Agenda, decisions and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Malcom Cavill and Mike Hewitson.

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 Neil Bloomfield, Malcolm Cavill, Adam Dance and Crispin Raikes.

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.

Whilst not an interest, the Chairman noted for transparency that he is also Chairman of South Petherton Parish Council who had also agreed a grant to South Petherton Tennis Club (item 8 on the agenda).

Councillors are requested to note that the next Area North Committee meeting is scheduled to be held at 2.00pm on Wednesday 23 June 2021. Meeting arrangements to be confirmed.

Members noted the next meeting of Area North Committee was scheduled for Wednesday 23 June at 2.00pm, with the meeting arrangements to be confirmed.

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

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 delegated authority would expire on 31 July 2021 unless continued by a future decision of Full Council.

There were no reports from members.

(Voting: Unanimous)

The Locality Officer introduced the report which asked members to consider the awarding of a grant of £6,000 to Langport Transport Group towards a feasibility study, strategic outline business case and consultations for a new railway station for Langport/Somerton. He advised that Phil Edge from the Langport Transport Group was present to answer any questions from members.

Ward member, Councillor Clare Paul, noted many people were getting behind the study, and she hoped members would be supportive.

During a short discussion the Locality officer and Mr Edge responded to points of detail, and some of their comments included:

·        A brief overview of the project and the funding requirements.

·        Hoping to start the study in June 2021.

·        Some discussions had taken place with parishes in the Mendip area but it was not believed any of those parishes had supported the study with funding.

·        Mendip District Council had expressed their support for the study.

·        A number of organisations had been approached for support but in different ways.

·        Multiple parishes in the South Somerset area were supporting the study with funding.

Members expressed their support for the study/project and it was proposed to recommend the grant for approval, and on being put to the vote was carried unanimously.

(Voting: Unanimous)

(Voting: Unanimous)

Due to technical issues the Locality Officer was absent for the start of this item. Gary Maynard, representative for South Petherton Tennis Club, introduced the report which asked members to consider the awarding of a grant of £12,500 to South Petherton Tennis Club towards a clubhouse. He provided a brief overview of the project and noted that the club currently had no toilet facilities and members used those at the Bowls Club a short distance away.

The Locality Officer drew members attention to the fact that works had already commenced as detailed in the agenda report. It was unusual for the Council to consider grant funding in such circumstances, however in this instance it had been unavoidable.

Ward member, Councillor Crispin Raikes, noted the club had been working on the project for several years, The club was very successful and the clubhouse would add to the existing facilities available at the recreation ground. He was very supportive of the project.

During a brief discussion members expressed their support for the project. Mr Maynard responded to a query raised, and explained that a 6% contingency provision had been factored in across all elements of the project costs.

At the conclusion of debate it was proposed to recommend the grant for approval, and on being put to the vote was carried unanimously.

(Voting: Unanimous)

The Locality Team Leader introduced the report which provided members with an overview of the delivery of the Area Chapter for Area North, and noted it had been a difficult and challenging year due to the pandemic.

There were no comments and members were content to note the report.

RESOLVED: That Area North Committee noted the Area Chapter 20/21 Outturn Report.

There was no discussion and members were content to note the Forward Plan.

Members noted the report that detailed the planning appeals which had been lodged, dismissed or allowed.

Members noted the Schedule of Planning Applications to be determined at the meeting.

Members noted this application had been deferred to the next meeting.

Proposal: Display of 2 No. externally illuminated Fascia signs and 8 No. non-illuminated signs.

The Principal Planner presented the application as detailed in the agenda report and highlighted in more detail the advertising that was proposed. He explained the material considerations and noted that public safety was not considered to be an issue with this application. The proposal was not considered to be visually harmful as there were limited views from nearby buildings of architectural interest.

(There were no public speakers for this application).

Ward member, Councillor Clare Paul, commented she wanted to encourage businesses and the economy, however she had concerns about the application. She read out her response regarding the application which she had submitted previously during the process. She expressed concerns about the impact as it is a historical area, and whether this proposal would set a precedent. The current proposal would affect the character and distinctiveness of the conservation area, and she felt the advertising could be done more in character of the local area. It was noted that a member of the town council had wanted to address members with their concerns but unfortunately they had been unable to make the meeting.

Ward member, Councillor Tiffany Osborne, echoed the comments made by her colleague.

During a short discussion members indicated their concerns about the proposal and some of the comments included:

·        Agree with ward member concerns. Proposal could be very bright.

·        Proposed signs look dreadful, and feel they are unnecessary.

·        Acknowledge it’s set back from the main street but it may appear to be a bit too bright.

·        Why is the advertising needed – it’s a modern parade in a historical town.

·        Feel if approved it will set a precedent for other premises in the parade.

·        This proposal is the wrong approach for small towns and villages.

At the conclusion of debate it was proposed to recommend refusal of the application, contrary to the officer recommendation, on the grounds of:

·        it is against policy EQ3

·        it doesn’t safeguard or enhance the area

·        it will affect the character and local distinctiveness of the conservation area.

·        It doesn’t make a positive contribution with high standards.

On hearing the comments made, the Principal Planner suggested the wording for the refusal, and this was agreed by members.

On being put to the vote the proposal to recommend refusal of the application was carried unanimously.

(Voting: Unanimous in favour of refusal)