Agenda and minutes

Venue: Virtual Meeting using Zoom meeting software. View directions

No. Item


Apologies for Absence


There were no apologies for absence.



Declarations of Interest

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 Sarah Dyke, Paul Rowsell and William Wallace.

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.


There were no declarations of interest.


Date of next meeting

The next Area East meeting will be held on Wednesday 11th August 2021.


Members noted the next meeting of Area East Committee was scheduled for Wednesday 11th August at 9.00am and would be a virtual meeting.


Public Question Time


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


Chairman's Announcements


The Chairman reminded everyone that the meeting was being live streamed, and that at the last full council meeting on the 8th July it was agreed to extend the delegation to allow virtual meetings to continue for a period of 6 months.


A report would be brought back to the next Area East meeting regarding outside organisations - CAT bus representative, so that a member could be voted on as a non-voting member to the CAT bus committee.


There had been a major fire at dimmer dump recycling centre and all recycling has been transferred to Evercreech whist the recycling centre was being rebuilt.


Councillor Sarah Dyke who is the Chair of Somerset Waste Board confirmed the continuity and fire plans in place by Somerset Waste Partnership were all carried out correctly and business is now continuing as usual. The fire hadn’t affected the services.


In response to a question on the 5-year land supply The Specialist, Lead Principal Planner referred to the recent appeal decision letter 3265558 and provided members with an update on the position of the 5-year land supply and recommended actions by the barrister. By September there would be a more up to date picture but that SSDC have been advised to accept that there is not currently a 5-year housing supply. He confirmed that the phosphates were a factor, and would come back to next month’s meeting with a further update.


Councillor Hayward Burt asked for more regular updates to members in relation to the condition of the 5-year land supply so that councillors have up to date information.


There was some further discussion between members regarding the 5-year land supply and how it affected another appeal decision. A request was made to have a statement from the planning department regarding pollution control in the Dorset Stour area which affects The Vale and Wincanton.




Reports from Members


Councillor Hayward Burt asked why a planning referral had been approved without prior knowledge. The Chairman explained he would look into it.


Councillor Mike Lewis asked for feedback from members on grass cutting in their areas and if there were issues to let him know.


There was a discussion between a number of members regarding the request and maintaining of dog bins and Councillor Sarah Dyke informed members that she was in discussions with the team on how to improve the service, and that she would bring a report back to Area East Committee with an update.





Area East Forward Plan pdf icon PDF 283 KB




The following items to be added to the forward plan;


a.    Outside Organisations – Cat Bus representative

b.    Update on Dog Bins in area Area East.

c.     Update on River pollution in the North Stour catchment area


Planning Appeals pdf icon PDF 129 KB

Additional documents:


Councillor Hayward Burt asked that ward members also receive Public Enquiry notices as well as local residents.


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


Schedule of Planning Applications to be Determined by Committee pdf icon PDF 127 KB


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


Planning Application 20/03243/FUL - Coombe Farm West Street Templecombe pdf icon PDF 702 KB


Proposal: Demolish farm buildings and domestic garage and erect three detached houses and two semi-detached dwellings, garages with parking and amend field access.


The Specialist, Planning presented the application as detailed in the agenda, and with the aid of PowerPoint presentation, continued to show the site and proposed plans. His key considerations were policy SS2, highways and ecology. The site was already found to be sustainable and suitable for housing with an application already approved on the site. There had been no highways objections. He felt the application for 5 houses were beneficial. A recent bat survey had been completed and no bats had been found. He recommended a couple of minor condition amendments to conditions 3 and 7 if members were minded to approve the application.


The Agent then addressed members and some of his comments included:

·         He thanked the planning officer for setting out the application clearly.

·         The client bought the site with planning permission granted, and saw the opportunity to benefit the community with 2 smaller houses rather than 4 large houses.


In response to a member’s question, The Planning Specialist confirmed there was a likelihood of permitted development where existing buildings could be developed if the application was not approved.


Ward member Councillor Hayward Burt didn’t feel that the application met policy SS2 in terms of providing employment opportunity or meeting housing needs. Since a 5-year land supply could not be proved, he didn’t feel this objection on policy SS2 could be made.


Ward member Councillor William Wallace agreed with Councillor Hayward Burts comments and had nothing further to add.


There was a short discussion and some of the following comments made included:

·         This was a brownfield site with planning already approved on the site

·         Highways and Ecology had no objections

·         How Zero Carbon the build would be?

·         EV charging points were within the conditions of the application


The agent confirmed that the scheme would be fully compliant with building regulations. They were looking at heating options such as air source heat pumps.


At the end of discussions, it was proposed and seconded to approve the application in line with the officer recommendation. On being put to the vote the proposal was carried with 11 votes in favour and 2 abstentions.




That members of Area East committee recommend to the Director –Strategy & Support Services that Planning Application 20/03243/FUL be approved in accordance with the officer’s recommendation and with agreed amended conditions to the report, for the following reason;


01.  The principle of development is considered acceptable as the identified harm does not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the scheme. The proposed development of the site would respect the character of the area, with no demonstrable harm to highway safety, flood risk and drainage, protected species, or residential amenity. As such the proposal complies with local plan policies SD1, SS1, TA5, TA6, EQ2, and EQ4, and the aims and objectives of the NPPF.




01.  The development hereby permitted shall be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 29.


Planning Application 21/00153/FUL - Raymonds Farm Underhill Pen Selwood Wincanton pdf icon PDF 517 KB


Proposal: The erection of 1 No. new dwelling at Raymonds Farm. Existing Cottage retained to be used as workshop, ancillary to the new house.


The Specialist, Planning presented the application as detailed in the agenda, and with the aid of PowerPoint presentation, continued to show the site and proposed plans. He explained that the site was within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and a dark skies area. There was already a dwelling on the site and the application didn’t fit entirely with HG8 policy as they would retain the existing dwelling for storage and build a new dwelling to the north. He showed that all the other buildings on site would be removed. His key considerations were Policy HG8, AONB impact, access consideration, neighbour consideration and ecology.

Overall he believed the scheme would benefit the area, and the glare from the glazing could be controlled within the detail of the glazing to not affect the dark skies area. Landscaping and glazing details would be conditioned to be provided prior to commencement. The current access was poor and the proposal did give a more acceptable access. Overlooking of the property was considered but felt that the long distance to the neighbouring property meant an objection could not be sustained.


A Penselwood Parish Council representative then addressed the committee in objection to the application, and some of their comments included:

·         The AONB significance had been underestimated in the report. The heavily wooded area was an important part of the local landscape.

·         Felt the site would be very visible in winter months.


The applicant and agent addressed members in support of the application and some of their comments included:

·         Being local to the area, he had a strong bond with the area and wished to build a contemporary house on site to retire.

·         Researched policies and explored recent applications within the parish as recognised the sensitivity building in an AONB and that the house would need a careful design.

·         Has a commitment to the dark skies initiative and the lighting plan would prevent light pollution.

·         Landscape concept to allow the dwelling to be hidden form the road with trees and hedging, similar to the neighbouring house.

·         The house with have modern insulation, ground source energy, rain water harvesting.

·         The extension containing the kitchen and bathroom on the existing cottage will be removed. The cottage will be used as a workshop and storage.

·         The house is well design within the site

·         It will not be seen from the neighbouring property or the road as is set in the bank following contours at the bottom of the hill.

·         The derelict buildings will be removed to improve the visual impact.

·         There will only ever be 1 dwelling on the site. The cottage becomes an outbuilding to the proposed dwelling.


Ward member Councillor Robin Bastable commented that it did not comply with policy HG8. He agreed with AONB that this was an application for a new dwelling in the countryside. The existing house there could  ...  view the full minutes text for item 30.