Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Charlie Hull and Hayward Burt.

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 Wednesday 8^th June 2022.

Members noted the date of the next meeting would be the 8^th June 2022 at 10am and would be a virtual meeting.

There were no questions from members of the public present.

In response to a query regarding road safety by Councillor Colin Winder, The chairman advised that he raise his issues with the new councillor for Wincanton and Bruton division.

Members confirmed they were content to hear one presentation for all four applications and the Chairman advised that there would need to be 4 separate votes at the end of debate.

The Planning Specialist gave one presentation for all of the four planning applications and all comments and discussions for all applications were minuted in item 109. Separate votes were taken and the decisions for these are in the separate application items.

Proposal: Changes of use of the existing outbuildings from 6 short term letting units and garden/function room/store currently used in connection with the adjoining public house into a single independent, self-contained dwelling unit and ancillary annex accommodation to that dwelling unit, and provision of new vehicular access and relocation of public house car park to the rear of the public house.

The Chairman informed members that he had asked for all the upcoming applications to come to committee as he felt they should be heard in public. He advised members that documentation that had been circulated by the applicants 72 hours before the meeting date was acceptable but asked that any other documentation received within the 72 hours should not be taken into account.

The Planning Specialist explained that he would be delivering one presentation for all four applications and he highlighted each proposal to members. The application had come to committee after ward members had been consulted and the chair had expressed views that the application be heard in public. The Vice Chair had been consulted and agreed that the applications should come to committee.

With the aid of PowerPoint slides, he gave a comprehensive presentation relating to the site and proposed plans for all four applications.

In response to a question he clarified that the overlap of the proposed application sites on the slides were because there was a proposed shared parking area.

He talked though all the key considerations for the applications and confirmed to members the reasons for recommending refusal. An independent Viability assessment had been undertaken and the assessor was present at the meeting to discuss his findings. Similarly, an external heritage assessor was also appointed and she was also present to expand on the views on the Designated Heritage Asset.

The external viability consultant for SSDC gave his presentation on the viability assessment to members that highlighted the key points including the short term and long term risks for the business.

In response to a members question, he clarified that the opinion gave was his as a viability expert.

The External Heritage consultant for SSDC then presented to members and detailed the points raised in her report in relation to the listed building and the harm to the significance of the designated heritage asset.

The Parish Council representative addressed members in objection to the application. Some of his comments included:

·         Overdevelopment of a grade II listed building

·         The relocation of the car park would affect neighbouring properties.

·         Reduction in car parking would mean cars spill out on the village lanes

·         The main concern is the survival of the pub and the council had a duty to protect it.

·         CPRE and CAMRA share the view that these plans would endanger the survival of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 109.

The Planning Specialist gave one presentation for all of the four planning applications and all comments and discussions for all applications were minuted in item 109. Separate votes were taken and the decisions for these are in the separate application items.

Proposal: Partial re-building and partial re-alignment of front boundary wall adjoined to the north end of the west elevation of the Red Lion Inn

The Planning Specialist presented the application as outlined in the agenda report.

It was proposed and seconded to refuse the application as per the officer recommendation as outlined in the agenda report. On being put to the vote, the proposal was carried 4 in favour, 3 against and 2 abstentions.

RESOLVED

That Area East members recommend the Chief Executive refuse planning application 21/01052/LBC as per the officer’s recommendation for the following reason:

The proposed development would neither preserve nor enhance the character and appearance of the Listed Building and its setting and would cause less than substantial harm to the significance of the designated heritage asset. As such, the proposal conflicts with Section 16 of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and is contrary to Policy EQ3 of the South Somerset Local Plan 2006-2028 and Chapter 16 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2021), in particular paragraphs 197, 199 and 202.

(Voting: 4 in favour, 3 against, 2 abstentions)

The Planning Specialist gave one presentation for all of the four planning applications and all comments and discussions for all applications were minuted in item 109. Separate votes were taken and the decisions for these are in the separate application items.

Proposal: Outline application for the erection of 2no. detached new dwellings within the Red Lion Inn car park and adaptation of existing vehicular access, with some matters reserved except for access, layout and scale.

The Planning Specialist presented the application as outlined in the agenda report.

It was proposed and seconded to refuse the application as per the officer recommendation as outlined in the agenda report. On being put to the vote, the proposal was carried 4 in favour, 3 against and 2 abstentions.

RESOLVED:

That Area East members recommend the Chief Executive Refuse planning application 21/01053/OUT, in-line with the officer’s recommendation for the following reasons:

01. The implementation of the proposed development would be detrimental to the long-term viability and future of The Red Lion Inn, resulting in a significant or total loss of the premises currently used as a public house that contributes towards the sustainability of the village of Babcary. In addition, the proposed development would not provide employment opportunities appropriate to the scale of the settlement, would not create or enhance community facilities and services to serve the settlement, or meet an identified housing need (particularly affordable housing), nor would it increase the sustainability of the settlement. As such the proposed development would be contrary to Policies SD1, SS2 and EP15 of the South Somerset Local Plan and relevant guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework (2021).

02. The proposed development would neither preserve nor enhance the character and appearance of the Listed Building and its setting and would cause less than substantial harm to the significance of the designated heritage asset. As such, the proposal conflicts with Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and, in the absence of any public benefits that would outweigh such harm, is contrary to Policies EQ2 and EQ3 of the South Somerset Local Plan 2006-2028 and Chapter 16 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2021), in particular paragraphs 197, 199 and 202.

03. The proposed development would involve the loss of a significant number of parking and turning spaces currently used in association with the Red Lion Inn public house. In the absence of any approved alternative on-site parking and turning spaces for customers and staff, the loss of the existing car park area to accommodate the proposed development would result in an increase in on-street parking, thereby increasing the dangers to highway safety and public safety to an unacceptable degree. As such, the proposal is contrary to Policies TA5 and TA6 of the South Somerset Local Plan 2006- 2028 and relevant guidance within the National Planning Policy Framework (2021).

04. The application site falls within the catchment area flowing into the Somerset Levels and Moors Ramsar, designated as a Special  ...  view the full minutes text for item 111.

The Planning Specialist gave one presentation for all of the four planning applications and all comments and discussions for all applications were minuted in item 109. Separate votes were taken and the decisions for these are in the separate application items.

Proposal: Application to vary the Section 106 Agreement dated 7^th October 2011 between South Somerset District Council and The Red Lion Inn (Babcary) Ltd in association with planning permission 10/05151/FUL to remove the requirements for (i) the outbuildings to be used in connection with the adjoining public house, and (ii) for purposes solely limited to short term letting rooms and as a garden/function room/store.

The Planning Specialist presented the application as outlined in the agenda report.

It was proposed and seconded to refuse the application as per the officer recommendation as outlined in the agenda report. On being put to the vote, the proposal was carried 4 in favour, 3 against and 2 abstentions.

RESOLVED:

That Area East members recommend the Chief Executive Refuse planning application 21/01054/DPO, in-line with the officer’s recommendation for the following reason:

The Section 106 Agreement still serves a useful purpose to help secure the viability of the Red Lion Inn. The proposed variation/modification of the Section 106 Agreement would be detrimental to the long-term viability and future of The Red Lion Inn, resulting in a significant or total loss of the premises currently used as a public house that contributes towards the sustainability of the village of Babcary. In addition, the proposed development would not provide employment opportunities appropriate to the scale of the settlement, would not create or enhance community facilities and services to serve the settlement, or meet an identified housing need (particularly affordable housing), nor would it increase the sustainability of the settlement. As such the proposed development would be contrary to Policies SD1, SS2 and EP15 of the South Somerset Local Plan and relevant guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework (2021).

(Voting: 4 in favour, 3 against, 2 abstentions)