Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the minutes of previous meetings held on 17^th March, 19^th May and 21^st July 2021.

The minutes of the previous meetings held on 17^th March, 19^th May and 21^st July were approved as a correct record and would be signed by the Chairman.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Brian Hamilton, Jenny Kenton, Paul Maxwell and Linda Vjeh.

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.

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.  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. 

Planning Applications Referred to the Regulation Committee

The following members of this Committee are also members of the Council's Regulation Committee:

Councillors Jason Baker, Sue Osborne and Linda Vijeh.

Where planning applications are referred by this Committee to the Regulation Committee for determination, 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.

There were no declarations of interest.

There were no questions from members of the public present at the meeting.

Councillors are requested to note that the next Area West Committee meeting is scheduled to be held at 5.30pm on Wednesday 20^th October 2021.  This will be a virtual meeting using Zoom on-line meeting software.

Members noted that the next meeting of the Area West Committee would be held on Wednesday 20^th October 2021 at 5.30pm and would be a virtual meeting using Zoom on-line meeting software.

The Chairman reminded everyone present that in order to enable members to continue holding remote, virtual meetings, Full Council had agreed in April to amend part of the Council’s Constitution to allow its remote meetings to function as consultative meetings and delegate decisions to the Chief Executive (or the relevant Director in the Chief Executive’s absence) in consultation with those meetings.

This was extended at Full Council on 8 July 2021 for a further 6 months.

The Property and Development Project Manager introduced the report and informed members that the Leisure Centre was very close to being complete.  The Leisure Centre would shortly be handed over to the Operator to begin their training and at the end of the month a formal opening date would be announced.  He was pleased to inform members that the Leisure Centre was on track for completion in line with the contract timescales and agreed budget particularly bearing in mind the challenges brought about by the Covid pandemic and Brexit.

In response to member questions, the Property and Development Project Manager informed members that:-

·         In relation to the proposed demolition of Building 11 and health and safety, the contractors were proposing to erect scaffolding around the building and materials would be taken down inside the building.  The building would be used to contain the rubble and the height of the building would be gradually lowered. The houses in the surrounding area would be protected by the scaffold and additional measures would be looked at to control dust.  The adjoining neighbours would be kept well informed of the works taking place.

·         Area West members would be invited to visit the Leisure Centre with a date to be scheduled for September.

·         Negotiations with the Post Office were ongoing and a new access to the site from Silver Street was currently being explored.

·         Holyrood Lace Mill and Boden Mill were being looked at as two separate projects.

Cllr Mike Best commented that he had visited the Leisure Centre and was very impressed with the building, it was going to be a real asset to Chard and he looked forward to the whole complex being completed and open for business for members of the public to enjoy.

The Chairman thanked the Property and Development Project Manager for his update.

The Chard High Street Heritage Action Zone (HSHAZ) Project Manager informed members that technical approval of the Public Realm Scheme by Somerset County Council was due imminently.   The tender process had concluded for the construction contractor and Alun Griffiths (Contractors) Ltd had been appointed with the current design team being appointed as technical advisors during the construction phase.

The Chard HSHAZ Project Manager said that good progress had been made and the work linked to the Leisure Centre was on track to be completed in time for the opening.  She referred to the market conditions at the current time and the long lead times for some materials and said that as this had been identified early the contractors were already working with the suppliers. 

With regard to the building grants programme, members were informed that there had been a small delay in launching the programme primarily due to the capacity to support the Public Realm Scheme over the past few months.  The Chard HSHAZ Project Manager advised that a conservation accredited architect was appointed in August and had already completed a visual assessment of conditions of all of the shortlisted properties.  A valuation assessment by a Quantity Surveyor would be made in the next few weeks.  Work on a new shopfront design guide was due to start with a consultation exercise due to be undertaken.

The Chard HSHAZ Project Manager concluded her report by informing members about the Heritage Open days taking place as part of the community engagement work.

 In response to members’ comments and questions, the Chard HSHAZ Project Manager informed members of the following:

·         With regard to Building Grants, there was a short list of properties across the town centre that was submitted to Historic England as part of the bid for High Street Heritage Action Zone.  The list of properties was available on the Chard Regeneration website.

·         The bus stop currently located outside The Guildhall would be moving a few metres further up the road.

·         As Manor Courthouse and Chard School were both on the heritage at risk register and not commercial premises they would not be eligible under the High Street Heritage Action Zone grant scheme but as part of her work she is able to provide support to the building owners so that they could access other funding, and is encouraging opportunities for public access.

·         She would be happy to provide a report on data from the footfall counters as part of the regular updates to Committee.

The Chairman thanked the Chard HSHAZ Project Manager for her report.

In response to a comment raised by a member regarding a date for the Historic Buildings at Risk and S106 obligations reports, the Director – Service Delivery said that it had not been possible to bring forward an Historic Buildings at Risk report within the preferred timescales as hoped due to resourcing issues and change in staff but officers were looking at how a report could be provided to members. 

With regard to the S106 Obligations report, officers were working towards collating all the S106 information together with the CIL information onto one computer system and the aim was to publish reports on the Council’s website. A Joint Scrutiny and Audit Task and Finish Group was also being set up to review this work.  A report on the new system was likely to be presented to Full Council in the New Year. 

Members noted that reports on the new Unitary Authority would initially be taken to District Executive and Full Council. 

Members noted the details of planning appeals that had been received, dismissed and allowed.

The Chairman announced that he would be taking Planning Application No.  20/02249/OUT prior to Planning Application No. 20/02247/OUT.

Application Proposal: Outline application with all matters reserved matters, except for access, for up to 13 dwellings

This application was taken after Planning Application No: 20/02249/OUT.

It was proposed and seconded to defer the application to a future meeting of the Area West Committee as members felt that there was an opportunity to deliver a highway benefit to the local road network through a negotiated solution that could be achieved within the two applications within the applicant’s control.

A vote was taken to defer the application which was approved by 9 votes in favour, 0 against and 1 abstention.

Application Proposal: Outline application with all matters reserved, except for access, for up to 35 dwellings

This application was taken prior to Planning Application No. 20/02247/OUT.

The Specialist - Principal Planner outlined the application and pointed out that both application sites on the agenda were in the same ownership and were submitted by the same developer.  The application site was a field located within Tatworth and was generally bounded by existing housing and located outside of the Conservation Area.  Due to the site topography, there would be a need to manage the height of any dwellings on site.  The proposed housing would not dominate the landscape and was a mix of single storey properties, one and a half storey properties and two storey properties.  The Specialist – Principal Planner informed members that there was a bungalow situated between the two sites with its own separate access.  The scheme was proposing a relatively low density and landscaped site with suggestions for open space on the higher ground.  It was proposed that the landscape boundary would be managed by a management company and the trees and hedges maintained outside of residential curtilages.  The two applications proposed two accesses onto Fore Street and a pedestrian link to the rear of the site.

The Specialist – Principal Planner outlined the key considerations which were principal of development, highway issues, landscape impact, residential amenity, ecology and heritage.  He recommended that the application be approved subject to conditions as outlined in the agenda.

In response to various questions raised, the Specialist – Principal Planner informed members of the following:

·         The Highway Authority had confirmed that they did not have an objection to the scheme and had not requested details of any traffic surveys to be provided.

·         The site was not affected by the phosphate issue.

·         The scheme was establishing the access into the site but Somerset County Council were reserving their position on a number of points about internal layout. 

·         The Highway Authority did not object to two accesses but their preference would be for one access.

·         The Applicant’s perspective was that the hedge and ditch that ran between the two application sites was an important ecological feature and therefore if a road was taken across that there would be a break in ecology.

·         Each of the cul-de-sacs would have its own turning head with scope to deliver an in/out system.

·         Power providers were not consulted as part of the application process as they had a duty to provide power to meet the needs of the towns and villages.  As part of the reserved matters process the applicant would look at infrastructure connections and what the infrastructure providers require as it was their duty to service new developments.

·         The site was just as affected by the lack of a five year housing supply and the tilted balance despite it not being affected by the phosphates issue.

·         The application would lead to a level of growth of about 12% and was consistent with the level of growth  ...  view the full minutes text for item 40.