Category: 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: 20/03245/S73A

Decision:

Whilst Stoke Trister with Bayford Parish Council supports local business, this applicant already has an established business in Wincanton.

At his previous application for a residential dwelling the Parish Council raised concerns as the said barn appeared to be in use with commercial vehicles/equipment already, in a residential environment. The applicant stated that it was being used for storage and his main business was in Wincanton. This has now appeared to have changed.

Regardless of this in the last planning permission on the site, condition 7 clearly stated that the MOT station should cease when the conversion happened. The officers report with the previous application states that the applicant has indicated that the MOT business would cease by grant of this approval, turning the extant garage on the site into an ancillary outbuilding. This indicates acceptance by the applicant of the impending condition. 

Running his business from this residential location would make an increase in traffic and noise in a, what is now, a very quiet hamlet.

Therefore, on the basis of a majority vote, we recommend refusal of this application. 

……………………………………. ………………………….

Chairman Date

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:  20/03731/HOU

Decision:

Stoke Trister with Bayford Parish Council have no objections to the above application.

………………………………………. ………………………………Chairman Date

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

Stoke Trister with Bayford Parish Council

Minutes of a Site Planning Meeting of 

Stoke Trister with Bayford Parish Council held on 10 January 2020 at 10.00 am

CONSULTATION

Present:  Cllrs: N Linsley (Chairman) M Grant (Vice Chairman) J Macfarlane and J Garrett. D/Cllr Robin Bastable.

Public: Andrew Jenkins – (Vice Chairman) Pen Selwood Parish Council. Mr Paul Shiner.

1. Apologies – Cllrs: J McKenna, R Webb-Bowen and M Summerfield. 

2. Declarations of Interest – None

3. Planning 

Planning Application No:   19/03362/COL

Location:  Cynthia Paddocks, Leigh Common, Pen Selwood. BA9 8LD

Proposal:  Application for a Certificate of Lawfulness for the existing use of a dwelling.

Decision:

The owner of Cynthia Paddocks Mr Stocks refused extremely assertively several times to allow Councillors entry to the building site so that they could view the property.  Eventually after much discussion the Councillors were allowed to step just inside the gate which was approximately 75 – 100 mtrs from the actual property. Still very little could be seen of the building as there were large vehicles obstructing any view.

Mr Stocks purchased the land with a stable in 2007 and continued to live in it. Over a period of time he has continued to increase the size of the stable for further living accommodation. No change of use has ever been applied for and no Council Tax has ever been paid on the building that he has continued to live in.

Councillors couldn’t make any observations on the matter because the owner couldn’t provide any hard evidence of what he was telling us. 

Further discussion with the Planning Officer was absolutely necessary on this occasion.

…………………………………………………………. ……………………….

Chairman Date

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

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

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

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 4^th 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

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