Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the previous meeting held on 8^th December 2021.

The minutes of the previous meeting held on 8^th December 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 Val Keitch declared a personal interest in Planning Application 21/02654/FUL, as a member of Ilminster Town Council.  She indicated that she had made the decision to not speak or vote on the application.

Councillor Sue Osborne declared a personal interest in Planning Application 21/02654/FUL, as the Ward Member.

Councillor Dave Bulmer declared a personal and prejudicial interest in Planning Application 21/0254/FUL, as a former director of Chard Carnival Committee.  He advised that he would leave the room during the item and take no part in the discussion or vote.

Councillor Jenny Kenton declared a personal interest in Planning Application 21/0254/FUL, as former mayor of Chard Town Council and Chard Carnival Committee.  She had taken the decision to not take part in the discussion or vote as she had recently been involved with the carnival collection.

Councillor Martin Wale declared a personal interest in Planning Application 21/0254/FUL, as a former member of Chard Carnival Committee.

Councillor Brian Hamilton declared a personal interest in Planning Application 21/0254/FUL, as a member of Ilminster Town Council.

Councillor Garry Shortland declared a personal interest in Planning Application 21/0254/FUL, as former mayor of Chard Town Council and president of Chard Carnival and also because of his involvement with the carnival collection.

Councillor Jason Baker declared a personal interest in Planning Application 21/0254/FUL, as a member of Chard Carnival Committee. 

Some members read statements in response to correspondence received from CPRE Somerset.

Councillors are requested to note that the next Area West Committee meeting is scheduled to be held at 5.30pm on Wednesday 16^th February 2022 and will a virtual meeting using Zoom.

Members noted that the next meeting of the Area West Committee would be held on Wednesday 16^th February 2022 at 5.30pm.

There were no questions from members of the public.

The Chairman made no announcements.

Sgt. Rob Jameson from Avon and Somerset Constabulary was welcomed to the meeting.  He gave a short presentation on local issues and initiatives.  Particular reference was made to the following:

·         Neighbourhood policing publicity drive

·         Uploading of videos/CCTV was being promoted

·         Staff changes that have taken place in Chard, Crewkerne and Ilminster

·         Expansion of the Rural Crime Team

·         Yeovil Police Station

Sgt. Rob Jameson responded to members’ questions on points of detail in relation to sheep theft, agricultural vehicle stop checks, road traffic collision prevention and County Lines.   

At the conclusion of the item, the Chairman thanked Sgt. Rob Jameson for attending the meeting.

Members noted that there would be an update on Phosphates at the February Area West Committee meeting.

Members noted the Schedule of Planning Applications.

Application Proposal: Erection of buildings to store and facilitate the construction of carnival floats

(Having declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the application, Councillor Dave Bulmer left the meeting during consideration of the item).

The Lead Specialist – Built Environment presented the application as outlined in the agenda report.  He explained that the proposed site was located between two existing buildings, some recently constructed barns and a former farm building used by another carnival club.  Pre-application advice had been sought regarding the appropriateness of the proposed location as well as other sites in the area and officers had recognised the role that carnival clubs played in South Somerset including their future existence and viability.  It was acknowledged that by reason of the land values afforded to allocated sites or sites with planning permission, together with the impacts of various permitted development rights relating to residential and commercial re-uses the scope to direct volunteer based activities towards such sites would require them to overcome commercial land value requirements and as such any site suited to a non-commercial user would need to be similar to the proposed and would likely be a greenfield site and not have alternative land values.

The Lead Specialist – Built Environment showed plans of the application site and photographs illustrating the surrounding area, existing barns, access to the site and parking.  The building could be delivered in one or equally as a phased approach.  The proposed building was a single utilitarian structure and was not dissimilar to the barns located next door.  In terms of access, the applicants had produced a Traffic Management Plan to show details of how larger vehicles could turn into the site and move along Park Lane.  He stated that the area was already characterised by development and locating a building within that context did not alter the character of the area.  The Highway Authority and SSDC Highway Consultant had no objections subject to conditions.  He confirmed that Somerset Ecology Services were content that the scheme did not lead to biodiversity harm and the Lead Local Flood Authority had determined the proposal to be acceptable.  The proposal was not affected by the phosphates issue and did not trigger a requirement for an Environment Impact Assessment.  The Planning Officer’s recommendation was for approval subject to conditions.

In response to questions from Members, the Lead Specialist – Built Environment advised:

·         The Traffic Management Plan would cover the size of vehicle movements with smaller vehicles being able to negotiate the roads to the south.

·         Condition 22 required a lighting scheme.  It could be amended to include criteria about hours, intensity of light and up-lighting.

·         The proposed building height was 7.3 metres to the ridge and had a consolidated form.  Photographs were shown to illustrate how it would relate to the existing buildings.

·         The six tests that conditions were deemed to be lawful.

·         The compliance measures likely to be taken particularly in relation to vehicle movements.

·         Condition 13 had been requested by the Highway Authority to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 74.

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

The Lead Specialist – Built Environment presented the application as outlined in the agenda report together with Planning Application 20/02247/OUT.  He advised that the vote for Planning Application 20/02247/OUT would need to be taken first as the application provided the access onto the main road.

The Lead Specialist – Built Environment reminded members that both applications were presented to the Committee in September.  They were adjoining sites which bounded a single infill property and had previously been presented with two separate access points and a pedestrian link between the two.  Concerns had been raised by members in terms of having two points of access which was also the key concern of the parish council.  A revised scheme had been submitted by the Applicants to include a single point of access from the lower part of the scheme. The Highway Authority had raised a concern over part of the site being landlocked, however, it was felt this could be secured by making it a phased development.  He also advised that discussions had been held with the Lead Local Flood Authority in the previous week over concerns raised by an adjoining resident regarding surface water run-off and the outcome was the introduction of engineered surface drainage solutions.

In conclusion, the Lead Specialist – Built Environment stated that a single point of access had been secured, the two schemes would be linked by one S106 agreement to secure phasing and to ensure the point of access was available for all the development.  The Lead Local Flood Authority had recommended conditions to deal with the construction phase, reducing the surface water run-off, managing flows and ensuring a point of discharge into the water course.  The Officer’s recommendation was to approve the application subject to conditions. 

In response to questions from members, the Lead Specialist – Built Environment advised:

·         Members had indicated at the September meeting that they were generally happy with the scheme but not with the two points of access.

·         Flooding had been raised since the September meeting and the Applicant had engaged and responded on the flooding issue.

·         There could be an issue if the decision was to be appealed as it could be seen as unreasonable to introduce ecology as a grounds for refusal when the application was deferred for a specific reason. 

·         The Persimmon site was located within the Parish of Tatworth but it functionally related to Chard in that it was a continuous extension of the Chard settlement.

·         The Local Plan aspired to deliver the bulk of its development in Yeovil but by reason of slow starts, the Yeovil sites ran into a Five Year Housing Supply issue which meant that the rural areas took more development. 

·         The level of growth in Tatworth was consistent with the level of growth experienced by a number of other larger villages within the district.

·         The applicant could not be required to secure a 20 mph zone  ...  view the full minutes text for item 75.

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

The Lead Specialist – Built Environment presented the application as outlined in the agenda report together with Planning Application 20/02249/OUT.

It was proposed and seconded to recommend refusal of the application contrary to the Planning Officer’s recommendation on the grounds of:

•           Overdevelopment

•           Impact upon ecology, and

•           The suitability of the highway network servicing the site

On being put to the vote this was carried by 7 votes in favour, 4 against and 1 abstention.