Agenda, decisions and minutes

To approve as a correct record the minutes of Area East meeting held on 13^th October 2021.

The minutes of the previous meeting held on the 13^th October 2021 were approved as a correct record and would be signed by the Chairman.

Whilst Councillor Mike Lewis agreed with the minutes from the last meeting, he wished to withdraw a statement he made about an officer at Octobers meeting during a discussion between members in item 7 of the agenda.

Apologies of absence were received from Councillor Henry Hobhouse.

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.

Declarations of Interest were received from William Wallace in relation to Agenda item 12. His own planning application was referenced and he would not take part in the item.

Members are asked to note that the next scheduled meeting of the committee will be held virtually using Zoom virtual software on Wednesday 8^th December 2021.

Members noted the next meeting of Area East Committee was scheduled for Wednesday 8^th December at 9.00am and would be a virtual meeting.

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

There were no Chairman’s announcements.

Councillor Lucy Trimnell highlighted to members the issues that Bruton were having with SWP (Somerset Waste Partnership) bins collections and that CEO of SWP had been on contact to explain how they were working hard to resolve the issues.

Councillor Colin Winder gave an update regarding the finances of the CAT bus (Community Accessible Transport Bus) after attending the AGM and explained they were still awaiting outstanding grant money from SSDC. The Locality Officer said she would be in contact with Councillor Winder after the meeting to discuss the issue raised and she would come back to area East with any updates. Councillor Hayward Burt suggested that the Somerset County Councillors from Area East could also be involved to support with funding.

Councillor Kevin Messenger expressed concern with anti-social behaviour and disruption on some of the housing association sites in Castle Cary and questioned the housing policy around local housing for people with local connections.

Councillor Hayward Burt gave an update from Blackmore Vale Community Rail Partnership who covers the rout from Exeter to Waterloo and explained that on Saturdays there was no direct line to and from Waterloo as you would have to change at Basingstoke. He wanted to highlight to members that possible changes were coming to this line and felt that this route should be able to keep its direct route through to Waterloo.

Councillor Mike Lewis informed members of the public enquiry being held at Caryford hall. Over 200 residents attended to object to the planning application, and so many not intending to speak had be asked to watch the hearing from home via YouTube so the hearing could go ahead, however the sound quality was not great for viewers.

RESOLVED:  That Area East members recommend the Chief Executive:

Award £10,000 to the Balsam Centre for the delivery of the Healthy Living Centre work programme from the Area East Discretionary/ project budget.

Reason:          To consider the allocation of funding to the Balsam Centre.

Voting: (9 in favour, 2 Abstentions)

The Locality Officer presented the report that considered the allocation of the Healthy Living Centre funding to the Balsam Centre for 2021/22. She explained that the budget was established for Healthy Living Centres across the district. As the only eligible organisation was based in Area East, the budget was transferred to the Area East discretionary fund. She informed members that Sue Place, Manager of the Balsam centre was in the meeting to answer any questions.

The Manager, Balsam Centre updated members that most existing activities have continued and they have also expanded the offer of activities particularly though Open Mental Health – a partnership with the NHS and Family Safeguarding – a partnership with Somerset County Council. She explained that the Balsam Centre had developed a more strategic role whereby they worked with smaller charities to try to enhance their activities and make them more accessible for local people. They were also advertising for an employment support worker, funded through South Somerset District Council, who would be based in Wincanton at the centre.

Councillor Mike Lewis informed members that there was now a Healthy Living Centre in Queen Camel, which included a dementia day centre and facilities for young people struggling with their health.

In response to questions, the Manager, Balsam Centre gave some of the following responses:

·         Some groups, referred to as closed groups, were by referral only but most activities were open to the whole community

·         Groups were run by the Balsam Centre, private individuals and volunteers.

·         Activities could be seen on the website, Facebook site and leaflets found at the Balsam Centre.

·         In the balsam Centre accounts, there was a line that showed what had been received by SSDC. These accounts were available on the Charity Commission and Companies House website.

·         There was a database of people who use the centre. Wincanton area were the biggest user group, followed by Bruton, and Henstridge/Templecombe/Milborne Port. Some further analysis on the breakdown of demographic usage could be done and the information shared.

In response to a request from a member, The Chairman agreed that SSDC should support the promotion of the Balsam Centre and its activities in any way possible and that the Locality team could look into this approach.

There were no further questions and it was proposed and seconded to award the allocation of £10,000 to the Balsam centre. The recommendation was carried by 9 votes in favour, and 2 abstentions.

RESOLVED:  That Area East members recommend the Chief Executive:

Award £10,000 to the Balsam Centre for the delivery of the Healthy Living Centre work programme from the Area East Discretionary/ project budget.

Reason:          To consider the allocation of funding to the Balsam Centre.

Voting: (9 in favour, 2 Abstentions)

RESOLVED:  That Area East Councillors recommend the Chief Executive:

award The Wincanton War Memorial Hall a grant £6,124.80 (50% costs), the grant to be allocated from the Area East capital programme and subject to SSDC standard conditions for community grants (appendix A of the Agenda report)

Reason:          Councillors are asked to consider the awarding of a grant of £6,124.80 towards new toilet block with disabled facility – phase 2 Canopy.

Voting: (Unanimous)

The Locality Officer presented the report, which asked councillors to consider a grant of £6,124.80 to Wincanton War Memorial Hall for a canopy to newly created toilet block facilities. She explained where the location of the canopy would be located with the aid of a photo of the outside of the hall. A representative from the Memorial Hall was in attendance for any questions.

The Locality Officer and a representative from the Wincanton War memorial Hall responded to questions raised and included the following;

·         The work to access the toilets had been completed and there was level access from the sun lounge to the toilets.

·         There had been three quotations for the canopy and the final choice had been most favourable.

·         The curved roof could not support any part of the canopy, which increased the overall cost. The cost of materials has also increased.

·         They were also the only company that competed a site visit and produced plans.

There were no further comments and it was proposed and seconded to award the grant of £6,124.80 to the War Memorial Hall and members voted unanimously to approve.

RESOLVED:  That Area East Councillors recommend the Chief Executive:

Award The Wincanton War Memorial Hall a grant £6,124.80 (50% costs), the grant to be allocated from the Area East capital programme and subject to SSDC standard conditions for community grants (appendix A of the Agenda report)

Reason:          Councillors are asked to consider the awarding of a grant of £6,124.80 towards new toilet block with disabled facility – phase 2 Canopy.

Voting: (Unanimous)

Area East members were content to note the Forward Plan.

Members noted the schedule of planning applictions.

Proposal: Erection of a dwelling (resubmission)

The Specialist, Principal Planner presented the application as detailed in the agenda, and with the aid of PowerPoint presentation, continued to show the site and proposed plans.

The following key considerations did not raise any concerns:

·         Impact on any nearby designated heritage assets

·         Visual and Residential Amenity

·         Highway safety in respect of additional vehicles use the local road network

·         Biodiversity

·         Flood Risk

As the Local authority did not have a 5-year land supply, the tilted balance would be taken into account. The one dwelling would make minimal impact towards the housing target.

He highlighted the other considerations with Stoke Trister as:

·         Not being a policy SS2 settlement, it only has one facility – a church.

·         Not closely related to other settlements in the area

·         Not appropriate to cluster the site in terms of sustainability

·         The road were narrow, unlit and there was not safe movement for pedestrians or cyclists.

The application was for a self-build proposal. He explained that the authority was already providing sufficient self-build plots to meet demand in terms of the register.

In conclusion, the proposal was contrary to the aims and objectives of sustainable development as set out within policies SD1 and SS1 of the local plan, and the officer recommendation was for refusal.

The Chairman of Stoke Trister and Bayford Parish Council spoke in support of the application, and some of her comments included:

·         The Parish Council supported this application unanimously

·         Felt the proposed development was within the existing surrounding houses in Stoke Trister.

·         Other approved development had been approved in Stoke Trister that would be further away from existing houses.

·         The applicants were very active members of the community

·         Rural settlements such as Stoke Trister supported other neighbouring settlements, such as Bayford, which had a village hall and a pub.

The Principal Planner confirmed that a site visit from the Case Officer had been undertaken.

The applicant and agent then addressed the Committee and some of their comments included;

·         The applicants had longstanding ties with the local area and were very active member s of the community

·         The proposal has been designed to enhance the character of the village

·         There was unanimous approval from the Parish council and many local residents

·         The applicants would engage local tradesmen throughout the development

·         The amenities in the cluster of surrounding villages were shared throughout and so not considered unsustainable

·         The lanes were safe to walk, cycle and for horse riding.

·         In rural areas, planning policies and decisions should be responsive to local circumstances and be supportive of those applications which had support of the local community

·         The site is an infill plot, not an isolated area

·         Development in smaller settlements may support village nearby.

·         Other single build developments in smaller settlements than Stoke Trister such as Yenston had been approved

·         Self-build developments should be supported and granting this permission would not open floodgates for significant additional development.

·         The proposal did comply with Local Plan policy SS2 and paragraphs 62, 78  ...  view the full minutes text for item 54.