Agenda and minutes

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

This item was accidently omitted at the meeting. An item to agree the minutes from the March meeting will be on the agenda for the June meeting.

There was an apology for absence received from Councillor Kevin Messenger.

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.

William Wallace and Hayward Burt declared an interest in planning item 12.

Members are asked to note that the next scheduled meeting of the committee will be held virtually using Zoom virtual software on 8^th June 2022 at 9am.

(A meeting of Area East Committee is not scheduled to be held in May due to the elections - however a meeting may be convened if there is urgent business to consider)

Councillors are requested to note that the next Area East Committee meeting is scheduled to be held at 9.00am on Wednesday 8^th June 2022, via Zoom.

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.

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

Members noted the planning appeals that had been received, dismissed or allowed.

Members noted the schedule of planning reports.

Proposal: Reserved matters application for approval of appearance, landscaping, layout and scale, following outline approval 17/03029/OUT for construction of 130 homes, sustainable drainage infrastructure, open space and play areas, internal roads, paths and parking, landscaping and associated plant and infrastructure.

The Planning Specialist (Development Management) presented the application as detailed in the agenda report and highlighted to members that some of the objections received were related to matters that had already been considered in the outline planning permission and could not be revisited during this application.

With the help of a PowerPoint presentation she proceeded to show the site and proposed plans and highlighted the key considerations.

A revised construction environmental management plan (CEMP) had been received since the report was published, and had been considered acceptable by the highways authority.

There had also been 6 further objections received with issues raised about the approved outline planning. The recommendation was for approval.

The member of the Henstridge Parish Council spoke in objection to the application and made a number of points including:

·         The main concern remained the increase in road traffic thorough the village.

·         It was important that the approved CEMP route was adhered to.

·         There was no record of any 106 agreement in the lead up to the 2018 appeal or since this.

·         The management of the proposed open places would be split between a management company and the parish council.

·         The LEAP development does not take into account the existing facilities in the village.

·         Affordable housing should be allocated as a priority to tenants with a parish connection.

·         Had concerns about parking provision and the displacement of parking spaces from other roads.

There were 3 members of the public that spoke in objections to the application and some of their comments included:

·         The development was unpopular and unwelcome in the village.

·         There was no traffic mitigation in place before the planning permission was agreed.

·         Parking was an increasing issue in the village and the planning report showed a shortfall of 19 parking spaces.

·         A proposed traffic light scheme to improve pedestrian safety on the a357 will decrease further available parking.

·         The highways report should be ignored and the developers should make some further provision for parking in the developments even if that meant reducing the number of houses.

·         Permission was up to 130 houses and not as an exact number.

·         There was not the facilities in Henstridge to accommodate these extra homes.

·         The environmental impact on wildlife did was not being taken into account.

The agent then addressed the committee in support of the application and some of his comments included:

·         Worked with the planning officer to produce a desirable layout and plan.

·         Unit numbers were in accordance with the outline granted.

·         Building to present and improved building regulations on sustainability including air source heat pumps.

·         Prepared to work with the Parish council in relation to the 106 funds.

·         Have offered to work with local residents groups to work with any comments post planning permission and prior to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 102.

Proposal: Erection of a dwellinghouse and garage and construction of access

The Principal Planning officer presented the application and with the help of a PowerPoint presentation proceeded to show the site and proposed plans.

He explained that the application was before members due the applicant being an elected member. It was not a controversial application in terms of officer recommendation and it had not received any objections.

He showed his key considerations and highlighted the public right of way on the proposed plans.

Since the report was published, the applicant asked that condition 11 be simplified to a more simplistic wording which the officer was happy with.

In response to a query the Planning officer confirmed that Condition 11 would ensure the garage structure would remain ancillary to the dwelling and if sold separately to the dwelling, would be a breach of the conditions.

It was proposed and seconded to approve the application in line with the officer’s recommendation with the amended wording for condition 11 as read out by the planning officer. On being put to the vote it was approved unanimously.

RESOLVED

That Area East members recommend to the Chief executive that planning application 21/03589/FUL be approved subject to conditions in the report with the amendment to Condition 11 of the report as follows:

The proposed garage/car port building, including the space at first floor level, shall be used solely for purposes incidental to the enjoyment of the principal dwellinghouse and shall remain ancillary thereto,.

For the following Reasons:

01.       The application site is within the village of Yenston which forms a cluster of settlements with nearby Henstridge and Templecombe where local services are available and reasonably accessible. The application site benefits from an extant planning permission to erect a single dwellinghouse and as such the principle of development is accepted on this occasion. The proposed dwelling would be located between existing buildings and is of an appropriate design. Given that there would be no significant harm to visual or residential amenity, highway safety, flood risk or biodiversity the proposal is considered to be acceptable and in accordance with South Somerset local plan and policies SS1, EQ2, EQ4 and TR5.

SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING:

01.       The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

            Reason:  To accord with the provisions of section 91(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

02.       The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approve plans:

            Drawing No. 20070-10 - Site Survey

            Drawing No. 20070-8B - Proposed Plans, Elevations and Section

            Drawing No. 20070-9C - Proposed Site Plan including surface water drainage arrangements

            Drawing No. 20070-4C - Site Location Plan

            Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

03.       Prior to the commencement of any development hereby approved, above damp proof course level, details (including colour photographs) of all external facing materials for the walls and roofs shall  ...  view the full minutes text for item 103.