Agenda and minutes

The Minutes of the meeting held on 17^th August 2016, 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.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Val Keitch and Martin Wale.

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.

Councillor Angie Singleton declared a personal and prejudicial interest in Agenda Item 14: Planning Application: 16/00865/OUT – Land off Shiremoor Hill, Merriott, as her daughter was married into the family that owned the land. She indicated that she wished to make a statement and would leave the room prior to the debate and vote.

Councillor Paul Maxwell declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 14: Planning Application: 16/00865/OUT – Land off Shiremoor Hill, Merriott, as a relative lived in a property adjacent to the site.

Councillor Sue Osborne declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 13: Planning Application: 16/02521/OUT – Land Os 7216, Church Street, Winsham, as the Ward Member.

Councillors are requested to note that the next Area West Committee meeting is scheduled to be held on Wednesday 16^th November 2016 at 5.30pm at the Guildhall, Chard.

Members noted that the next meeting of the Area West Committee would be held on Wednesday 16^th November 2016 at 5.30pm at the Guildhall, Chard.

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 present.

The Chairman reminded the Chard members that a meeting would be held with the Leader of the Council at the close of the meeting.

Reference was made to the report, which informed members of the proposed Area West Committee Forward Plan.  The Area Development Lead (West) advised that the Area West Budget Progress report would be presented in November separately to the Area Development Plan which would be considered in December.

Members were content to note the updated Area West Committee Forward Plan.

The Countryside Manager summarised the agenda report, which provided members with an update on the work of the Countryside Service across the District over the past year and on key projects for the next 6 months.  With the aid of powerpoint slides she highlighted a number of examples of work which included:

·         The Countryside Service continued to be an award winning service with both staff and volunteers winning awards;

·         A broad spectrum of public events have been delivered from September 2015 to August 2016;

·         Success of the Educational Groups and working with local schools;

·         In the past year a Friends Group at Chard Reservoir has been established;

·         Volunteering continued to be the back bone of the countryside operation with the number of donated days continuing to increase;

·         The volunteers at Chard Reservoir have started to restore the old boat house on site and have drafted up interpretation panels.  They have also carried out lots of habitat management;

·         A successful school day was delivered in July in partnership with Magdalen Farm.  It is hoped that the developing woodland learning and play zone should help encourage and support future visits from schools;

·         A successful Chard Countryside Day was held in July.

The Countryside Manager updated members that the angling at Chard Reservoir had re-opened and that the fish were now all in good health.  She advised that a reporting procedure had been put in place for anglers should any further incidents occur.

Members commended the Countryside Manager and her team for all their hard work.  The Countryside Manager was also thanked her for her excellent presentation.

In the absence of the Environmental Health Manager, the Principal Food Safety Officer summarised the agenda report, which provided members with an update on the work of the Environmental Health Service over the last twelve months.  He highlighted a number of examples of work which included the following:

·         Food and Safety Team – work of the team included the local delivery of the National Food Hygiene Rating Scheme, food sampling, tackling food fraud and health and safety at work.  Key achievements included the development of the Better Business for All (BBfA) project and supporting a multi-agency investigation into recent wild game poaching.

·         Environmental Protection Team – the team dealt with local air quality checks, investigation of noise and nuisance, contaminated land, pest control and public health burials. The Streetscene enforcement team was now part of the team.  Key achievements included the completion of works of an old gas works site in Langport, active participation in the multi-agency Chard One Project and two successful free microchipping events.

·         Housing Standards Team – the team dealt with private sector housing and enforcement including the inspection of houses in multiple occupation (HMO).  The team also offers advice on housing repair grants and loans.  Significant achievements included successful Landlord Forum events and bringing over fifty empty properties back into use.

The Environmental Health Manager noted the comments of members and responded to questions on points of detail. 

The Chairman thanked the Environmental Health Team for all their work.

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 two appeals received, three dismissed and one allowed as outlined in the agenda report.

The Committee noted the schedule of planning applications to be determined by Committee.

Application Proposal: The erection of 1 No. dwellinghouse and detached double garage (Outline)

(Prior to consideration of the application, Councillor Sue Osborne declared a personal interest as the Ward Member)

The Planning Officer introduced the report and with the aid of slides and photographs summarised the details of the application.  She advised that since writing her report a further letter had been received from a local resident raising concerns over condition 5.  She highlighted the key considerations and advised that her recommendation was for approval subject to conditions.

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

·         There would be a Replanting Scheme utilising native trees and shrubs;

·         The site was part of a large parcel of land.  The applications listed under the history of the site related to other sites with the exception of the formation of agricultural vehicular/access; 

·         No further comments had been received from the County Highway Authority;

·         A change in the speed limits could not be imposed as part of this application. The Highway Authority had assessed and considered the speed limits when they considered the application;

·         She had not been provided with any SID data from the survey carried out in September as referred to by the Parish Council;

·         There was no requirement for regular visits to the field served by the agricultural access at the current time as it was only occupied by a few sheep but it could at any time be used on a regular basis.

The Committee was addressed by Mr J Gapper, Ms J Robinson and Mr J Chance who all spoke against the proposed development.  Their comments included:-

·         Lack of public transport and good services in the village;

·         Unsuitable location;

·         12 new houses have already been approved in the village;

·         Concerns about the security implications of the proposed pedestrian access;

·         Questioned how the lockable gate and low lighting would work;

·         Concerns over loss of privacy, light pollution, loss of amenity and security for residents in the area;

·         Inadequate visibility splays;

·         Access unsuitable for pedestrians and no provision for members of the public walking on the highway.

The Agent for the applicant, Nick Forrest advised that lengthy pre-application discussions had taken place and the advice received had been fully incorporated into all aspects of the proposed dwelling.  He advised that the proposed development respected the setting of existing dwelling and that there was no overlooking.

The Ward Member, Councillor Sue Osborne commented that there was little support for the application within the village and although the location was more acceptable the highway issue was unacceptable.  She believed that a single dwelling would make no difference to the 5 year housing land supply.  She also expressed concerns over the access.  If the application were to be approved she was in support of extending the 30mph speed limit to the bridge at Bere Farm and using a grampian clause to cover the speed limit and then once completed the development could take place.

During the discussion varying views were expressed.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 65.

Application Proposal: Outline application for residential development (approximately 30 dwellings) and access from Shiremoor Hill

(Prior to consideration of the application, Councillor Paul Maxwell declared a personal interest as a relative lived in a property adjacent to the site.)

(Councillor Angie Singleton declared a personal and prejudicial interest, as her daughter was married into the family who owned the land.  She advised that she would make a statement and leave the room prior to the debate and the vote)

The Area Lead Planning Officer presented his report to members with the aid of a powerpoint presentation.  He advised that since writing his report 3 further emails had been received in support of the application, 2 from local residents and 1 from a County Councillor.  He advised that following the August Committee meeting, the applicant had commissioned a Viability Report which concluded that the scheme was 100% viable and can meet all of the affordable housing, education and sport/leisure obligations sought.  The Area Lead Planning Officer outlined the key considerations associated with the application and advised that his recommendation was for approval.

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

·         The Principal Landscape Officer outlined his concerns with the application and advised that the landscape case was finely balanced;

·         The Conservation Officer also outlined his views on the application and concluded that in his view harm was not justified;

·         No request had been made for the confidential Viability Assessment to be attached to the agenda;

·         Manor Drive was not being considered as a means of access in relation to the planning application before members;

·         With regard to the land transfer, the Legal Services Manager confirmed that the agreement had been signed by both parties earlier that day but completion still needed to take place;

·         The Viability Assessment had taken into account the cost of the land.

The Committee was addressed by Grant Wright and Iain Hall representing Merriott Parish Council.  Comments raised included the following:

·         A number of speedwatch sessions had been conducted in the village including a site along Shiremoor Hill.  The effect on traffic and highways would be minimal as volume of traffic was considerably less in the area;

·         The provision of affordable housing would help local people to get on the property ladder;

·         Other developments were not able to offer this level of affordable housing;

·         By accepting the development the village could still retain a green area and protect the land from any further development;

·         The Parish Council voted 8 to 2 in favour of the application;

·         A third of children attending the school came from outside the catchment of Merriott;

·         The land was not classed as high grade agricultural land;

·         There was no proposal to change the right of way.

The Committee was addressed by Mr J Bowman, Ms J Taylor, Mr T Hobbs who all spoke against the proposed development.  Their comments included:-

·         Merriott has had several recent housing developments.  There was no justification for further development;

·         The application did not comply with planning  ...  view the full minutes text for item 66.