Agenda and minutes
Venue: Henhayes Community Centre, South Street Car Park,Crewkerne TA18 8DA
Contact: Jo Morris 01935 462055 Email: jo.morris@southsomerset.gov.uk
No. | Item | ||
---|---|---|---|
Exclusion of press and public PDF 73 KB Minutes:
|
|||
Securing Future Facilities for Chard (Confidential) Minutes: The Community Health and Leisure Manager summarised the agenda report. Members unanimously supported the recommendations outlined in the report.
(Voting: unanimous) |
|||
To approve as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 16 July 2014 Minutes: The minutes of the meeting held on 16th July 2014, copies of which had been circulated, were taken as read, and, having been approved, were signed by the Chairman as a correct record. |
|||
Apologies for absence Minutes: Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Mike Best and Kim Turner. |
|||
Declarations of interest 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 15th 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, Angie Singleton and Linda Vijeh 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. Minutes: Councillor Jenny Kenton declared a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in Planning Application Nos. 14/02439/FUL and 14/02440/LBC, as the applicant. She left the room during consideration of the items. |
|||
Public Question Time 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. Minutes: The Committee was addressed by Mr Tim Adams. He read out a statement raising some concerns with regard to proposals for the disused ladies toilets in Ilminster. (A copy of the statement is available from Democratic Services upon request). |
|||
Chairman's announcements Minutes: There were no announcements from the Chairman. |
|||
Area West Committee - Forward Plan PDF 93 KB Minutes: Reference was made to the agenda report, which informed members of the proposed Area West Forward Plan. Members were content to approve the Forward Plan as attached to the agenda.
(Resolution passed without dissent) |
|||
Minutes: The Area Development Manager (West) summarised the agenda report, which informed members of the decision to place “The Hammerhead”, a triangular area of land adjacent to the Medical Centre, recreational Area and Canal Way onto the SSDC Register of Assets of Community Value, following a nomination made by Ilminster Town Council. NOTED. |
|||
Community Right to Bid - Updates PDF 21 KB Minutes: The Area Development Manager (West) informed members of the decision to place The Kings Head Inn, Merriott onto the SSDC Register of Assets of Community Value, following a request from the Save our Kings Head organisation. NOTED. |
|||
Feedback on Planning Applications Referred to the Regulation Committee PDF 18 KB Minutes: There were no planning applications referred to the Regulation Committee. |
|||
Additional documents:
Minutes: The Committee noted the details contained in the agenda report, which informed members of planning appeals received and allowed. NOTED. |
|||
Schedule of Planning Applications to be Determined by Committee PDF 98 KB Minutes: Members noted the Schedule of Planning Applications to be determined by the Committee. |
|||
Planning application 13/04848/FUL - Land at Crosskeys, Ashill. PDF 516 KB Minutes: The Area Lead West with the aid of slides and photographs summarised the details of the application as set out in the agenda report including the key considerations. He updated members that three further emails had been received expressing strong concerns about the application. A further letter had also been received from Ashill Parish Council supporting local residents concerns. The Area Lead West updated the report with an amendment to condition 11 to include the wording 6 pitches only. He also recommended additional conditions to cover the development commencing within three years and details of foul sewage treatment to be agreed. The Officer’s recommendation was for approval. In response to questions, the Area Lead West clarified points of detail raised by Members which included the following: · Policy SS2 in the emerging Local Plan provided for meeting the needs of communities in rural areas; · The Council did not have a policy in relation to the number of sites in any one area. The Committee noted the comments of Brenda Pyle, representing Ashill Parish Council in objection to the application. The Committee then noted the comments of Henry Best, Jeffrey Speke, Jane Simmonds, Dave Ellis, Pauline Ellis, Colin Martin, John Cunningham, Martin Hallam and Simon Smedley in objection to the application. Concerns expressed included the following: · The area surrounding the proposed site was at risk of flooding; · There was no adequate provision for the disposal of surface water; · The application did not comply with planning policy; · There was no current demand for pitches; · The site was not located within a sustainable location; · The site would have an adverse effect on the grade 2 listed buildings in the area; · The size of the water treatment plant was key; · The site may be used for business use; · The site should remain in agricultural use; · There was inadequate provision for sewage; · The application was contrary to the local character of the area; · Lack of local facilities in the area; · Lack of monitoring on the site; · There would be an increase in traffic using Cad Road and the road was already extremely dangerous; · Concerns over road safety; · Reference was made to the historical importance of the area which should be protected. (During the representations, members were shown photos of flooding in the area and a surface water flood map which had been submitted by an objector). Maggie Smith Bendell speaking in support of the application informed members that she had held the position of Romany Gypsy Liaison Officer for the past 20 years based near Street. She referred to the problems of site provision and lack of affordable land. She commented that the family was known to her and explained about their lifestyle. She commented that the site would be self-funded and referred to the need for pitches, as both Council sites were full. The Applicant’s Agent, Angus Murdoch, referred to the impact of the site’s access in regard to the listed gateway and commented that an assessment had been produced and there were no longer ... view the full minutes text for item 59. |
|||
Planning application 14/01891/DPO - Bradfords Site, Station Road, Misterton. PDF 512 KB Minutes: The Area Lead North/East updated Members with an email he had received from the Council’s Corporate Strategic Housing Manager. The Area Lead North/East with the aid of slides and photographs summarised the details of the application including the sole consideration of viability. In response to questions, the Area Lead North/East clarified points of detail raised by members. Members were informed of the following: · The application was made under S106BA which came into effect in April 2013 and allows any applicant to vary their application regardless of when it was approved; · At the time of the original valuation for 10 affordable houses there were some concerns and it was very touch and go as to whether the scheme would be viable; · The Developer had under estimated a number issues and further costs had been incurred agreeing highway works. During discussion, members raised a number of concerns regarding the Development Viability Appraisal and felt that it would be beneficial for the District Valuer to attend the meeting to answer member’s questions. The Solicitor confirmed that it was reasonable to postpone consideration of the application to allow the District Valuer to attend in confidential session. The Area Lead North/East advised that if members were mindful to defer the application, the applicant had the right of appeal against non-determination. It was proposed and seconded to defer the application to enable the District Valuer and the Applicant’s Agent to be present at the September Area West Committee to answer Member’s questions. On being put to the vote the proposal was carried unanimously.
(Voting: unanimous) |
|||
Planning application 13/03278/FUL - Viney Bridge Mills, South Street, Crewkerne. PDF 750 KB Minutes: The Area Lead West updated members that the Environment Agency had raised no objections to the application and had recommended a number of conditions in relation to foul surface water, maintenance of drainage system, contaminated land and the provision of a construction management plan. He also advised that the Highway Authority had raised no objections subject to conditions and were content with the visibility splays. The Education Officer had not requested any obligations. He recommended that completion of the S106 agreement should be in consultation with the Ward Members. The Area Lead West with the aid of slides and photographs summarised the details of the application as set out in the agenda report including the key considerations. The Officer’s recommendation was for approval. In response to questions, the Area Lead West clarified points of detail raised by Members which included the following: · Access via Shute Lake Lane would form a second means of access to the site in order to minimise the level of use from Weaver Close. The property owners would also have these access rights; · The construction of the bridge would be included in one of the conditions recommended by the Highway Authority; · Lighting would be agreed in the dark areas given the nature of the site. The Committee was addressed by Nicki Carpenter in support of the application. She referred to the following issues: · The need for additional lighting at the rear access; · The need to ensure that development traffic does not conflict with existing traffic and parking; · Reference was made to the communal area and whether this would be maintained by a management company; · Suggested that consideration should be given to a one way system from the bridge. The Applicant’s Agent, Kevin Newton commented that the application had been achieved by close working with SSDC, local residents and various consultees. The building was dependant on HCA funding and if approved would make the development a reality. Based upon consultation responses the application came very close to addressing all the issues. He hoped that members would appreciate the amount of work undertaken and approve the application. Ward Member, Cllr. John Dyke expressed his support for the application and appreciated the amount of work undertaken to achieve the application. He hoped if approved, the possibility of relocating the bridge could be explored. Ward Member, Cllr Angie Singleton also expressed her support for the application subject to an amendment to Condition 24 to include in consultation with the Ward Members. She also recommended that Condition 14 be amended to including in consultation with the Ward Members. During the ensuing discussion, members supported the views of the Ward Members. It was proposed and seconded to approve the application as per the Planning Officer’s recommendation outlined in the agenda subject to the following: · Details of the S106 Agreement to be agreed in conjunction with the Ward Members; · An amendment to Condition 14 to include in consultation with the Ward Members; · An amendment to Condition 24 to include in consultation with the ... view the full minutes text for item 61. |
|||
Planning application 14/02863/OUT - Holcombe House, Beadon Lane, Merriott. PDF 567 KB Minutes: The Planning Officer with the aid of slides and photographs summarised the details of the application as set out in the agenda report including the key considerations. He updated members that two further letters had been received regarding the public right of way access. The Planning Officer’s recommendation was to approve the application. In response to questions, the Planning Officer clarified points of detail raised by Members of the Committee. Members were informed that seeking access to the proposed site through the Public Right of Way used by two other properties would be a civil matter for the applicant to resolve. The Committee was addressed by Maria Payne in objection to the application. She referred to the following concerns: · The application was outside of the development area; · Planning policies should not be ignored; · If approved, the application could set a dangerous precedent; · Increase in vehicle traffic; · Impact of closing and diverting the footpath. The Ward Member, Cllr. Paul Maxwell referred to the site being outside of the development area and was an example of ‘back garden development’. He felt that the access was tricky and that the development if approved would set a precedent. He was unable to support the application. During the ensuing discussion, some members expressed their support for the application and felt that the natural development limit of Merriott was along the right of way and one more dwelling would not alter the character of the area; and that every application should be considered on its own merits. The Area Lead West commented that the Development Area was becoming increasingly out of date and referred to a number of applications being approved in Area East. He commented that Merriott was considered to have a reasonable level of services. He considered the built form to be acceptable. The application was for outline permission only with reserved matters being considered at a later date. He referred to the issue of the application setting a precedent and advised members that each application should be considered on its own merits. 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 7 in favour, 4 against and 1 abstention. As the consultation period for publicity in relation to the adjacent public right of way does not expire until the 28th of August 2014, it was recommended that the Planning Manager be granted delegated powers to approve this application unless substantive additional representations to refuse the application are received.
|
|||
Minutes: The Planning Officer updated members that 2 further letters of objection had been received including a photo montage that would be displayed during the Planning Officer’s presentation. With the aid of slides and photographs the Planning Officer summarised the details of the application as set out in the agenda report including the key considerations. The Planning Officer’s recommendation was to approve the application. In response to questions, the Planning Officer clarified points of detail raised by Members. Members were informed of the following: · A condition would be included to agree details of materials; · The proposed dwelling would sit 5 metres forward of the building line. Amended plans had been received which set out the finished floor levels; · The difference in ridge height between the proposed dwelling and Classet House was 1.2 metres which reflected the topography of the area. Comments raised by Mr Goddard and Mr Watts in objection to the application included the following: · Proposed dwelling was substantially higher than existing dwellings; · Proposed dwelling was intrusive to neighbouring properties; · The proposal was outside the development boundary; · The proposal was out of keeping with the existing landscape. The Committee was then addressed by the Applicant’s Agent, Andrew Preston. He informed members that the applicant was a former resident and wished to return to the village. He commented that the site was just outside the settlement limit and was the last vacant plot along Frog Lane and was a natural location for development. He referred to the plot being in a sustainable location which adjoined existing housing. The design was in keeping with the area. The proposed dwelling was slightly higher but was in line with the natural rise in properties. There would be no overlooking and appropriate boundary treatments were being proposed. Ward Member, Cllr. Ros Roderigo referred to the proposed development being outside settlement limits and that the Parish Council was always opposed to this. She raised concerns over the dwelling being 5m in front of the existing houseline and was therefore unable to support the application. During the ensuing discussion, a member supported the views of the Ward Member. He also felt that the proposed dwelling was unsuitable for the site as it was a small house and a difficult plot. The Area Lead West referred to the height difference being a metre and a half and advised against height difference being a reason for refusal. He advised members to consider whether the development would cause adverse harm to the neighbouring property. It was proposed and seconded to refuse the application for the following reasons: · The overbearing nature of the development; · Inappropriate design; · The proposal was contrary to policy ST6. On being put to the vote the proposal was carried unanimously.
|
|||
Minutes: The Planning Officer with the aid of slides and photographs summarised the details of the application as set out in the agenda report including the key considerations. The Planning officer’s recommendation was to approve the application. There were no questions from members of the Committee. The Committee was addressed by Mr Tim Adams in objection to the application. He read out a statement raising some concerns over waste of public funds and lack of consideration for alternative proposals. (A copy of the statement is available from Democratic Services upon request). Ward Member, Cllr; Carol Goodall referred to Ilminster Town Council recommending approval and commented that the floor area seemed small. 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 8 in favour and 4 abstentions.
(Voting: 8 in favour, 4 abstentions) |
|||
Planning application 14/02439/FUL - Chard & Ilminster News. 3 & 3A Fore Street, Chard PDF 696 KB Minutes: Having earlier declared a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest (DPI), Councillor Jenny Kenton left the meeting during consideration of the item. The Planning Officer with the aid of slides and photographs summarised the details of the application, as set out in the agenda report including the key considerations. The recommendation was to approve the application. There were no questions raised by Members. The Ward Member, Cllr. Martin Wale referred to only a small part of the building being listed. He fully supported the Planning Officer’s recommendation to approve the application. 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 carried unanimously.
(Voting: unanimous) |
|||
Planning application 14/02440/LBC - Chard & Ilminster News, 3 & 3A Fore Street, Chard. PDF 677 KB Minutes: Having earlier declared a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest (DPI), Councillor Jenny Kenton left the meeting during consideration of the item. 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 unanimously.
(Voting: unanimous) |
|||
Date and venue for next meeting PDF 17 KB The next scheduled meeting of the Committee will be held on Wednesday 17th September 2014 at the Guildhall, Chard.
Minutes: Members noted that the next scheduled meeting of the Committee would be held on Wednesday 17th September 2014 at the Guildhall, Chard. NOTED. |