Agenda, decisions and minutes

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the previous meeting held on 18 May 2022.  The draft minutes can be viewed at:

https://modgov.southsomerset.gov.uk/ieListMeetings.aspx?CId=426&Year=0

The minutes of the previous meeting held on 18^th May 2022 were approved as a correct record and would be signed by the Chairman.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Martin Carnell and Jenny Kenton.

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, Paul Maxwell, Sue Osborne and Martin Wale.

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 Brian Hamilton declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 8 – Grant to Ilminster Sports Club – New Play Area, as a member of Ilminster Town Council and also because the representative from Ilminster Sport Club was known to him.

Councillor Martin Wale declared a personal interest in Planning Application Nos. 21/01562/FUL and 21/02333/FUL, as the ward member and SSDC representative on the Blackdown Hills AONB.

Councillors are requested to note that the next meeting of the Area West Committee is scheduled to be held at 5.30pm on Wednesday 20^th July 2022.

Members noted that the next meeting of the Area West Committee would be held on Wednesday 20^th July 2022 at 5.30pm and would be a virtual meeting.

The Committee was addressed by a member of the public.  He referred to the Somerset Local Development Plan and the Chard Future Strategy Plan and wished to make councillors aware of the contradictions between the two documents.  The South Somerset Local Development Plan included the construction of the Eastern Link Relief Road which would have a destructive effect on the Nature Reserve and Bird Sanctuary by the pouring of concrete to raise the level of the bird sanctuary and the felling of mature trees.  The Chard Future Strategy Plan stated that Chard would take responsibility for a greener future, respecting the richness of its environmental assets and features and there being a variety of green areas such as parks, amenity areas and paths or trails which are well loved by the community.

He questioned whether members wished to permanently damage the nature reserve and bird sanctuary by cutting down mature trees, pouring concrete and tarmacdam or to look after those green spaces for today and tomorrow’s generations?

In response, the Chairman said that there was a report due to be considered on the Eastern Development Relief Road at the July Area West Committee meeting.

The Committee was addressed by a representative of Chard Area Resilience Group (CARG) in relation to Agenda Item 10 – Chard Regeneration Progress Update.  He referred to the Fore Street/High Street project having come under much criticism regarding poor value for money and project timescales and questioned whether local members of CARG could be invited to be involved in talks to create a more positive and constructive atmosphere.  He also referred to unrealistic expectations and implementation visions regarding the Chard Eastern Development Area and asked whether members of CARG could be involved in the development of the Local Plan Review.  He also addressed the Committee in relation to Agenda Item 11 – Chard Flooding Update and referred to there being various aspects missing within the Section 19 report which would go a long way to attenuating storm water flows that were currently unchecked.  He asked whether CARG could be involved in detailed discussions with a view to amending the report and proposing actions including via the Local Plan Review to stop flooding in the local area.

The Chairman made no announcements.

The Locality Manager presented the report which asked members to consider awarding a grant to East Chinnock Parish Council towards a play area upgrade.  He said that although the assessment had been undertaken on the basis of the installation of the play equipment, the scheme was much larger and that funding had been secured for the other elements including an adult gym and table tennis table.

Ward member, Councillor Oliver Patrick commented that the play area had been cleaned up and was regularly used.  He expressed his support for the application.

During the discussion, a member commented that he was pleased to see that the parish council had secured 50% of the project costs.

A representative from East Chinnock Parish Council advised that the Parish Council had worked very hard over a long time to get the project off the ground to make the area a much better centre for the village.   

At the conclusion of the item, members unanimously agreed the recommendation of the report.

The Locality Manager presented the report which asked members to consider awarding a grant towards a new play area to be located next to the Archie Gooch Pavilion.  The play area would encourage families to use the facilities, particularly during the football and cricket season as well as being used by existing users of the pavilion.  The project was deliverable and could proceed and complete within a year.

Ward member, Councillor Val Keitch expressed her support for the project and commented that Ilminster Sports Club was ran by volunteers all of whom had worked incredibly hard to raise funds for the project.  The club provided various events for the town and engaged a lot of families and children.  The other ward member, Councillor Brian Hamilton also expressed his support for the project.

In response to questions raised, members were informed that establishing and maintaining a ‘sinking fund’ was a standard condition of the grant and the land was owned by the Ilminster Town Council.

At the conclusion of the item, members were content to agree the recommendation of the report.

The Locality Manager presented the report which asked members to consider awarding a grant towards the refurbishment of the kitchen at Merriott Village Hall.  The hall was very well used and the kitchen if not refurbished would become unusable and greatly affect the usage of the hall.

Ward member, Councillor Paul Maxwell commented that Merriott Village Hall was well used by various groups and the kitchen was an important facility as a lot of catering was also provided.  The project would enable the hall to be updated and be kept relevant for the future.  He fully supported the project which was part of an ongoing set of improvements.

A representative from Merriott Village Hall confirmed that the Awards for All funding had been secured. 

At the conclusion of the item, members were content to agree the recommendation of the report.

The Acting Director Place & Recovery updated members on the following issues:

Leisure Pool Disabled Access - Members noted that there was currently no disabled access to the pool at the current time and this needed to be rectified as soon as possible.  The steps delivered in March had been rejected by the leisure centre operator as being too heavy to safely install and remove and the steps could not be left in place as they prevented the pool cover from closing.  Two potential options for a permanent solution had been identified and were being looked into as soon as possible.

Signpost Block Pedestrian Access on Pavement – Members noted that the misplaced directional signs in Boden Street and Crowshute link had been removed and correct positioning of the signs would be agreed with SCC so as not to interfere with pedestrian access.

Fore Street Pavement Build Out – Members noted that the area of paving had a step gradient and required addressing and options were currently being assessed. 

In response to comments and questions, members were informed that:

·         As requested, the Fore Street pavement build out options could be submitted to the Chard Regeneration Board for discussion prior to being agreed

·         Disabled access to the pool was still available via the hoist

·         Timescales for installing new equipment at the leisure pool could not be given at the current time as officers were still awaiting a response from the leisure centre operator but it was hoped it could progress and would be remedied as quickly as possible.

The Chairman agreed to keep members updated on the issues.

At the conclusion of the item, members were content to note the update provided by the Acting Director - Place & Recovery.

The Lead Specialist – Strategic Planning introduced the report which updated members on the contents of Section 19 report produced by the Local Lead Flood Authority at Somerset County Council following the extreme weather event in and around Chard on 28th June 2021.  She advised that a multi-agency meeting was being set up to look in more detail at the recommendations and the findings of the report.  She highlighted that the Lead Local Flood Authority at Somerset County Council were looking for feedback on the draft Section 19 report and asked members to email any comments to LLFA@somerset.gov.uk.

During the discussion, various comments were made by members which included the following:

·         The Chard Area Resilience Group (CARG) had done an immense amount of work since the flooding events last year and should be congratulated on this.  It was noted that they were prepared to work constructively with the Lead Local Flood Authority and this should be taken on board.

·         It was important to feedback on the report as evidence based facts were key.

·         It was acknowledged in the report that mitigation measures could be undertaken but this would not prevent a similar event happening in the future.

·         Riparian owners not being aware of their obligations was a key issue that needed to be addressed.

·         The way forward was for local action by local people.

·         The direct affects that people have suffered needed to be looked at by the multi- agency team to try and prevent it happening again as some people had still not moved back to their homes.

·         Substantial works were required to help with the mitigation in Chard and the surrounding district.

·         There was a need to rectify issues with regular drainage maintenance by the Highway Authority.

·         There were issues with developers taking responsibility for repair and maintenance for drainage systems.

·         What was the likelihood of the recommendations being adopted and backed up by government and law?

·         It was noted that there was a great pulling together of services and all those organisations involved needed to be prepared for future events with mitigation measures put in place to try and stop damage in the future.

Councillor Sarah Dyke, the lead member at Somerset County Council for Environment and Climate Change noted members’ comments and confirmed that she would take the issues raised forward. She commented that climate change mitigation was a priority for the new Somerset County Council administration and with the introduction of a new portfolio there would be much more focus.  She would ensure that the recommendations in the Section 19 report would be taken forward and acknowledged that it was vital for a multi-agency approach to be taken.

 At the conclusion of the item, members agreed the recommendations of the report.

The Locality Manager gave an update on Section 106 obligations.  Members noted that progress was being made on inputting data into the computer system with a view to having current up to date information on the Council’s website.  A demonstration on the system would take place in the summer and all data relating to S106 obligations where there was still money deposited in the bank would be input into the system by September.

Members noted that the Ilminster Flood report would come forward to the July Area West Committee meeting.

With regard to the Historic Buildings at Risk report, it was noted that four buildings across the district were being urgently prioritised to ensure that they did not deteriorate any further.

A request was made for a progress report regarding Community Infrastructure Levy including how much was being collected, where the funds would be distributed and a list of parishes that were due CIL money including timescales.  The Locality Manager agreed to take the request forward.

Members noted the details of a planning appeal that had been received in relation to Barn at Mill Farm, Dinnington.

Members noted the Schedule of Planning Applications.

Application Proposal: Erection of replacement two storey dwelling and garage/home office together with remodelling of the site levels.

The Specialist – Principal Planner presented the application as outlined in the agenda and advised that the application had been referred to Committee due to the objections received from the Blackdown Hills AONB Partnership.  She advised that the height of the proposed dwelling had been reduced and the building would be set into the natural slope slightly to reduce the overall impact.  The closest dwellings to the north and south of the site were two storey, therefore the proposal was considered to be in keeping with the surrounding area.  There was a substantial increase in footprint but given the design, plot size and the first floor partly within the roof, the overall scale and massing was reduced.  The retention of existing planting would also provide screening for the new building.

The Specialist – Principal Planner referred to the objections raised by the AONB Partnership in relation to landscape and advised that whilst there was formalisation of a driveway, the excavation required and associated retaining wall would be within application site.  She also mentioned an objection received that referred to Section 106 agreements and confirmed that the land to which the application site related was not included within these Section 106 agreements.  The officer recommended that the application be approved subject to conditions.

In response to questions, the Principal Planner confirmed that:

·         There was space in the roof above the garage for possible home office/storage space.

·         One end of the building would be dug in and the other raised up to create a level site.

·         The site was not included in the S106 obligation to the north of the site.

·         Land ownership issues were legal matters and not covered by the planning process.

·         The impact on the Blackdown Hills AONB was taken into consideration in the assessment of the application but given the context of the proposal, screening, footprint and location there was not sufficient grounds to recommend refusal.

·         The replacement was considered on a one for one basis.

·         The development was considered compatible with and sympathetic in scale, design, materials, layout and siting to the character and setting of adjoining buildings and to the landscape character of the location.

·         There was a drainage condition attached to the application with details to be submitted.

The Committee was addressed by the agent.  He referred to the comments raised by neighbouring properties regarding Section 106 agreements and confirmed that searches had revealed no such agreement.  He said that the scale of the proposal had been reduced by lowering the roof height reducing the property from 2 storey to 1 and a half and setting the home further into the slope reducing the scale of the development.  The proposed dwelling would be surrounded by extensive screening provided by the existing and proposed landscaping reducing any impact on the public domain.  He concluded that the area was characterised by large 2 storey properties on generous plots and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 17.

Application Proposal: Agricultural Livestock Building

The Specialist – Principal Planner presented the application as outlined in the agenda report.  She explained that the site was located in open countryside within the Blackdown Hills AONB.  She referred to previous schemes associated with the site that had been refused and dismissed at appeal.  The proposed agricultural building would be located within an established farm and would enable livestock to be more extensively accommodated across the site.  She confirmed that there would be no increase in livestock numbers and therefore the principle was considered acceptable but given its location within the AONB acceptability of the proposal depended on the assessment against relevant development plan policies.

The Specialist – Principal Planner said that the AONB Partnership had objected to the application recognising the needs of the farm which needed to be balanced with conservation and enhancement of natural beauty of AONB including retaining remoteness and long ranging views.  She said that because the scale had been reduced significantly to previous refusals and the height, width and material matched other buildings and were in context with existing buildings, the proposal was not considered to be so harmful to justify refusal on those grounds.  She referred to previous applications which had discussed the impact on local water supplies, however, this was considered in detail at the recent appeal and was not considered to be an issue.  She recommended that the application be approved subject to conditions.

In response to questions, the Specialist – Principal Planner confirmed that:

·         The application had been assessed in relation to previous refusals and the comments raised by the Planning Inspector.

·         As the application did not propose an increase in livestock, it was not impacted by the Phosphates issue.

·         A condition could be attached to restrict the use of building for storage only and not for use by livestock. 

·         The Enforcement Team would be responsible for pursuing failure to comply with any agreed planning permission.

The Committee was addressed by a member of the public in support of the application who commented that the site had been subject to many planning applications over the last 15 years with various concerns raised over the contamination of the private water supply and the effect on residential amenity.  He advised that discussions with local residents had taken place and it had been confirmed by the applicant that he would install a mains water supply across his land for the residents on private water and also address the boundary concerns.  He said that the provision of these provided a solution to addressing the concerns of local residents and were therefore in support of the application.

Ward member, Councillor Martin Wale said that he was pleased to see that the water supply issue was being addressed, however, he did have some concerns regarding the scale of the development being located within an AONB and referred to the objections raised by the Blackdown Hills AONB Partnership.  He said that he could possibly support the application if an additional  ...  view the full minutes text for item 18.