Agenda, decisions and minutes

RESOLVED:  that the following item 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 summarised the agenda report, which outlined the work of the Conservation Team in respect of historic buildings at risk and updated members on current cases in Area West.  The Committee was asked to note and comment on the report.

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

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

Members requested a further update report in about six months’ time with the agreement of the Chair.

NOTED.

The minutes of the meeting held on 16^th September 2015, copies of which had been circulated, were taken as read and, having been approved were signed by the Chairman 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, 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.

Councillor Jenny Kenton declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 10, South Somerset Careline Annual Report 2014/15, as her mother was a user of the service.

Councillor Dave Bulmer declared a personal and prejudicial interest in Planning Application No. 15/03187/FUL, as his partner owned land adjacent to the application site.  He left the room during consideration of the item.

Councillor Sue Osborne declared a personal interest in Planning Application Nos. 15/03635/FUL and 15/03263/S73A, as the ward member.

Councillor Sue Osborne declared a personal interest in Planning Application No. 15/03187/FUL, as she was a member of the Countryside Management Steering Group which oversees Chard Reservoir.

Councillor Garry Shortland declared a personal and prejudicial interest in Planning Application No. 15/02097/FUL, as he was a friend of the applicant’s son.  He left the room during consideration of the application.

Councillors Jason Baker, Amanda Broom, Dave Bulmer, Jenny Kenton and Garry Shortland declared personal interests in Planning Application Nos. 15/02097/FUL and 15/03187/FUL, as members of Chard Town Council. 

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.

The Committee was addressed by Mr David Laughton with reference to free car parking for Chard.  He asked the Committee to support Chard Town Council’s recommendation of wholeheartedly supporting the public led campaign to introduce a period of two hours free parking per day in Chard.  He referred to the petition on the internet which showed that 600 people per in favour of its introduction.

In response, the Assistant Director (Economy) referred to the motion submitted to Full Council in July.  The Council agreed to investigate a change to the Council Car Parking Policy to enable an initial free period of up to 2 hours of parking to be made available, where parking is currently charged at a timed rate.  He advised that viability work was underway and nearing completion and that a report was likely to be considered by District Executive and Full Council in the autumn.

There were no announcements from the Chairman.

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.

(Resolution passed without dissent)

The Assistant Director (Economy), Economic Development Manager and the Development Manager gave a detailed presentation updating members on progress made with the Chard Regeneration Scheme.  With the aid of powerpoint slides members were updated on the following aspects:

·         Town Centre – current position

·         CEDA and unlocking the growth area

·         Funding Bids

·         Site by site progress

(A copy of the presentation slides are attached to these minutes for information.)

The Committee was addressed by Helen Lock.  She raised concerns over delivery of sites now that the Local Plan was considered out of date.  She also questioned what affect the new ruling on social housing would have on developers.  She also sought clarification with regard to Persimmon’s interest in the bottom part of the site.

In response, the Development Manager explained that although the Council could not demonstrate a five year land supply, this didn’t make the Local Plan out of date it just meant that some policies within the Plan were considered to have less weight attached to them.  He confirmed that provision of affordable housing would be more expensive to the developers and that the target would be more challenging to achieve.  He explained that Persimmon had focussed on the site that they felt was most deliverable, however this wouldn’t impact on the development to the north of the land.

During the ensuing discussion, Officers noted the comments of members and responded to questions on points of detail.  Members were informed of the following:

·         The amount available for government infrastructure schemes would be announced in the Autumn Statement.  The Chard Infrastructure Project had been placed as a high priority by SSDC.  The bid would cover 900m of roadway and 2km of cycleway. An announcement on successful schemes would be made in early 2016;

·          With regard to the timeframe of the agreement with Henry Boot, members were advised that an extension could be considered as long as Henry Boot was sufficiently advanced in meeting all conditions of the agreement.  If it transpired that the scheme was not moving forward within a year before April 2017, alternative options would be pursued.

The Chairman thanked the Officers for attending the meeting.

Members were content to note the contents of the report and presentation.

The Careline & Welfare Manager introduced her report and advised Members that the Careline service had over 2,000 customers across South Somerset and had been running for 33 years.  The Team was based at Petters House with a control centre at Sedgemoor District Council.  She drew Members attention to the other services provided which included telecare, smoke detectors and door sensors.  She explained that people received the service free of charge for 6 weeks when they come out of hospital and that 60% of these people continued to keep the service.  She highlighted that Area West had the highest number of customers.  She said that she was keen to expand the service and asked Members to promote the service to residents.

During the ensuing discussion, the Careline & Welfare Manager noted the comments of members and responded to questions on points of detail. Members were informed that:

·         The reason for customers leaving the service was always recorded.  She was keen to promote the service so that people received the service earlier when they needed it rather than after the need for it;

·         A member felt that the service should be promoted to young people and queried whether they would receive an allowance.  In response, the Careline & Welfare Manager advised that there was a discounted rate for people in receipt of the means tested benefits;

·         In terms of marketing the service, the Careline & Welfare Manager was looking to promote the service using facebook and radio;

·         Members voiced their support for the service which allowed independence, comfort and security for users of the service.

The Chairman thanked the Careline & Welfare Manager for attending and providing an informative update report. 

The Conservation Manager introduced his report and with the aid of a powerpoint presentation outlined the role and work of the Conservation Team.  Members were informed of the following:

·         The aim of the team was to provide specialist advice on the built and natural environment to the Council and particularly to the planning service;

·         The role of the Landscape Architect included giving advice on the landscape impact of development proposals and mitigation measures including input to appeals;

·         The Tree Officer gave advice on development proposals in relation to trees and undertook enforcement casework, was responsible for making Tree Preservation Orders (TPO) and negotiating proposals affecting TPO and conservation area trees;

·         Work undertaken by the Ecologist included reviewing planning applications flagged through the Somerset Environmental Record Centre Bioplan screening service and advising on potential impact on protected sites and species; and negotiating mitigation measures;

·         Officers gave building conservation advice on applications on listed buildings and in conservation areas, undertook conservation area reviews and appraisals, gave conservation advice to building owners, applicants and planning officers and negotiation of listed building consent;

·         Recent work included landscape and historic environment input to the Local Plan Enquiry, continuing negotiations for major residential sites in Ilminster and Crewkerne, listed curtilages of 60 parishes mapped and promoting listing of 24 war memorials;

·         The future work programme to include landscape and Heritage Strategies for Local Development Scheme, complete mapping of listed curtilages and continuing to work to resolve listed building at risk cases.

The Chairman thanked the Conservation Manager for attending the meeting.

Reason: To appoint an SSDC representative to the Making It Local Executive Committee.

Members were asked to consider appointing an SSDC representative to the Making It Local Executive Group.

(Voting: 12 in favour)

Reason: To appoint an SSDC representative to the Making It Local Executive Committee.

Crewkerne Leisure Management (Aqua Centre)

Members noted the report by Cllr. Angie Singleton updating members on Crewkerne Leisure Management.

Meeting House Arts Centre, Ilminster

Members noted the report by Cllr. Val Keitch updating members on the Meeting House Arts Centre, Ilminster.

NOTED.

The Committee noted the details contained in the agenda report, which informed members of an appeal that had been received.

NOTED.

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

Application Proposal: Construction of dormer window to rear roof slope (Retrospective Application)

The Planning Officer introduced the report and with the aid of slides and photographs summarised the details of the application as set out in the agenda.  The key considerations were impact on the conservation area and the statutory duty to ‘preserve or enhance’.  There were no updates to the report.  The Planning Officer’s report was for refusal.

In response to questions from Members, the Planning Officer confirmed that:

·         Contact had been made with Development Control and Building Control prior to the application being made;

·         The application submitted to Building Control had not been seen by the Development Control Department;

·         With reference to Section 72 of the Listed Building and Conservation Areas Act 1991, there were several court cases that had taken the same line;

·         If the dormer was located outside of the Conservation Area, it would still require planning permission.

The Committee was addressed by John Sullivan, Chairman of Winsham Parish Council.  He explained that the applicant did not realise that his property was located within a Conservation Area and had not mentioned the fact to Building Control.  The applicant had been advised that the work could be carried out under permitted development.  He gave details of the applicant’s personal circumstances and commented that the loss of the facility would be detrimental to the applicant’s family.  He commented that the Conservation Area was important but the dormer caused no visual impact and had support from local residents in the village.

The Committee was then addressed by Mr Weller in support of the application.  He explained that he lived in one of only four properties that were only overlooked in their back gardens.  He noted that there had been no objections to the window and commented that the dormer was not visible from the main road and was in keeping with the rear elevation of the property.         

The Applicant, Mr Willis explained that he had looked at several ways of expanding his property but it was not possible to extend at the back and the only way of providing space was to extend into the loft.  He had contacted Building Control and discussed the proposed plans.  He was not aware that his property was located within a Conservation Area.  He was unaware that communication between Building Control and Development Control was not automatic.  He confirmed that work was now complete and that his immediate neighbour supported the development.  The Parish Council also supported the application and was keen for young families to remain in the village.  He was of the opinion that he had acted in good faith and asked members to consider the detrimental effect on his family if the application were to be refused.

Ward Member, Councillor Sue Osborne referred to Section 72 of the Listed Building and Conservation Area Act and commented that many of the court cases were not relevant to this application. She noted that the demand for family housing was identified within the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 60.

Application Proposal: Application to vary condition 02 (approved plans) of 14/05486/FUL for the addition of 4 No. radius oak braces to side elevation and amendment to design

The Planning Officer introduced the report and with the aid of slides and photographs summarised the details of the application as set out in the agenda.  There were no updates to the report.  The key considerations were inconsistency between approved plans and character and appearance including setting of the Conservation Area.  The Planning Officer’s recommendation was for approval.

In response to questions from Members, the Planning Officer confirmed that

·         The main planning issue was the impact on the Conservation Area and the character of the area and was not about whether the timber braces were necessary;

·         He did not feel that the visual impact was significant enough to warrant refusal of the application;

·         He had discussed the application informally with the Conservation Officer who was of the view that the proposal would not impact upon the Conservation Area or its setting.

The Committee was addressed by John Sullivan, Chairman of Winsham Parish Council who reiterated the views of the Parish Council as outlined in the agenda report.  The Parish Council were of the view that SSDC should determine the complaint alleging breaches of planning control regarding construction of the carport before considering the new application and give the Parish Council the opportunity to review the application in the context of any decisions made. 

The Committee was then addressed by Mrs Mermagen (speaking on behalf of Mr Mermagen), Elizabeth Turner, Brian Turner and Mr Chance in objection to the application.  Views expressed during the representations included the following:

·         The carport was a serious intrusion on the edge of a Conservation Area and was a prominent feature of the close;

·         The design amendment was of no practical value and added to the overbearing mass of the structure;

·         The structure could not be used as a carport as there was no room for a car;

·         No further work should be considered on the carport;

·         All the neighbours objected to the structure;

·         The Committee were shown a number of photographs submitted by Mr Chance which highlighted the extension of the carport being beyond adjacent elevations, it was too narrow to park a car, a second parking space had been lost and further parking was now in the road.

The Ward Member, Cllr Sue Osborne felt that the proposal did impact upon the Conservation Area and commented that carports were normally modest.  She was of the view that the existing structure was solid and did not require the addition of timber braces.  She objected to the application on the grounds of the proposal being a dominant structure that would cause harm to the Conservation Area.

In response to a member comment, the Senior Legal Executive advised that the two sets of plans attached to the previous permission showed different details.  The 1:20 scale plans was more detailed but effectively the development could have been built either way although  ...  view the full minutes text for item 61.

Application Proposal: The erection of 1 No. detached dwelling

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

The Planning Officer introduced the report and with the aid of slides and photographs summarised the details of the application as set out in the agenda.  The key considerations were character and appearance, including the appearance of streetscene, residential amenity and highway safety.  The Planning Officer’s recommendation was for approval.  He proposed an additional condition to those outlined in the report to ensure that the window on the side elevation facing Trelowena was obscured glazed and fixed close.

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

·         The extension to the neighbouring property had been built since the previous application and did not require planning permission;

·         Mr Lee, the owner of the property next door to the application site confirmed that planning permission was live when he purchased his property.  He also advised that he had experienced problems with land registry at the time of purchasing his property and that the planning permission had failed to show up on the search;

·         The original planning application expired in April 2014;

·         There was no obligation for a planning permission to be activated;

·         There had been no policy changes since the original application was approved.

The Committee was addressed by Ivan and Katy Lee in objection to the application.  Points raised during the representation included the following:

·         The development was not in keeping with the other bungalows in the crescent;

·         She was not aware that any other properties in the road had accommodation in the roof;

·         The proposed development was too close to the neighbouring property and would restrict their privacy;

·         Concerns over loss of light.

The Committee was addressed by Mark Fox, representing the Applicant.  He explained that the previous planning permission had lapsed due to the applicant’s health situation.  He said that the owner of the next door property had moved into the property in 2011 and that planning permission was still in place at the time.  He commented that the extinguishment of a footpath had also delayed the process.  He explained that the plot was large and therefore more difficult to sell and it made much more sense to utilise the plot.  He believed that the plans were in keeping with the surrounding area.

Ward Member, Cllr. Jenny Kenton stated that the estate comprised a mix of properties. She commented that there were a number of extensions to properties along Furnham Road that occupied a much larger area and felt that this proposal was much smaller in comparison.  She also highlighted that there had been no policy changes since the previous application was approved.

During consideration of the item, members expressed their support for the application commenting that there had been no policy or material change since the previous application and commented that the next door extension had been built when planning permission was still in place.

It was proposed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 62.

Application Proposal: Installation of up to a 3 MW solar farm comprising ground mounted photovoltaic solar arrays together with power inverter systems, transformers and substations, internal access track, landscaping, deer fencing, CCTV and other associated infrastructure equipment

(Having earlier declared a personal and prejudicial interest, Councillor Dave Bulmer left the room during consideration of the application)

The Planning Officer introduced the report and with the aid of slides and photographs summarised the details of the application as set out in the agenda.  There were no updates to the report. The key considerations were principle of development, landscape character and highway safety.  The Planning Officer’s recommendation was for approval.

In response to questions from Members, the Planning Officer confirmed that:

·         Sheep would be able to graze underneath the panels;

·         The Countryside Manager had not been consulted on the application;

·         It was felt that there would be no direct impact on Chard Reservoir.

The Committee was addressed by the Applicant, James Jenkison.  He commented that the site was well concealed and informed members that a survey had been carried out which concluded that there would be no harm to wildlife.  He said that the amount of traffic connected with the construction of the site would be minimal and should not cause any problems.

The Ward Member, Cllr Garry Shortland commented that in the past there had been a waste transfer site located further down the road that would of generated more traffic movements than anticipated with the proposed site.  He referred to the need for renewable energy and recommended that the application be approved.

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.

Member noted that the next meeting of the Area West Committee would be held on Wednesday 18^th November 2015 at 5.30pm.  Venue to be confirmed.