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 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

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

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