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 Aldridge, Firmin, Hill, Palmer, Stock-Williams and Wren. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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:-
Councillors declared that they had received correspondence from Mr and Mrs Briggs and Mr Lawrence. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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 of the public included; (summarised)
· Kingston St Marys PC along with Staplegrove PC strongly oppose to this planning application. The principle of wetlands is accepted but the implementation of the principle in this application does not command public support; · The two main concerns of local residents are, first, about the limited phosphate offset and possible further wetlands in the Staplegrove area, and second, that the Flood Risk Assessment has not considered key uncertainties and the possibility that it may be wrong; · The application does not spell out who will own the responsibility for long-term maintenance of the wetlands and who is to pay for it; · The Risk Assessment makes the most optimistic possible assumptions on two uncertainties - how well this generation tackles climate change and how well the wetlands are maintained. These variables must affect the risk. And if the Risk Assessment is wrong, and flooding happens, for whatever reason, can the wetlands be ‘undone’ once they have been constructed?; · The application is unsatisfactory because we need the hydrological modelling before an informed judgement can be made, and the application is too piecemeal – it ignores how the rest of the Staplegrove development will have its phosphate offset. Despite the name of ‘Integrated Constructed Wetland’, neither the wetlands nor the planning have been well integrated so far; · These two wetlands will give almost no real environmental benefit; they are neutral at best, not positive, for the natural environment. They will not benefit local people, either current residents living close to the wetlands or the future residents of the Staplegrove development. On the other hand, the wetlands will benefit the developers and their profits; · This development represents a new initiative to find solutions to neutral neutrality to issues affecting the Somerset Levels and to unlock development which would contribute to the delivery of Taunton’s Garden Community; · The wetlands areas had been designed in collaboration with Natural England the Environment Agency the Lead Local Flood Authority, SWT and Local Communities; · The wetlands would lessen phosphates from local watercourses which would otherwise reach the Somerset Levels Ramsar site; · The wetlands would create a natural resource for Somerset which would not only provide a means for which phosphates could be removed from the watercourses but would also provide new wildlife habitats and increased biodiversity across the area; · Concerns regarding flooding had been addressed by the Environment Agency; · Concerns with the time taken for an opportunity for an ecological engineer that has designed the integrated wetlands to meet concerned residents;
Comments/statements from Members included; (summarised)
· Concerns that when the wetlands were full what would happen to the captured phosphates; · Concerns that this formation was purely for house building and not to protect the environment; · Concerns that the wetland would not meet the proposed house building at Staplegrove west; · Concerns with flood risk and the maintenance plan; · Concerns with the protection of trees on the site; · Concerns with the redistribution of the subsoil on the site; · Concerns with the implications for management ... view the full minutes text for item 43. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Additional documents: Minutes: Comments/statements from members of the public included; (summarised)
· Concerns with contamination within the estate which was reported at Outline when permission was granted on the understanding that remediation would be undertaken by the developers in the course of the project; · Concerns with Phosphates on site; · Designs concerns. The placemaking Officer criticised the application and concluded that the proposal was not good enough to approve, and should be considered by the Independent Review Panel; · Concerns with energy and sustainability; · The applicants had committed to work in partnership with the Council to help deliver this important site for new and affordable homes that Taunton needed; · A phosphate mitigation strategy had been prepared for the site; · There were no outstanding technical objections from consultees; · Various schemes would be delivered with planting of nearly 500 new trees over six acres of new native British woodlands for existing and future residents to enjoy and reflected Taunton’s garden town vision plan;
Comments/statements by Members included; (summarised)
· EV charging points needed to be included in the application; · Concerns with the bad working practices on site; · Landscape concerns; · Concerns that the phosphate mitigation had been maxed out on the whole site; · Concerns with the dust onsite and the effect on the nearby residents;
Councillor Lithgow proposed and Councillor Habgood seconded a motion for planning permission to be GRANTED subject to conditions. Additional Conditions as per update sheet; Condition 11 - Prior to the commencement of works information relating to the management of construction stage drainage shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The information shall confirm specific measures for this part of the site particularly to confirm whether here is a risk of flooding off site during the construction period and, if so, how that would specifically be managed and mitigated. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To prevent the increased risk of flooding to accord with the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework;
Condition 12 - Prior to the commencement of works information relating to the management responsibilities of the various componentsof the proposed surface water drainage network including private systems shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The information shall include typical maintenance schedules for all the proposed components and details of how each party will be advised of their responsibility and maintenance obligations (including private systems). The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To prevent the increased risk of flooding to accord with the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework.
The motion was carried. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Additional documents: Minutes: Comments/statements from members of the public included; (summarised)
· Impact concerns on residential amenity; · The current location of these chicken houses was not suitable; · Problems with smell, nuisance flies and light pollution; · Concerns with the increase HGV traffic on the narrow country lanes which did not have footpaths; · Concerns that complaints regarding the premises had not being dealt with effectively; · The Parish Council stated that they were pro-business in the area;
Comments/statements from Members included; (summarised)
· Concerns with the impact of this development on local residents; · Concerns with the scale of the development; · Concerns with traffic disturbance to the site on local residents;
At this point in the meeting a 30-minute extension of time was proposed and seconded.
· Concerns with smell coming from the site; · Concerns with the external lighting on the site causing light pollution at night; · The shed needed relocating further away from the village; · By granting approval of this application it would improve the site for local residents; · Jobs in this role were good for the area;
Councillor Lithgow proposed and Councillor Habgood seconded a motion for permission to be GRANTED as per Officer recommendation with an amended description for the omission of ‘free range’ as per update sheet. That Officers be given delegated authority to grant conditional approval of the application subject to no objections or new issues being raised by Natural England during the Appropriate Assessment process;
The motion was carried. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Additional documents: Minutes: Comments/statements made by members of the public included; (summarised)
· Highway safety concerns on the A361; · Concerns with damage to the access lane; · Amenity concerns with the other properties on site; · Concerns that no parking or vehicle movement plan had been submitted; · An alternative access was needed for this development; · PD rights needed to be restricted for this development/new applications;
At this point in the meeting a further 30-minute extension of time was proposed.
· We had reduced our carbon footprint with this development; · We wished to preserve the look and feel of the barn to fit in with the surrounding area; · Concerns around parked cars are unfounded as our cars were parked in the same place as previous occupants; · The Parish meeting agreed that the conversion of the existing historic domestic outbuilding/barn to ancillary accommodation was satisfactory; · Concerns with the confusion over the amount of safe and considerate parking within the Warrs Farm enclave on current hardstanding’s. The width of the restricted shared access did not permit safe and easy passage of vehicles, let alone emergency vehicles, past another along a significant length; · The applicant could create new parking either via a new entrance off the current drive or via the wooden gate on the front western boundary directly off the A361 road; · Clarity required that Warrs Farm would be disconnected from the existing water treatment plant located in the driveway of Long Briar; · Confirmation needed that the small solar PV array proposed would not be detrimentally affect telephones, television, or broadband or any other electrical device functionality of neighbouring properties; · Wildlife must not be detrimentally affected and wherever deemed or stipulated must be enhanced and cherished with ecology conditions adhered to where possible exceeded;
Comments/statements made by Members included; (summarised)
· Confirmation required that the ancillary would be sold as part of the original house; · Concerns raised that this was a retrospective application; · Concerns with the conservation of the building; · A parking plans needed to be submitted;
Councillor Lithgow proposed and Councillor Tully seconded a motion for permission to be GRANTED subject to conditions as per officer recommendation.
The motion was carried. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Additional documents: Minutes: Item DEFERRED – Due to an administrative error. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Additional documents: Minutes: Application DEFERRED Amended Recommendation: ‘In light of additional comments received, potentially pertinent to determination, the recommendation for the planning application has been altered from ‘Grant’ to ‘Defer’ in this instance – this is in the interests of fairness and to allow a considered review of matters which have been raised post-agenda publication.’
|