant officers.

The Committee then agreed the appointment of members to serve on the various working groups, panels and outside bodies for 2022/23.

RESOLVED:

(Resolution passed without dissent)

(Resolution passed without dissent

(Resolution passed without dissent

Councillor John Clark requested a date be set for a workshop to look at the proposed Local Community Networks (LCN’s).  The Case Officer, Strategy & Support Services noted the request and would liaise with the relevant officers to take this forward.

Councillor Andy Kendall requested an update regarding CCTV in Yeovil. Following a short discussion and response from the Portfolio Holder, Protecting Core Services it was noted that this item be delayed until negotiations have concluded with SLA and respective partners subject to relevant information being obtained.

Councillor David Recardo requested an update on the of Section 106 monies and obligations.  In response the Director, Service Delivery acknowledged the importance of the request however explained the current migration to a new system which may slightly delay bringing this item to committee.