Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the minutes of Area East Informal meeting held on 9^th February 2022.

The minutes of the previous meeting held on the 9^th February 2022 were approved as a correct record and would be signed by the Chairman.

An apology for absence was received from Councillor Robin Bastable.

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.

Members are asked to note that the next scheduled meeting of the committee will be held virtually using Zoom virtual software on 13^th April 2022.

Members noted the next meeting of Area East Committee was scheduled for Wednesday 13th April 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.

There were no reports from members.

The Locality Team Manager gave members an update on the Area East Budget for 2022/23. He showed members the budgets that were available and highlighted the following;

·         Community grants budget of £10,200 to be spent on small grants.

·         Capital unallocated budget of £41,805 to put toward large capital budgets.

·         Discretionary project funds, £10,000 of the fuds allocated to Healthy living centres.

·         Area Reserves that ring-fenced some funding for the Wincanton Retail support initiative and also active travel schemes. A decision would be made later in the year on the deliverability of these schemes and that recommendations may be brought forward to spend on other priorities.

In response to questions from members, the Locality Manager advised the following;

·         The budget would be used to fund new play equipment, but 106 money would be checked first to see if any were available.

·         There was a long delay for play equipment and materials currently so this would be something to bear in mind.

·         Community grant applications have returned to pre covid19 levels and there has been an increase in applications.

·         They were waiting on an update for the active travel schemes but would be able to come to committee in July with an update on the ring-fenced money and potentially look at releasing the funds.

·         Would be happy to support parish councils with their digital needs in order for them to continue to hold online and hybrid meetings.

There were no other questions and the Chairman thanked The Locality Manager for his update.

The Area East Forward Plan was noted with the following additions;

·         Update on Area East Reserves ring-fenced funds for July

·         Update on Local Community Networks date to be confirmed

Members noted the planning appeals that were received, dismissed or approved.

Members noted the schedule of planning applications.

Proposal: Change of use of land to provide a commercial vehicle storage facility with revised access (Retrospective)

The Planning Officer (Development Management) presented the application as detailed in the agenda report, and with the help of a PowerPoint presentation proceeded to show the site and proposed plans. He clarified that in the agenda report under site description and proposal, the text should have read “The height of the majority of vehicle stored at the site do not exceed three metres”.

He highlighted the following to members;

·         The proposed new access site

·         The landscaping scheme along the proposed access road

·         The recorded accident levels from 2000 – 2020

·         Key considerations were Highways, Ecology, Public Right of Way, Environmental Health and Heritage Assets

·         Additional conditions restricting the number of vehicles on site and no static caravans to be sited could be added if members were minded to approve the application.

·         The recommendation was to approve the application

A number of members of the public spoke in objection to the application, and some of the following comments were made;

·         The question had been raised as to why this unauthorised development had not challenged when it had started to expand.

·         Tress had been cut back beyond the boundary and ground levels had been raised around some trees which was considered bad for the trees.

·         The application suggested the area is flat and screening will be effective but to the South West and North the ground rises and the site will be in clear view of other properties.

·         There is visible glare from the site in the summer months that can be seen from North Cheriton and Wincanton.

·         Vehicle alarms were uncontrolled and lasted for days at a time.

·         Highway approval was based on data that was collated during a 12 week traffic controlled water main replacement along the road. This measured data was not recorded during normal conditions and was a procedural error.

·         The proximity of the distance between the listed building and the site had been ignored. There had already been a fire in the storage container on site that was attended by the fire brigade and presented a huge risk to the thatched cottage.

·         The concerns that had been raised in objections to this were from local residents who were immediately affected.

·         The site was not an acceptable site for storing caravans, where it was in the vicinity of listed buildings.

·         The possibility of large commercial vehicle being stored was concerning.

·         The entrance and caravans are highly visible from Lattiford.

·         The site was not suitable for this business of size or nature. There were many more acceptable trading estate sites nearby.

·         There were also local caravan and trailer storage sites already available. These sites existed on rural farms with no immediate neighbours or on trading estates.

·         These existing sites were also secure with high fencing, lockable gates, security cameras and security alarms, all of which would be highly intrusive on any local area.

The Agent addressed members in support of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 90.

Proposal: Erection of a timber cabin as a self-build First Home with associated landscape works (re-submission of 20/02873/FUL)

The Planning Officer (Development Management) presented the application as detailed in the agenda report, and with the help of a PowerPoint presentation proceeded to show the site and proposed plans. He noted that in the report the text referring to 5 year housing supply should not be considered as there was not currently a 5 year housing land supply in place.

He highlighted his key considerations;

·         This was a residential dwelling in the open countryside

·         The proposal did not seek a rural workers tie to the land

·         The current application was comparable to the scheme that was dismissed at appeal in 2016 and the local plan that was adopted prior to the 2016 scheme was still in place and applicable to this application.

·         The proposal was in the open countryside and as the site could not be tied to the land, was considered an unsustainable location and contrary to policy and the NPPF.

·         Recommendation was for refusal.

The applicant and agent addressed the committee in support of the application and gave some of the following comments;

·         The applicant lived and worked in Templecombe

·         They could walk, cycle and ride from the site to the village and all its local facilities

·         Living on site meant the applicant would have less journeys to and from the stables where she kept her horses and therefore reduce her carbon footprint.

·         The properties in the village were not affordable for a single person on an average wage.

·         Would be happy to have a Section 106 to keep the property as an affordable home.

·         The site was not remote or far away from local facilities including bus and rail services

·         The site was well screened by vegetation and further landscaping could be provided if necessary

·         This was a modest single storey timber cabin, in keeping with the adjacent stables

·         First home scheme to enable people to get onto the property ladder with a section 106 clause to ensure it remains an affordable dwelling.

·         There would not be any adverse impacts that outweigh the benefits of the application.

Ward Member Councillor Hayward Burt noted that in the NPPF it said in rural areas planning policies should be responsive to local circumstances and local needs. This application had the support of the parish council. This was close to the village and many services. This was a self-build for a local person and he had brought this to committee as felt this was an acceptable application.

Ward member Councillor William Wallace concurred with Councillor Burt’s comments and was also supportive of the application.

There was a short discussion and member’s comments were support of the application with some comments including;

·         Affordable housing in the area was a big issue and felt that self builds are the way forward, this application was fully supported.

·         Wanted some more details on the energy efficiency of the details of the application and would want an  ...  view the full minutes text for item 91.