Day: 31 January 2020

Letter to Mr Cummins, Unicorn Inn, Bayford

Stoke Trister with Bayford Parish Council_________________                                           

Clerk to the Council

Mrs P Gillman

Horseshoes

Tuckers Lane

Ansford

Castle Cary

BA7 7LH

01963 359598

stoketristerpc@gmail.com

13 March 2020

Mr R Cummins

The Unicorn Inn

Bayford

Wincanton

BA9 9NL

Dear Mr Cummins

Following our Planning Meeting of 6 March 2020 when the Chairman stated that many residents had requested that the Unicorn Inn be placed on the Assets of the Community Value Register, this was reiterated by many residents once again at our Parish Council Meeting of 12 March 2020.

Therefore, we are placing the Unicorn Inn on the Assets of the Community Value Register with immediate effect.

Yours sincerely

Patricia Gillman

Clerk to Stoke Trister with Bayford Parish Council

Land adjacent to Orchard Farm, Leigh Common, Wincanton.

Stoke Trister with Bayford Parish Council

Minutes of an Electronically controlled Planning Meeting of

Stoke Trister with Bayford Parish Council 

Present:  All Councillors

1. Apologies – None

2. Declarations of Interest – None

3. Planning 

Planning Application No:  20/01511/FUL

Land adjacent to Orchard Farm, Leigh Common, Wincanton.

Decision:

Stoke Trister with Bayford Parish Council have no objections to the attached application provided it is done completely in line with the plan produced.

………………………………………………………………………………………..

Chairman Date

Jemima Green, Stoke Trister

Stoke Trister with Bayford Parish Council

Minutes of an electronically controlled planning meeting

Stoke Trister with Bayford Parish Council 

Present:  ALL STOKE TRISTER COUNCILLORS

1. Apologies – NONE

2. Declarations of Interest – NONE

3. Planning 

Planning Application No:  20/00352/S73

Miss Jemima Green

Mitchells Farm, Stoke Trister Road, Stoke Trister, Wincanton.

Section 73 application to very condition 2 (approved plans) of permission 19/02787/FUL to allow relocation of horse walker.

Decision:

Stoke Trister with Bayford Parish Council voted unanimously in favour of the above application.

………………………………………………………. ……………………………

Chairman Date

Hopkins Estates, Devenish Lane

Stoke Trister with Bayford Parish Council

Minutes of a Site Planning Meeting of 

Stoke Trister with Bayford Parish Council Held electronically.

Present: All Councillors 

1. Apologies – None

2. Declarations of Interest – None

3. Planning 

Planning Application No:  20/03028/S73A

Location: Land OS 3969 Part Devenish Lane, Bayford, Wincanton.

Proposal: S73A application to vary condition 2 (approved plans) of planning approval 18/03272/FUL to allow a minor re-arrangement of the layout including plot orientation and the garage to plot 3.

Decision:

No comment

………………………………..                          ………………………..

Chairman     Date

Windmill Hill, Bayford, Wincanton

Stoke Trister with Bayford Parish Council

Minutes of an electronically controlled Planning Meeting of

Stoke Trister with Bayford Parish Council 

Present:  All Stoke Trister with Bayford Parish Councillors

1. Apologies – None

2. Declarations of Interest – None

3. Planning 

Planning Application No:   20/00359/OUT

Location:  Land to the East of Penn View, Bayford Hill, Wincanton

Proposal:  Outline application with all matters reserved for residential development of up to 100 dwellings with associated access, internal roads and footpaths, car parking, public open space, landscaping, drainage and other associated works and infrastructure.

Decision:

Stoke Trister with Bayford Parish Council have held an electronic planning meeting due to the emergency situation in the country and unanimously recommend refusal of this planning application on the grounds of:

  • We recommended refusal on the previous applications for the same site (please see our comments in 2017). Whilst there are a smaller number of houses the area for development remains unchanged. 
  • This application does not conform to the STWB Parish Plan of 2014. Whilst the development may be in Wincanton territory, the impact will be greatly felt in Bayford. 
  • Wincanton housing needs have already been met and set to double with planning applications already agreed. Bayford has no requirement for more houses. The infrastructure to accommodate an increase in this number of houses does not exist in Bayford or Wincanton.
  • There is insufficient employment, primary school places to accommodate this level of increase in population.
  • The development site is Grade 2 and Grade 3a agricultural land and once built on, this land will be lost forever to agriculture. Brown field sites should be used before quality agricultural land is built on. According to the NPPF, policies should be in place to safeguard the long-term potential of the best and most versatile agricultural land, which is defined as Grade 1, 2, and 3a.
  • The geology of the site, if developed and built on could cause flooding to both Bayford and Wincanton.
  • There is no Transport infrastructure to support this development with only 2 buses running per week through Bayford. Given the location and lack of realistic travel modes, future residents of the site are likely to be unduly dependent on private cars for access to employment, shopping, medical and social needs. This will add to the carbon footprint and very damaging environmentally.  Therefore, the Transport Assessment in the application is incorrect.
  • The access to the site is dangerous as it is a very busy road, with private vehicles, farm vehicles and lorries using it constantly. There has already been numerous accidents and one fatality on this road,
  • This development if allowed to go ahead, will destroy the Natural ‘green boundary’ between Bayford and Wincanton.
  • CPRE Somerset suggests that the ‘considerable harm’ identified by the Inspector to ‘the character and appearance of the area’ still remains due to the location of the development in the indicative plan. Therefore they recommend refusal of the application as it would contradict the Local Plan Policy SD1. 

…………………………………………………… ………………………

Chairman               Date

Unicorn Inn, Bayford, Wincanton.

Stoke Trister with Bayford Parish Council

Minutes of a Site Planning Meeting of 

Stoke Trister with Bayford Parish Council held on 6 March 2020 at10.00 am

Present:  Cllrs: N Linsley (Chairman), M Grant (Vice Chairman), J. Garret and M Summerfield.

Public: Mark Warren, Richard Cummins, Jane Wallace, and Jane Murray. Melanie Giles joined the meeting on neutral ground in the street.

1. Apologies – Cllrs: J Macfarlane and J McKenna

2. Declarations of Interest – None

3. Planning 

Planning Application No: 19/02905FUL

Applicant: Mr R Cummins

Location:  Unicorn Inn, Bayford, Wincanton. BA9 9NL

Proposal:  Change of use of former public house and curtilage to residential (Use Class C3) & extensions to form 3 No. dwellings with associated parking.

Decision:

The Chairman asked the owners if the Councillors could go in to the car park which was agreed. However, the general public were refused entry to where the meeting was being conducted, with the owners stating it was private property. Therefore, the Chairman moved the meeting to the pavement outside. Most of the residents had gone by then, only Melanie Giles remaining. 

The owners purchased the pub in 2007 and tried to sell it a few years ago for £355,000. This was advertised on a business site for 9 months. 

The Chairman stated there were 25 comments online on the day, 23 against the application and 2 supporting.

Councillors discussed that building 3 houses within the existing footprint of the pub + a 4th residence of the existing annexe would be far too small with very little recreational space. There was also very little space for parking for visitors. This would mean people would have to park on the narrow road in Bayford where there are already several accidents now because of cars parking on the road.

An environmental inspection is requested to check if bats are roosting in the building. At this stage Mr Warren got very aggressive threatening to record the meeting. The chairman reminded him of the data protection act.  

The Chairman also stated that many of the residents requested the Unicorn inn to be placed on the SSDC Assets of Community Value Register. The public input concluded with the developer saying “you won’t like plan B”.

Therefore the Stoke Trister with Bayford Parish Council took a unanimous decision at the Parish Council Meeting on 12 March 2020 for refusal of the application and to place the Unicorn Inn on the Assets of the Community Value Register with immediate effect. 

…………………………………………………                                                                   ………………………………….

Chairman Date

Unicorn Inn Annexe Minutes

Stoke Trister with Bayford Parish Council

Minutes of a Site Planning Meeting of 

Stoke Trister with Bayford Parish Council Held electronically.

Present: All Councillors 

1. Apologies – None

2. Declarations of Interest – None

3. Planning 

Planning Application No: 20/03009/COU

Location: Granny Annexe, Unicorn Inn, Bayford, Wincanton.

Proposal: Change of existing self-contained annexe to separate dwelling.

Decision:

We fear it may not be quite as straightforward as Mr Jenner suggests.  A useful reference in Plainview Planning dated 1 September 2020 which states: ‘The sub-division of the public house can be justified on the grounds that the funds generated actually allow the public house/community facility to remain open’.  The example quoted is that of sale a part of a pub car park but the principle is the same: the funds should go to keeping the public house/community facility open, not merely to enrich the owners to allow them to pursue other projects or simply to meet living expenses.  Mr Jenner states that the owners wish to sell the annex ‘so that they can diversify’.  I see no indication that they intend to use the proceeds of the sale of the Annexe to re-open the Inn.

We also have concerns over parking and access for the Annexe.  It is very easy to state that ‘The development will use the existing access to the highway’ and that it will ‘use existing parking space and access’.  This will presumably mean that it will require to share a legal right of access and parking with the Inn – there is only one way in and one way out.

The ‘separate application’ for the remainder of the Unicorn Inn is clearly fundamental to this application.  Until we know what the term ‘diversify’ means – does it just mean the pub will re-open bigger and better than before, or does the owner have an entirely different use in mind?  At the same time, retention of the Annexe may render the whole Unicorn Inn property more attractive to a potential purchaser who intends to re-open it as a licensed premises.  This remains the last surviving pub in the Bayford/Stoke Trister/Cucklington settlement and we should not give it up without the community’s approval.  It is their facility, after all, even if the Unicorn’s current licensee/owner has seemingly yet to re-open after either lockdown.

The applicant has made no attempt to re-open since the 2nd lockdown ended, not even to supply a take-away service as many other pubs in the area have done. Did he not apply for the Government grants to help and if so, why?

The previous application referred to did include the annex to be developed as a separate entity with separate access. The so called ‘pointless’ discussions were essential due to very strong opposition from the community.

The annex has been let out for many years without planning permission to do so despite every attempt made by the Parish Council to ask the Planning department to address. Planning department failed to do so. So, the letting is potentially illegal.

The Planning department categorically rejected the original application to convert to houses as the Unicorn Inn is a registered Asset of Community Value. 

This all being the case Stoke Trister with Bayford Parish Council strongly oppose this application.

…………………………………………………………. ………………………………….

Chairman Date

Rural settlements – Answer to David Kenyons email re Church Farm

As defined in the South Somerset Local Plan, South Somerset is the largest district in the county covering an area of 958 square kilometres (370 square miles); and has the largest population in the county at approximately 167,861 (2018). South Somerset is largely rural with the population distributed across many towns, villages and hamlets, resulting in a population density of 1.7 people per hectare, less than half the national average.

However, over 40% of the district’s population live in settlements of fewer than 2,500 residents and the district is made up of a mixture of sparsely inhabited rural areas, a network of villages and a number of market towns of varying size and influence. 

The smallest places in South Somerset, the Rural Settlements, vary widely in function and size, but generally are places that provide limited local services. These settlements often have a strong sense of community.

Policy SS 2 defines a Rural settlement as having two or more of the following facilities:

∙ local convenience shop;

 âˆ™ post office; 

∙ pub;

 âˆ™ children’s play area/sports pitch;

 âˆ™ village hall/community centre;

 âˆ™ health centre;

 âˆ™ faith facility; and 

∙ primary school.

The settlements of Bayford, Stoke Trister and Cucklington fall into this category by virtue of having Village Halls, Church and Pub.

However, the application is for one house, not a development in the sense of development as seen in nearby Market Town of Wincanton. This application, if granted would enhance the true rural community and their sustainability.

A precedent has already been set in Stoke Trister by approving 2 houses so far on nearby farmland Church Farm reference 19/00258/OUT. The proposal states “Outline application (including access) with all other matters reserved for the redevelopment of Church Farm buildings and bungalow and erection of 2 dwellings” which was approved in November 2019 by the same case officer, and that was yourself Mr Kenyon. There was also approval for Planning Application No: 18/01991/FUL – Land at Sycamore Farm, Stoke Trister, Wincanton. BA9 9PE you were also the case officer for this application. 

We recall both of these applications were opposed by majority of neighbours, refused before and eventually granted. We do not recall being asked to clarify if SS2 applied then and therefore why are you asking for clarification of whether these settlements are classed as SS2 by the Parish Council. This approval in the wording of the Church Farm application has the potential to open up farmland for further development of many houses whereas the application 20/00638/FUL, is only asking for one house for private residence for the applicants. What is the relevance here?  

Riding Gate House Riding Gate Wincanton

Stoke Trister with Bayford Parish Council

Minutes of a Site Planning Meeting of 

Stoke Trister with Bayford Parish Council Held electronically.

Present: All Councillors 

1. Apologies – None

2. Declarations of Interest – None

3. Planning 

Planning Application No: 20/02418/FUL

Location: Riding Gate House, Riding Gate, Wincanton.

Proposal: Conversion of existing outbuilding to provide ancillary accommodation.

Decision;

No objections.

……………………………………………….                            ……………………….

Chairman         Date

Mr&Mrs Garrett

Stoke Trister with Bayford Parish Council

Minutes of an electronically controlled Planning Meeting of

Stoke Trister with Bayford Parish Council

Present:  All Stoke Trister wth Bayford Parish Councillors

1. Apologies – None

2. Declarations of Interest – Cllr Garrett

3. Planning 

Planning Application No:  20/00638/FUL

Mr & Mrs Garrett

Highcroft

Stoke Trister.

Erection of a dwelling (resubmission)

Decision:

Due to Government Guidelines on Social Distancing we were unable to conduct a site meeting. Therefore the meeting was conducted online.

Stoke Trister with Bayford Parish Council have no objections and are unanimously in support of this application.

……………………………………………….. ……………………….

Chairman Date

1 2