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: 20/03009/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 a Site Planning Meeting of 

Stoke Trister with Bayford Parish Council held on 26 April 2019 at10.00 am

Present:  Cllrs: E Parsons (Chairman) J Macfarlane and M Summerfield.

1. Apologies – Cllrs: T MacCaw and N Linsley.

2. Declarations of Interest – None

3. Planning 

Planning Application No:  18/01991/FUL

Location:  Land at Sycamore Barn, Stoke Trister. Wincanton. BA9 9PE

Proposal:  The conversion of existing domestic storage building into a single dwelling and provision of associated parking and turning area.

Decision:

We have no objection to the smaller building being ancillary to the main house. We do object to the conversion of the larger building into a house separate to the main house.   

This application does not appear to conform to the requirements of the NPPF which discourages new dwellings in a rural settlement and is contrary to the Stoke Trister with Bayford local plan.  This building does not have any architectural merit and it is doubtful whether it would enhance its surroundings as a number of houses would be cramped together in a small area giving the impression that this could be the start of a larger housing development?  

Our views as a Parish Council have not changed from the last application and therefore recommend refusal 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 on 6 December 2019 at10.00 am

Present:  Cllrs: N Linsley (Chairman) J Macfarlane, R Webb-Bowen, M Summerfield and J Garrett.

1. Apologies – Cllrs: M Grant and J McKenna. P Gillman (Parish Clerk)

2. Public:  Mr M Wheeler and Miss Jemima Green

3. Declarations of Interest – None

4. Planning 

Planning Application No: 19/02787/FUL

Applicant: Miss Jemima Green

Location:  Mitchells Farm Stoke Trister BA9 9PH

Proposal:  The erection of a horse walker.

Decision:

After discussion with Councillors and Public Stoke Trister with Bayford Parish Council were happy with the location of the construction. They had no objection to this application providing the following points where taken fully into account:

1. Roofing was to blend in with the location and surroundings.

2. Whilst the Councillors appreciated that there would need to be some lighting it was requested that it would not be left on all night and when not in use.

The applicant assured both Councillors and Public that both of these points would be adhered to. 

Meeting closed 10.30am

……………………………………………………… ………………………

Chairman Date

Stoke Trister with Bayford Parish Council

Minutes of a Site Planning Meeting of 

Stoke Trister with Bayford Parish Council held on 11 October 2019 at 10.00 am

Present:  Cllrs: N Linsley (Chairman) J Macfarlane, M Summerfield and J Garrett

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

2. Declarations of Interest – None

3. Planning 

Planning Application No:  19/02457/HOU

Applicant: Mr & Mrs Andrews

Location:  Park Farmhouse, Beech Lane, Stoke Trister, Wincanton. BA9 9PQ

Proposal:  The erection of an oak framed detached garage building incorporating home office and ancillary accommodation.

Decision:

1. It is unclear from the map exactly where the building would be situated.
2. The most sensible positioning would be if the old stables were demolished and the new building sited there.
3. Please clarify if this is the case, if so, we have no objection to the application.
4. One query would be have they obtained planning permission for the new stables in situ at the moment.

NB. Mrs Andrews contacted the Chairman to state she would be away on holiday at the time of the meeting.

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

Chairman     Date

Stoke Trister with Bayford Parish Council

Minutes of a Site Planning Meeting of 

Stoke Trister with Bayford Parish Council held on 8 March 2019 at10.20.am

Present: Cllrs: E Parsons (Chairman) J Macfarlane, N Linsley, M Grant and M Summerfield.

Public:  Elizabeth Becker, Jane Turner, Mr & Mrs Garrett, Ian Piper, Alison Dixon and Mr & Mrs Phillips

Clerk in attendance:

Mrs P Gillman

1. Apologies – Cllr: T MacCaw

2. Declarations of Interest – None

3. Planning 

Planning Application No: 

Planning Application: 19/00373/FUL

Applicant: Mr & Mrs Garrett

Location: Highcroft, Bayford Lane, Stoke Trister, Wincanton BA9 9PG

Proposal: Erection of a new dwelling.

Decision:

Mr Garrett explained the proposal with plans and drawings to build a ‘1.5 house’ for them to occupy + a detached garage to the front of the property. The house will face the valley to take in the exceptional views.

Public discussions:

As Mr Garrett owns the bungalow at the back of and adjacent to the land, why not knock that down and build a family home out there with the garden embracing the land under discussion. He said the footprint would not be suitable. 

Where are the boundaries on the roadside of the land? Who owns them?

Mr Garrett explained that there are 2 boundaries, the large trees form inner boundary which he owns and the outer boundary which is owned by the council although it has not been maintained by them. It had posts and wire which was falling down and decrepit and Mr G had to remove them as they were causing potential hazard.

Does the land require permission to cross council land, i.e. access? Mr Garrett did not think so as he can access his land now.

Concern regarding water run-off with all the digging that will occur when building work commences.  (Public member mentioned the issues next door on Butts Farm where water run off is a major problem). It was deemed this building work would be a one-off so should not be an issue.

Does the land need a Geological survey? 

There is a house at the bottom of the land. Apparently, the owner is neutral on this proposal as long as only one property is sanctioned. The lady at the bottom of the land had requested a Geological Survey to verify the stability of the land and the safety of run off and drainage.

How tall will the building be?

Mrs Garrett explained that the house will be 1.5 storeys tall house and will be built into the slope at the back. Some discussion took place as to whether it is 1.5 or 2 storeys. 

Parish Council decision:

Unanimous agreement for permission to be granted as long as the comments above can be addressed. It was important to state that the Councillors thought local residents who have been in the area for long periods as Mr & Mrs Garrett have, should be encouraged and supported with plans to stay in Stoke Trister. 

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

Chairman   Date

Stoke Trister with Bayford Parish Council

Minutes of a Site Planning Meeting of 

Stoke Trister with Bayford Parish Council held on Friday30 August 2019 at 10.00 am

Present:  Cllrs: N Linsley (Chairman) M Grant (Vice Chairman) Jo Garret, J Macfarlane, M Summerfield and R Webb-Bowen

1. Apologies – Cllr McKenna

2. Declarations of Interest – None

3. Planning 

Planning Application No: 19/02045/HOU

Applicant: Mr & Mrs Granville Miller

Location:  Stoke House, Bayford Lane, Stoke Trister BA9 9PG

Proposal:  Demolish existing lean to, and the erection of a two-storey extension to side of dwellinghouse.

Decision:

A unanimous decision by all Councillors was to recommend approval.

……………………………………………………               ……………………………

Chairman   Date

Stoke Trister with Bayford Parish Council

Minutes of a Site Planning Meeting of 

Stoke Trister with Bayford Parish Council held on 12 April 2019 at 10.15 am 

Present:  Cllrs: E Parsons (Chairman), N Linsley, M Grant, J Macfarlane and M Summerfield.

Clerk in attendance: Mrs P Gillman

1. Apologies – Cllr T MacCaw

2. Declarations of Interest – None

3. Planning 

Planning Application No:  19/00794/FUL

Applicant: Mr & Mrs Roger Perry

Location:  The Old School House, Stoke Trister Wincanton. BA9 9PF

Proposal:  Change of use of paddock along with the construction of an all weather arena for winter turnout and schooling of horses on an area of land that is currently used for the horses.

Decision:

Unanimously no objections to 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 10.00 am on Friday 29 March 2019

Present:  Cllrs: E Parsons (Chairman) N Linsley, J Macfarlane, M Grant and M Summerfield.

1. Apologies – Cllr: T MacCaw

2. Declarations of Interest – None

3. Planning 

Application No: 19/00448/HOU

Applicant: Mr Simon Minney

Location: Riding Gate House, Riding Gate, Bayford, Wincanton. BA9 8NQ

Proposal: Erection of two storey side extension, re-building of front porch and erection of oak framed lean-to.

Decision:

 Stoke Trister with Bayford Parish Council attended an on site planning meeting today re the above application.

There were no objections to this application providing that there was: 

1. Adequate space to turn cars so that they did not have to reverse onto the highway.

2. The old caravan was to be removed.

3. The new building to be sympathetically built and in keeping with the existing building.

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

Chairman Date

Stoke Trister with Bayford Parish Council

Minutes of a Site Planning Meeting of 

Stoke Trister with Bayford Parish Council held on Friday 11 October 2019 at10.20 am

Present:  Cllrs: N Linsley (Chairman) J Macfarlane and M Summerfield.

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

2. Declarations of Interest – None

3. Planning 

Planning Application No: 19/02369/FUL

Applicant: Mr Simon Minney

Location:  Riding Gate House, Riding Gate, Wincanton. BA9 8NQ

Proposal:  Conversion of an existing outbuilding to an annex/holiday let.

Decision:

1. On principle restoring this building there are no objections. It is a positive approach to restore and old building.
2. One comment we wish to make is that the existing pantiles be used rather than the tiles on the application. This would maintain the character of an old building.
3. When we reviewed the planning Application No: 19/00448/HOU we requested that the mobile home should be removed.
4. We note that that there is now a substantial wood cladded building in place now. Has planning permission been granted for this? 
5. Will this also be used for a holiday let?
6. Will planning permission be required for change of use for both of these buildings for holiday lets?

………………………………………………. …………………………….

Chairman Date