Agenda and draft minutes
PDF 321 KBVenue: The John Meikle Room - The Deane House. View directions
Contact: Tracey Meadows Email: t.meadows@somersetwestandtaunton.gov.uk
Webcast: View the webcast
| No. | Item | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Apologies
To receive any apologies for absence. Additional documents: Minutes: Apologies were received from Councillors Firmin, Griffiths, Wheatley and Wren. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Minutes of the previous meeting of the Planning Committee
To approve the minutes of the previous meeting of the Committee. Additional documents: Minutes: (Minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on 23 June 22 circulated with the agenda)
Resolved that the minutes of the Planning Committee held on 23 June be confirmed as a correct record.
Proposed by Councillor Hill seconded by Councillor Habgood
The Motion was carried. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Declarations of Interest or Lobbying
To receive and note any declarations of disclosable pecuniary or prejudicial or personal interests or lobbying in respect of any matters included on the agenda for consideration at this meeting.
(The personal interests of Councillors and Clerks of Somerset County Council, Town or Parish Councils and other Local Authorities will automatically be recorded in the minutes.) Additional documents: Minutes: Members present at the meeting declared the following personal interests in their capacity as a Councillor or Clerk of a County, Town or Parish Council or any other Local Authority:-
All Councillors declared that they had received correspondence for application 53/21/0010. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Public Participation
The Chair to advise the Committee of any items on which members of the public have requested to speak and advise those members of the public present of the details of the Council’s public participation scheme.
For those members of the public who have submitted any questions or statements, please note, a three minute time limit applies to each speaker and you will be asked to speak before Councillors debate the issue.
We are now live webcasting most of our committee meetings and you are welcome to view and listen to the discussion. The link to each webcast will be available on the meeting webpage, but you can also access them on the Somerset West and Taunton webcasting website. Additional documents: Minutes:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Additional documents: Minutes: Comments from Members included; (summarised)
· Concerns that the loss of the garage would increase parking on the street;
Councillor Habgood proposed and Councillor Aldridge seconded a motion that planning permission be GRANTED subject to conditions.
The motion was carried. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Additional documents: Minutes: Comments from Members included; (summarised)
· A very worthy development in the right place; · Happy to be replacing homes that were not fit for purpose with homes that were; · This development would benefit the town; · Congratulations to the Officers on the ground that worked on this with residents and looking forward to seeing the finished article;
Councillor Lithgow proposed and Councillor Habgood seconded a motion to GRANT planning permission subject to Conditions and a Legal Agreement.
The motion was carried. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Additional documents: Minutes: Comments from members of the Public included; (summarised)
· This was a Greenfield Site that lies outside of the areas indicated for development within the Site Allocations and Development Management Plan of the Development Plan, and outside of the settlement boundary for Cotford-St-Luke; · Cotford-St-Luke was designated as a Minor Rural Centre in policy SB1 of the SADMP which explains that, “In order to maintain the quality of the rural environment and ensure a sustainable approach to development, proposals outside of the boundaries of settlements identified in Core Strategy policy SP1 will be treated as being within open countryside and assessed against Core Strategy policies CP1, CP8 and DM2 unless: A. It accords with a specific development plan policy or proposal; or B; · 53/21/0010 goes significantly outside the boundaries of the settlement and does not meet exceptions A or B. The proposal should therefore be assessed against CP1, CP8 and DM2 and failed to meet all of those criteria; · The application failed against CP1 because of a lack of transport options such as regular bus services, meaning there were not sustainable transport links that residents will require to use facilities beyond the limited facilities available in the village itself. Policy A5 sets out appropriate travel times to facilities such as shopping and education via public transport and the development does not meet these. It fails CP8 as this is development of Greenfield Land which that policy seeks to “protect and where possible enhance” and states development within such areas will be strictly controlled in order to conserve the environmental assets and open character of the area which this application does not do. It fails policy DM2 which sets out appropriate uses for development in rural areas and it clear that residential development is not one of them; · If the councils position remains that it’s local plan has an adequate 5 year housing supply then they must reject this proposal, which makes only vague assertions about housing supply uncertainty but has no concrete evidence to suggest that the councils Local Plan does not adequately provide for this. No convincing argument has been provided to suggest that the council does not have an adequate 5-year housing supply. Even if there is a need to go beyond the areas indicated to secure an adequate 5 year housing supply then Cotford-St-Luke as a Minor Rural Centre, with limited transport links and facilities and having already had significant development in recent years, is not a suitable location for this; · Approval of this application would be tacit acceptance that the local plan does not contain an adequate 5 year supply, setting a precedent that opened the council to any number of unsuitable applications in rural villages like Cotford-St-Luke across the former Taunton Deane Council Area. Given the very clear and demonstrable conflict with numerous policies of the Development Plan and that there are no other material considerations that have been identified to outweigh such conflict, in accordance with Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act, ... view the full minutes text for item 26. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Additional documents: Minutes: Comments from Members included: (summarised)
No salient points were raised on this application.
Councillor Hill proposed and Councillor Weston seconded a motion for planning permission to be GRANTED subject to Conditions.
The motion was carried.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Additional documents: Minutes: Comments from Members included; (summarised)
Comments from members of the Public included; (summarised)
· Langley Marsh was mostly surrounded by fields laid to pasture or crops. Our nearest farms are approximately 650 metres away: A mixture of sheep and some beef cows; · The animals make some noise during the daytime but settle at night. This is because they are kept mostly on the fields, not contained in barns. This is a crucial difference to the planning application in question; · We are well used to living with the daily noise from agriculture. Cultivating can go on until after dusk, especially in the summer, but there is no noise at night. Noise is one of the main factors for many of us opposing this application; · Calves cry loudly for days, especially when just taken from their mothers and also when scared or ill. This is well-known and well-documented in the farming community. Mr Cherry states that new batches of calves will arrive regularly. This means that for local residents, the noise could be fairly continuous – both from the animals and the vehicles bringing them; · Noise from the calves and from machinery; · Smell from so many animals, particularly when it is hot; · The living conditions of the animals and the impact on the natural ecology from the slurry; · Concerned with the impact on the wildlife. Currently there are nesting owls, woodpeckers, and treecreepers – to name but a few. The impact of this development on the existing wonderful habitat would be irreversible; · As the calves were not already on the land, I believe this meant that the application should be re-considered for Phosphate neutrality; · Noise disturbance and odour; · Phosphate increase. The application had been screened out for needing phosphate mitigating as the livestock were already in the field. This has been disputed by a close neighbour of the Langley Marsh site who stated that for thirty years the field had never been used for calve rearing on this scale; · Requirement for a worker dwelling. No information on the location of the workers dwelling for the Langley Marsh site had been provided by the applicant. Previously stated that it was essential to the operation of a similar barn; · T&L Cherry had rented a building in our farmyard at Ford Farm for the past five years. The building had been used to rear batches of 100-150 calves. My family has never been disturbed by noise from the calves despite living with 70 meters of the calf building. We have neighbours within the proximity that have never had any complaints about calves. The manure from the building was used on our arable crops as part of a crop nutrient plan to help reduce artificial fertiliser use. Agricultural business was an important part of the rural economy in the Wiveliscombe area and should be supported;
Comments from Members included; (summarised)
· Concerns with the lack of a Phosphate Mitigation, odour and noise assessments; · Concerns with the lack of verification for the number of calves purported to be ... view the full minutes text for item 28. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Additional documents: Minutes: Appeal decisions noted. |