Agenda and minutes
Venue: Council Chamber, Council Offices, Brympton Way, Yeovil. View directions
Contact: Jo Boucher, Case Officer - 01935 462011 Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
To approve as a correct record the minutes of the Regulation Committee held on 14th February 2023. The draft minutes can be viewed at:
The minutes of the Regulation Committee meeting held on 14th February 2023, copies of which had been circulated, were agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
Apologies for Absence
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Jason Baker, Sarah Dyke, Paul Maxwell and William Wallace.
Apologies for absence were also received from Councillor Dean Ruddle who was substituted by Councillor Mike Stanton.
Declarations of Interest
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.
There were no declarations of interest.
Public Question Time
There were no questions from members of the public.
Planning Application 22/00612/FUL - Land at Millfield, Millfield Industrial Estate, Millfield, Chard TA20 2BB PDF 590 KB
Proposal: Redevelopment of site with 20,611sqm (GIA) of commercial floorspace (use class B2 and B8 with ancillary office space), creation of new access and all associated works.
The Lead Specialist presented the application and with the aid of slides showed the site, location and proposed plans. He also highlighted:
· Existing Numatic building opposite the site.
· Former Oscar Mayer site prior and post demolition.
· Proposed landscaping design including proposal of ‘green wall’ and ‘brown roof’ to provide biodiversity benefits.
· Site layout.
· Various elevations of the proposed building.
The Lead Specialist presented the key considerations and comments in summarised form were:
· Principle of Development – Need to support local economic growth and following the closure of Oscar Mayer will help to provide long term investment and productivity for the local area as a principal employer.
· Landscape/Visual Amenity– Sited on relatively low-lying ground and with the proposed boundary hedge planting and landscape design with no loss of trees is considered to have little impact to the character or landscape of the area.
· Highway Safety – Proposed provision for parking and cycle parking and complies with highway authority requirements with regards to the range of parking opportunities. Noted that SCC broadly accept the submitted travel plan however are seeking a safeguarding fee which would allow them to take remedial work if the travel plan were to fail.
· Flood Risk – Extensive consultation has taken place between the applicant and the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) who have recognised the existing site is largely hard surfaced and considered to provide no significant harm.
· Biodiversity – Proposed biodiversity enhancement measures to be included on site.
· Phosphates – Commercial development is excluded from the phosphate requirement as approach taken that in general employees would already work and live within the catchment area.
· Amenity – There is significant screening between the site and the nearest property Lordleaze Hotel. Acoustic assessment has been carried out which is also considered acceptable.
He referred to the consultation and representations received, with statutory consultees raising no objections and only one third party objection regarding highway and access. He concluded that after considering all the responses and advice, as outlined in the agenda report, his recommendation was to approve the application subject to the conditions as set out in the agenda report.
The Lead Specialist also clarified in detail the current position regarding the submitted travel plan and background discussions with SCC, who are seeking a safeguarding fee which would allow them to take remedial work if the travel plan were to fail. He explained the suggestion to split the travel plan in two, with the bulk of work to be governed by condition with the safeguarding fee being undertaken by a stand-alone Unilateral Undertaking. He clarified the two likely options being:
1. Should the committee believe the monitoring fee is necessary to provide the Highways Authority with 5 working days to provide any comments upon the wording of the Unilateral Undertaking insofar as it secures and protects the Safeguarding Sum and thereafter ... view the full minutes text for item 159.