Agenda, decisions and minutes

The minutes of the meeting held on 15^th February 2017, copies of which had been circulated, were taken as read, and having been approved were signed as a correct record of the proceedings.

An apology for absence was received from Councillor Marcus Barrett.

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 2012 (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 Mike Best, Sue Osborne and Angie Singleton

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 Jason Baker, Dave Bulmer, Amanda Broom, Jenny Kenton and Garry Shortland declared personal and prejudicial interests in Agenda Item 8 – Provision of Local Information Centres in Area West, as members of Chard Town Council.  The members left the room during consideration of the item.

Councillor Jenny Kenton declared a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in Planning Application No. 17/00074/OUT – Land rear of the Phoenix Hotel and Car Park, Fore Street, Chard, as the joint applicant.  She left the room during consideration of the item.

Councillor Garry Shortland declared a personal and prejudicial interest in Planning Application No. 17/00074/OUT as he undertook work for the applicants.  He left the room during consideration of the item.

Councillor Jason Baker declared a personal interest in Planning Application No. 17/00074/OUT, as the applicant was a Town Council colleague.

Councillor Sue Osborne declared a personal interest in Planning Application No. 16/03404/FUL, as the Ward Member.

Councillor Amanda Broom declared a personal interest in Planning Application No. 17/00074/OUT, as a member of Chard Town Council and also the Ward Member.

Councillors are requested to note that the next Area West Committee meeting is scheduled to be held on Wednesday 19^th April 2017 at 5.30pm at the Henhayes Centre, Crewkerne.

Members noted that the next meeting of the Area West Committee would be held on Wednesday 19^th April 2017 at 5.30pm at the Henhayes Centre, Crewkerne.

This is a chance to ask questions, make comments and raise matters of concern.

Parish/Town Councils 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.

Anyone wishing to raise matters in relation to items on the agenda may do so at the time the item is considered.

There were no questions from members of the public.

The Chairman made no announcements.

Reference was made to the agenda report, which informed members of the proposed Area West Committee Forward Plan.

Members were content to note the Forward Plan as attached to the agenda.

Reason:  To agree the future arrangements for supporting the provision of local and tourist information in the 3 market towns.

(At the time of the item, Councillors Jason Baker, Dave Bulmer, Amanda Broom Jenny Kenton and Garry Shortland declared personal and prejudicial interests as members of Chard Town Council and left the room)

The Area West Team Lead introduced the report. She stated that historically Chard’s facility was recognised as a Tourist Information Centre and had always received a far larger grant from the Council than the other two towns.  In recent times the service provided by Chard Town Council had become more akin to a Local Information Centre (LIC) and felt that it was appropriate for future awards to Chard to be brought in line with the other LIC services across South Somerset.

She referred to Crewkerne and Ilminster Local Information Centre having a website and was recommending that the balance of Chard Town Council’s Service Level Agreement for 2016/17 be carried forwarded and paid subject to work being completed on their website.

During a short discussion, the Area West Team Lead noted the comments of members and responded to questions on points of detail including:

·         In response to a member concern over lack of opening on a Saturday, members noted that Crewkerne LIC was open on a Saturday on farmer market and councillor surgery days as well as extra days in the summer months but opening was reliant on volunteers;

·         Ilminster LIC was open on a Saturday morning and when the Art Centre was open however information was available online;

·         Crewkerne LIC were active in trying to gain new volunteers every year.  There  was an issue with lone working when the community office was closed;

·         As Ilminster LIC was based in the Arts Centre it could only record the number of people visiting when there was a volunteer present;

·         It was felt that Chard and Ilminster should be encouraged to have an email address however it was recognised that Ilminster LIC had no space for a computer and not all volunteers were computer literate;

·         It was pointed out that the demand for TICs/LICs was getting less and less due to the use of the internet.

At the conclusion of the debate, members were content to approve the recommendations of the report.

Reason:  To agree the future arrangements for supporting the provision of local and tourist information in the 3 market towns.

Nena Beric the Project Manager from Somerset County Council introduced herself to the Committee and with the aid of slides presented the report as detailed in the agenda.  She informed members of the proposal and approach being taken to develop a feasibility study to support the creation of a multi service hub in Chard.  Points mentioned during the presentation included the following:

·         A Partnership was formed in July 2016 with Somerset County Council, other local authorities and health and emergency services.  A bid was submitted as part of the One Public Estate Programme to develop a shared asset programme within Somerset;

·         The bid was successful and £100,000 has been allocated to South Somerset to develop feasibility studies to support the creation of multi service hubs in Chard and Yeovil;

·         Expected benefits of the projects will include: savings in property running costs, savings in service delivery achieved through shared triage and service design;

·         The outcome was based around customers accessing multiple services across fewer buildings which offer a high quality and consistent customer experience;

·         A report would be produced to test the feasibility of delivering services in the Holyrood Lace Mill which would look at capacity, existing SSDC services, existing SCC services, SCC Children’s Social care services and non-clinical NHS services;

·         Short term goals included early SSDC stakeholder engagement, what is currently delivered and how and engaging further public sector parties.

The Project Manager anticipated that the outline feasibility report and recommendations would be brought back to the Area West Committee during the summer.

In response to questions, the Project Manager advised members of the following:

·         The project would be linked to the work being undertaken on Transformation and the review of SSDC properties;

·         The Feasibility Study would test capacity and whether there would be enough space to develop the project at the Lace Mill;

·         All the partners in the partnership were signed up to the project which would focus upon shared costs and incomes;

·         She agreed that it was important to engage with the Police as a key partner.

Following a short discussion, members supported the approach being taken to establish the viability of a multi-agency hub in Chard.

The Licensing Manager presented his report, as detailed in the agenda, which provided an update on the activities of the Licensing Service. 

In response to comments made by members during a short discussion, the Licensing Manager briefly provided further information about the following:

·         The Scrap Metal Dealers Act was countrywide and had addressed scrap metal crime;

·         The Council had not yet reached the 20% target for Wheelchair Accessible Vehicles.  The Policy would be reviewed when the target was met depending on the outcome of provisions under the Equalities Act;

·         The current penalty points system could be reviewed in the future to include the inability to turn an engine off when on the rank;

·         The Police would no longer be continuing to support road closures which meant that road closures would be undertaken by Somerset County Council.  It was hoped that consultation would be undertaken with affected parties.  Members highlighted the need for the fees to be set at a realistic level.

Members paid tribute to the Licensing Manager and his team for all their hard work and knowledge.

The Chairman thanked the Licensing Manager for attending the meeting.

The Section 106 Monitoring Officer presented the report as detailed in the agenda.  He advised that CIL (Community Infrastructure Levy) would be implemented from 3^rd April 2017 and that a Government White Paper had recently been published which could bring more changes.

During the ensuing discussion, the Section 106 Monitoring Officer noted the comments of members and responded to questions on points of detail as follows:

·         Trigger points were removed from the report once monies had been collected;

·         It was confirmed that all monies had been collected for the Boradway Farm Barn development;

·         Provided an update on the status of projects at Land off Cedar Close, Chard;

·         With regard to Land at Canal Way, it was noted that the transfer would be taking place in the near future.

The Chairman thanked the S106 Monitoring Officer for his report.

A Better Crewkerne & District (ADCD)

Members noted the report as outlined in the agenda.

Making It Local Executive Group

Members noted the verbal update given by Cllr Martin Wale.

Members noted the schedule of planning applications to be determined as outlined in the agenda.

Application Proposal: Alterations to access and erection of two adjoining agricultural buildings with silage pit and yard area.

The Planning Officer introduced the report and with the aid of slides and photographs summarised the details of the application.  He referred to the key considerations which were visual amenity – setting of listed park, highway impact/adjoining bridleway and agricultural justification/need.  He advised that since writing the report he had received a response from the Lead Local Flood Authority who had no objections to the proposal subject to a drainage condition which was already included in the report.  The Planning Officer’s recommendation was for approval subject to conditions.

In response to questions from Members, the Planning Officer and Area Lead North/ East confirmed the following:

·         It would not be appropriate to secure Condition 3 through a S106 agreement;

·         The proposed buildings would be permanent;

·         The site was situated above the Historic Park.  The tress would assist with mitigating its impact;

·         SCC Highways and the SSDC Highway Consultant had not visited the site.

The Committee was addressed by Mike Mouland in support of the application who advised that he was the tenant farmer.  He explained about the need to increase cattle on the site as part of the DEFRA Stewardship Scheme.  The buildings were required to house the cattle in the winter and without them he would be unable to farm.

The Applicant, My Stephen Taylor explained about the need for the agricultural buildings and mentioned because of the size and nature of the landholding it still had to be managed with stock.

Ward Member, Cllr. Sue Osborne explained that the application had been referred to Committee because of the strong opinions of residents of Purtington who were seriously concerned about the history of the estate diversifying.  She supported the removal of permitted development rights and commented that the parkland was best managed through lowland cattle and sheep.  She noted that the buildings would be hidden and the excavated soil would be addressed by a bund at the rear of the buildings.  She recommended that the application be supported subject to conditions.

During a short discussion, members were satisfied that a case had been made for the need.  It was proposed and seconded to approve the application as per the Planning Officer’s recommendation outlined in the agenda report.  On being put to the vote the proposal was unanimously carried.

Application Proposal: The erection of 5 No. dwellinghouses and a block of 4 No. flats with associated vehicular access, parking, landscaping and the formation of an area equipped public open space (revised application)

The Planning Officer introduced the report and with the aid of slides and photographs summarised the details of the application.  He referred to the key considerations which were principle of residential development in location, visual and residential amenity and legal undertaking to secure affordable housing and provision of play area/open space.  He advised that the scheme would be taken on by Knightstone Housing Association.  He proposed an additional landscaping condition to agree the boundary treatment between plot 1 & 2 and plot 3 & 5 including soft and hard landscaping to the public open space.  The Planning Officer’s recommendation was for approval. 

In response to questions from Members, the Planning Officer and the Area Lead North/East confirmed:

·         Cycle and pedestrian provision on the site could be included as part of the hard landscaping condition;

·         The proposed dwellings and terraced housing were both two storey and largely the same level;

·         The design and external materials of the proposed buildings would be dealt with by condition;

·         It was intended to request the Town Council to take over the play area;

·         Some trees would need to be removed as they were too dangerous to remain in their current position.

Ward Member, Cllr. Jenny Kenton commented that she was unaware until very recently that the application was due to be presented to Committee and had received no consultation.  She advised that the layout was contrary to what she was expecting and she had therefore misinformed a neighbouring resident about the layout of development.  She expressed her concern that neighbouring properties had not been consulted on the application since 2014 and the occupancy of the neighbouring dwellings may have changed.  She would have preferred the application to be deferred to allow further consultation but understood that it could be subject to CIL and may not be viable.

The Area Lead North/East explained the background to the application.  The scheme was properly consulted upon at the time of submission and there had since been no changes to the layout of the development only a slight change to the red line along the southern boundary.  He felt there should be separation between the two sets of houses and that it was reasonable to remove the belt of trees.  Details of the boundary treatment and bunding would be looked at in detail as part of the condition and could be agreed in consultation with the Ward Member.  He commented that a slight repositioning of the terrace to the North was possible and could be an option to be considered.

During the discussion on the item, various comments were made by members included the following:

·         The boundary treatments would need to be looked at carefully and hopefully a solution could be found that the residents find acceptable;

·         Moving everything forward a metre would provide a better solution for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 139.

Application Proposal: The erection of two dwellings (outline)

(Having earlier declared a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest as the applicant, Cllr. Jenny Kenton left the room prior to consideration of the application)

(Having earlier declared a personal and prejudicial interest, Cllr. Garry Shortland left the room prior to consideration of the application)

The Planning Officer presented the report with the aid of a powerpoint presentation.  He outlined the key considerations which were principle of residential development, setting of the conservation area, residential amenity and highway safety.  There were no updates to the report.  The Planning Officer’s recommendation was for approval.

In response to questions, members were informed of the following:

·         The report was before the Committee as the recommendation was contrary to highway standing advice.  Given the significant reduced number of units now proposed and the current use by the pub/hotel and existing properties the proposed development would not result in a severe highway impact;

·         The large porch at the front of the public house would help to give better pedestrian visibility.

Ward Member, Cllr. Amanda Broom expressed her support for the application.  She noted that a condition had been proposed to protect future occupiers from loose cricket balls which addressed the issue raised in the representation.

During a brief discussion, members did not feel extra properties would not make a difference to the current access arrangements.  It was proposed and seconded to approve the application as per the Planning Officer’s recommendation.  On being put to the vote the proposal was carried by 10 votes in favour and 1 abstention.