Agenda, decisions and minutes

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the previous meeting held on 20^th October 2021.

The minutes of the previous meeting held on 20^th October 2021 were approved as a correct record and would be signed by the Chairman.

There were no apologies for absence.

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.

Councillor Paul Maxwell declared a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in Agenda Item 7 - Community Grant to Combe St Nicholas Running Track, as his wife was the Headteacher at Combe St Nicolas Primary School.  He would leave the meeting and take no part in the discussion or vote on the item.

Councillor Martin Wale declared a personal and prejudicial interest in Agenda Item 7 - Community Grant to Combe St Nicholas Running Track, as he was a Governor at Combe St Nicholas Primary School.  He would leave the meeting and take no part in the discussion or vote on the item.

During Agenda Item 7 – Community Grant to Combe St Nicholas Running Track, Councillor Jenny Kenton declared a personal interest, as her granddaughter attended Combe St Nicholas Primary School.

Councillors are requested to note that the next Area West Committee meeting is scheduled to be held at 5.30pm on Wednesday 19^th January 2022.

Members noted that the next meeting of the Area West Committee would be held on Wednesday 19^th January 2022 at 5.30pm.

There were no questions from members of the public.

The Chairman made no announcements.

Having earlier declared interests, Councillors Paul Maxwell and Martin Wale left the meeting during discussion of the item.

The Locality Officer presented the report which asked members to consider awarding a grant towards a running track at Combe St Nicholas Primary School.

The Committee was addressed by the Headteacher of Combe St Nicholas Primary School and two children who attended the school.  Members were informed that the school was working towards obtaining the Healthy Schools Quality Mark and would like to establish a Daily Mile challenge.  The school had a running club but the roads in Combe St Nicholas were too dangerous especially in the dark.  It had been decided that the children would be able to run more safety if the school had a running track on the school field.  In order to progress the project, school representatives had attended a parish council meeting which resulted in the parish council awarding a grant of £1,500 towards the project.  School governors and parents had also supported the project and approximately £6,000 had been raised.  The running track was not just for the school, everyone in the village would also be encouraged to make use of it.  The school did have a large field but this was water logged for most of the year, so a running track would make a huge difference.

During the discussion on the item, members expressed their support for the project.  It was felt that as a small village school, it did not have the advantages that a lot of the bigger schools had and the fact that they had raised over half of the money spoke volumes.  The project was considered to be a very good initiative and physical activity should be encouraged in schools.

Members unanimously approved the recommendation of the report.

In the absence of the Property and Development Project Manager, the Chard High Street Heritage Action Zone Project Manager presented the report.  She informed members that the Leisure Centre opened as planned on 8^th November with a ceremony involving key stakeholders and a tour of the new facility.  Freedom Leisure were now operating the centre and the SSDC team were addressing any defects on the build.  Feedback so far from pool users had led to a reassessment of the access into the swimming pool and a set of removable steps with hand rails was going to be installed shortly.  Memberships for the pool, gym and swimming club were ahead of expectations.  In relation to Building 11, members were informed that Building 11 was still in the planning process and an application was not expected to come forward to the Area West Committee until February.

The Chairman commented that the Leisure Centre had been very welcomed and was already extremely busy.  It was a fantastic facility not just for Chard but also the surrounding area.

A member raised a query in relation to Building 11 and the negotiations being held with Historic England.  It was agreed that the Property and Development Project Manager would provide a response a written response.

At the conclusion of the item members were content to note the report.

The Chard High Street Heritage Action Zone Project Manager advised that there were three phases to the High Street Heritage Zones for Chard – the public realm scheme, the building improvement grant scheme and community engagement. 

With regard to the public realm scheme, members were informed that the technical and road safety audit process with Somerset County Council had been completed.  The lead local flood authority consents were also approved to allow works to the water courses and the S278 Agreement and Traffic Regulation Orders had been signed and sealed.  Alun Griffiths Ltd had begun working on site in September starting at the Market Field junction.  The Chard High Street Heritage Action Zone Project Manager said that there were some issues with materials, lead times and logistics due to Covid/Brexit which meant that the contractors were having to work quite flexibly across the whole site in order to maintain best alignment with the project timescales.  At present, completion of the scheme was scheduled for April and remained within budget.  Members were given the contact details for the contractor should they wish to raise any questions, concerns or issues relating to the works.

The Chard High Street Heritage Action Zone Project Manager informed members a Conservation Architect had been appointed to advise on the Building Grants Programme.  An external conditions survey had been conducted on each of the properties on the schedule and a draft prioritisation matrix had been drawn up.  In liaison with Historic England, it had been agreed that the maximum grant rate be increased from 50% to 70%, in recognition of the challenging economic circumstances faced by businesses in Chard and to encourage take-up.  A draft Chard Shop Front Design Guide had also been approved by the District Executive for formal consultation.

With regard to the Community engagement strand of the scheme, members noted that various events have engaged over 300 people which included Heritage Open Days, a stall at the Chard Carnival Street Fair and Chard Christmas Market and would not have been possible without the support of the partner organisations.

In response to questions raised by members, the Chard High Street Heritage Action Zone Project Manager advised members of the following:

·         She would be able to help provide members with answers to any enquires or complaints received about the scheme from members of the public.

·         The footfall counters would remain in place until March 2024 when the Heritage Action Zone Scheme was due to end but discussions would be held about the possibility of them being retained.

·         The building grants scheme programme would run until March 2024.  A date for receiving final applications would be set out in the guidance for the application process.

·         There was funding available for all the properties listed on the schedule based on the external condition surveys conducted.

·         Covid/Brexit was affecting the construction industry across the whole of the country and pushing up the cost of materials and the lead times for receiving them. There were issues  ...  view the full minutes text for item 60.

A member mentioned that Crewkerne Town Council had been provided with information relating to S106 contributions and queried whether this information could be provided to members. 

A member made a request for a report in January on the progress of the Millers site car park in Crewkerne – current status of the project, how much funding had been allocated and the timeline for its completion.

Members noted that the District Executive at its meeting in January were due to consider reports on the Future Chard Strategy and Chard Regeneration Lessons Learnt and that they were welcome to attend the meeting.

With regard to S106 contributions and CIL information, members noted that a new piece of software was being used to collate this information and once the work was completed a report would come forward.  The plan was for the information to be made available to councillors as well as members of the public.

Members noted that the Lead Specialist – Built Environment was aware of the Committee’s request for a Historic Buildings at Risk report.  The Director – Service Delivery agreed to let members know when a report was likely to come forward.  It was noted that this was a big piece of work and had been requested by all Area Committees.

The Acting Director Place & Recovery/Lead Specialist Economy responded to a member question regarding CIL Governance.  He also agreed to provide a written response to members.

Members noted the details of two planning appeals that had been received.

Members noted the Schedule of Planning Applications.

Application Proposal: Change of Use, Conversion and Extension of Former Piggery Building & Adjacent Store Building into Self-Contained Holiday Let Accommodation with Swimming Pool, Associated Parking and Amenity Space.

The Specialist – Principal Planner presented the application as detailed in the agenda and with the aid of a powerpoint presentation continued to show the site and proposed plans.  The site was located in the open countryside and within the Blackdown Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  The holiday lets were proposed to have ten en-suite bathrooms and bedrooms with nine parking spaces including disabled parking.  The existing building was a long rectangular building and there were two proposed extensions that would follow the existing form of the structure with a low pitched roof and simple elevations.  Whilst the AONB Partnership had raised concerns about the proposal, members were asked to note that the building was already established and had a presence in the landscape.  Conditions relating to materials and finish were recommended as well as conditions for external lighting due to the impact on the AONB and local bat populations.  The use of the building as a tourist use was considered acceptable in this location and National Policies were generally supportive of tourism accommodation as it supported the rural economy.  The nearest neighbour was over 80 metres away and there was considered to be no impact on the residential amenity.  The use of a holiday let was suggested to be controlled by recommended condition.  There were no objections raised by the Environmental Protection team or the Highway Department with recommended conditions regarding a visibility splay and a requirement for electric car charging points.  The application was considered acceptable with the appropriate conditions and therefore recommended for approval. 

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

·         Nine parking spaces were proposed which included one disabled parking space.

·         There were a number of proposed conditions which included materials, permitted development rights, landscaping, surfacing materials in the parking areas as well as lighting.

·         There had been no objections from Environmental Protection.  80 metres was considered to be some distance from the nearest property.  The site was previously a farm and would have made a certain amount of noise.  Rural areas were not necessary quiet areas and still had economic activity within them.

·         The application did not have the normal prior approval permitted development rights as it was located within the AONB and a lot of legislation did not apply.

·         All that could be controlled through the planning system was that it was a holiday let and that people were only there for a short period of time. 

·         The people staying at the property could not be controlled.

·         Any issues around noise were outside the control of planning legislation.

·         An additional condition could be attached requiring a sustainable drainage system.

·         Condition 4 was a fairly standard condition for holiday accommodation.  This would only allow people to stay who were on holiday and not permit people to rent  ...  view the full minutes text for item 64.