Agenda, decisions and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Brian Hamilton and Val Keitch.

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.

Councillors Jenny Kenton and Martin Wale declared personal interests in Planning Application No. 20/01597/FUL – Land Adj 56 Watermead, South Chard as ward members and members of Chard Regeneration Board.

Members noted the next meeting of the Area West Committee was scheduled for Wednesday 18^th August at 5.30pm and would be a virtual meeting using Zoom on-line meeting software.

There were no questions from members of the public.

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.

In the absence of the Vice Chairman, Councillor Brian Hamilton, a proposal was made and seconded to appoint Councillor Martin Carnell as Vice Chairman for the meeting.

With the aid of a powerpoint presentation, the Specialist – Principal Planner and Specialist – Strategic Planning provided an update on the Chard Eastern Development Area (CEDA) sites in terms of recent applications and permissions granted, the policy framework and to also respond to some concerns raised about the infrastructure being delivered in tandem with the housing schemes and employment land. 

Points mentioned during the presentation included:

·         The South Somerset Local Plan 2006-2028 was adopted in March 2015 and included policies PMT1 – Chard Strategic Growth and PMT2 – Chard Phasing.

·         The allocation was based on the Chard Regeneration Plan work published in 2010.

·         Policy PMT1 – Chard Strategic Growth area included at least 2,716 dwellings, approximately 13 hectares of employment land, 2 new primary schools, 4 neighbourhood centres, highway infrastructure and improvements and sports and open space provision.

·         Policy PMT2 – Chard Phasing – within the plan period up to 2028 proposed delivery of at least 1,220 dwellings, 13 hectares of employment land, 1 new primary school, 2 neighbourhood centres and sports and open space provision.

·         In order to ensure the timely delivery of the necessary infrastructure to support the growth, phasing sequences should be justified and it should be demonstrated that the proposal would not compromise the delivery of the total growth.  Implementation of the policies are informed by the Chard Regeneration Plan.

·         The Chard Regeneration Plan had seven sections and the Framework for Change which had background analysis and the illustrative masterplans was of particular relevance.

·         Permissions granted in the last few years that had a direct relevance to delivering the CEDA objectives – Land East of Mount Hindrance Farm, Land East of Oaklands and Land between Tatworth Road and Forton Road.

·         The Local Education Authority had a preferred location for the first of 2 primary schools in Chard and confirmed it did not require SSDC to include a “precautionary” specification in scoping work through the current pre-application engagements.

·         Joint working was being undertaken with the Clinical Commissioning Group and public bodies regarding the expansion of health provision in Chard and Crewkerne.

·         SSDC had engaged Mott McDonald to provide a strategic review of the eastern relief road and a whole Local Plan Transport Assessment.

·         The Local Plan Review 2020-2040 was being prepared and it was proposed to identify the areas where housing, employment, school and neighbourhood centres would be located as well as the line of the eastern relief road.  Consultation on the review process was anticipated in mid-2022.

The Specialist – Principal Planner and Specialist – Strategic Planning responded to members’ questions on points of detail in relation to the Council’s five year housing land supply, phosphate mitigation, the delivery of the eastern relief road and the assessment being undertaken by Mott McDonald.

The Chairman thanked the Officer’s for attending the meeting and providing an informative presentation.

RESOLVED: That Area West Committee recommend to the Chief Executive to confirm the appointment of members to Outside Organisations for 2021/22 as follows:

Reason: To review and re-appoint Councillors to outside organisations with Area West for 2021/22.

(Voting: unanimous in favour)

RESOLVED: That Area West Committee recommend to the Chief Executive to confirm the appointment of members to Outside Organisations for 2021/22 as follows:

Reason: To review and re-appoint Councillors to outside organisations with Area West for 2021/22.

(Voting: unanimous in favour)

Reason: To review and re-appoint Councillors to act as substitutes for the Chairman and Vice Chairman in the exercising of the Scheme of Delegation for planning and related applications for 2021/22.

(Voting: unanimous in favour)

Reason: To review and re-appoint Councillors to act as substitutes for the Chairman and Vice Chairman in the exercising of the Scheme of Delegation for planning and related applications for 2021/22.

(Voting: unanimous in favour)

In response to questions, Members were informed that:

·         The Chard Eastern Development Plan would be presented to the Area West Committee in September or October.

·         It had not been possible to confirm a date for the Historic Building at Risk report due to resourcing issues. 

·         With regard to the update on S106 contributions, the long term plan was to collate the S106 contributions information along with the CIL information on one computer system with an aim to publish quarterly reports on the website.  In the interim, the Locality Team Manger was leading on a piece of work and it may be possible to provide an interim update.

One member referred to the recent flooding emergency in Chard and requested a report from Civil Contingencies on how SSDC engage with other authorities to deal with such emergencies.  It was noted that Somerset County Council would be producing a Section 19 Statutory Report, which was required to be undertaken following a significant flood event, and it was suggested that once the report was available a presentation could be made to the Committee. The Lead Officer for Civil Contingencies was also producing a lessons learnt report and working closely with Somerset County Council.

Members noted the details of a Planning Appeal that had been received in Chiselborough.

Members noted the Schedule of Planning Applications.

Application Proposal: Construction of a detached dwelling with associated parking

The Specialist – Principal Planner presented the application as detailed in the agenda.  He explained that the application had been referred to the Committee as three local objections had been submitted, the Parish Council had raised a concern in relation to highway issues and the applicant was South Somerset District Council.  He advised that the application site was a corner plot located within a housing estate.  The main issue with the proposal was that the plot had the scale to take a dwelling but would this undermine the character of the locality in terms of its openness and was it sufficiently harmful to merit refusal. 

The Specialist – Principal Planner explained that objections had been received to the original application relating to the character of the area, how the space was used, concerns over visibility and site lines.  The application had been revised to provide a single three bedroom house with an area to be retained as green space and the planting of a tree and the dwelling relocated to sit back from the front elevation.  In terms of overlooking, it was noted that to the rear of the dwelling there would be windows with obscure glazing.  In conclusion, the Specialist – Principal Planner was of the opinion that the revised scheme for a single dwelling and the retention of green space retained the character of the area and therefore recommended approval of the application.

The Applicant commented that the concerns from local residents regarding the original scheme had been taken into account and the revised scheme retained a fairly significant area of open green space.  The area would potentially remain in the ownership of SSDC and not be sold off with the plot. Additional tree planting could also be secured on the green area to respect the local character.

In response to questions raised, members were informed of the following:

·         The site was not big enough or suitable to be a designed play facility as it was located too close to residential properties;

·         The objections received were in response to the original planning application.  No objections or comments had been received in response to the revised application.

Ward Member, Councillor Jenny Kenton, who was also speaking on behalf of the other Ward Member Councillor Martin Wale said that many of the residents were of the opinion that the site was a public open space as a bench had been allowed to be located on the land. Although she was not fully against having a dwelling on the land, she felt that the dwelling should be made available for local residents of Tatworth and noted there were six families requiring three bedroom affordable housing.  She also wished to see the remaining green space being offered to the Parish Council.

In response to the comments made by the Ward Member, the Specialist – Principal Planner advised that affordable housing could not be required for a scheme below ten dwellings.  Discussions would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 27.