Agenda and minutes

Given that the meeting was being held as a MS Team Live Event virtual meeting owing to the need to do so during the coronavirus/Covid -19 pandemic, the Chairman took the opportunity to explain how the meeting would take place, the way this would be done and the reason for this. She explained the protocols and processes to be followed and that doing so give gave the Council the ability to continue to fulfil its obligation of delivering the planning function and determining applications.

She also took the opportunity to inform the meeting about the sad news of the loss of planning officer Tony Bird since the last meeting, and on behalf of the Committee asked that condolences be passed on to his family and colleagues.

To receive any apologies for absence

No apologies for absence were received at the meeting.

To receive any declarations of interest

No declarations of disclosable pecuniary interests were made at the meeting.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 3 June 2020.

The minutes of the meeting held on 3 June 2020 were confirmed and would

be signed when the opportunity arose.

Members of the public wishing to speak to the Committee on a planning application should notify the Democratic Services Officer listed on the front of this agenda. This must be done no later than two clear working days before the meeting. Please refer to the Guide to Public Speaking at Planning Committee.

Representations by the public to the Committee on individual planning applications are detailed below. There were no questions, petitions or deputations received on other items on this occasion.

To consider a report by the Head of Planning.

The Committee considered an application - 6/2019/0443 – by ALDI Stores Ltd, for a proposal to erect a discount supermarket (A1 use class), with 1802 square metres of gross floor space, of which 1315 square metres would be used as the retail area and the rest of the space used for storage and staff facilities, with a bay for unloading deliveries being constructed on the north eastern elevation, recessed into the ground, with the lowest point being situated approximately 1.2m below the finished floor level of the rest of the store.

The proposal included the formation of a new car park, which would provide for 132 car parking spaces, two of which would provide an electrical charging point, with 8 being designated as parking spaces for parents with young children. The car park would also provide 4 parking spaces for disabled users and 10 spaces for bicycles. The proposal also included a planting and landscaping scheme for the car park.

A new access was also proposed as part of the development. A totem sign was to be the subject of the advertisement of a separate advertisement consent should the application be approved.

To complement the development, an agreement would need to be met to monitor the use of the uncontrolled pedestrian crossing adjacent to the store on Blandford Road North (B3068). If it was established over a five-year period that there was sufficient pedestrian use of the crossing, an agreement would be put in place for the applicant to upgrade the crossing to a traffic light controlled crossing. This would be achieved by means of a Section 106 agreement.

As to the relevant planning history of the site, the land had been used as an oil depot and garage for a number of years, but had been derelict for some time over the recent past, so the development was seen to be a means of making use of this brownfield site and going some way to providing for the retail need in Upton which had been identified.

With the aid of a visual presentation, officers provided context of what the

main proposals, principles and planning issues of the development were; how

this were to be progressed; how the development would address retail need in that part of the county; and what this entailed. The presentation focused on

not only what the development entailed and its detailed design, but what

effect it would have on residential amenity, Upton town centre and the character the area. Officers were obliged to consider whether there were any alternative, suitable sites and whether the development would be harmful to the viability of Upton town centre. Analysis of evidence had indicated that, in both cases, it was their view that this would not be the case. If the proposal had been considered to be harmful to the viability and vitality of Upton, the generation of 30 full time jobs would not be considered to carry significant weight to overcome the harm that would be caused. As  ...  view the full minutes text for item 109.

To consider a report by the Head of Planning.

The Committee considered an application - 6/2020/0167 -  for the alterations to field gate and creation of pedestrian gate at St Georges Primary School, 76 High Street, Langton Matravers so as to improve the safety of access to the playing field by providing a separate pedestrian access from the vehicular one, being recognised as an asset of community value. The application was being considered by the Committee as it was a Dorset Council application.

With the aid of a visual presentation, officers explained what the reason for the alteration was; how it would look and what this entailed. Plans and photographs provided an illustration of the location and appearance of what was being proposed and why it was necessary on safety grounds. As the site was in the Langton Matravers Conservation Area the preservation of its significance was essential and the proposal would provide for this by the means and materials to be used, without harm to the surrounding wider landscape or residential amenity. As such, officers were recommending approval.  

The local Ward member, Councillor Cherry Brooks, was supportive of the application, considering it to be necessary on safety grounds and would enhance the accessibility of the school. Langton Matravers Parish Council and Dorset Highways supported the application too.

The opportunity was given for members to ask questions of the presentation

and what they had heard, in seeking clarification of aspects so as to have a

better understanding in coming to a decision. Officers addressed the questions raised providing what they considered to be satisfactory answers.

Having had the opportunity to discuss the merits of the application, having

understood what was being proposed and the reasoning for this; having taken

into account the officer’s report and presentation; and what they had heard at the meeting, and having received satisfactory answers to questions raised, the Committee were satisfied in their understanding of what the proposal entailed and the reasoning for this and, on that basis - and being proposed by Councillor Shane Bartlett and seconded by Councillor Toni Coombs - on being put to the vote, the Committee unanimously agreed that the application should be approved, subject to the conditions set out in paragraph 17 of the report.

Resolved

That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions in paragraph 17 of the officer’s report.

Reasons for Decision

The principle of the development was acceptable and it will improve and

allow safe access between the school and the playing field and for the

whole community.

• The proposal is acceptable in its layout, appearance and general visual

impact.

• The character and appearance of the Langton Matravers Conservation

Area will be preserved.

• The natural beauty of the Dorset Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and

the special character of the Purbeck Heritage Coast will not be harmed.

• There is not considered to be any significant harm to neighbouring

residential amenity.

• There are no material considerations which would warrant refusal of this

application

To consider a report by the Head of Planning.

The Committee considered application 3/19/2271 to demolish the existing buildings and erect a dementia care home with new vehicular access and parking provision at 5 - 7A Edmondsham Road, Verwood. The Committee were informed that two previous applications had been refused and modifications had been made to address the reasons for refusal in this application.

With the aid of a visual presentation, officers explained what the

main proposals, principles and planning issues of the development were; how

these were to be progressed; how the development would contribute to

meeting care needs; and what this entailed.

Plans and photographs provided an illustration of the location, dimensions –

form, bulk, size and mass - and appearance of the development, along with its ground floor plans and internal design; how it would look; the materials to be used; what landscaping there would be; its relationship with the highway network; the characteristics of the site; access arrangements and its relationship with the local highway network; its relationship with other adjacent residential development and the variety of dwellings therein; what local amenity there was and; its setting within Verwood. The comparative distance to Verwood Heath – some 400 metres - was mentioned. Views into the site and around it were shown, which provided a satisfactory understanding of what the application entailed. The security of the site and how this could be assured was explained to Members.

The Committee’s attention was drawn in particular to the staff car parking stacking system that was to be implemented and how this would operate in practice; its appearance; what safety measures it had; and why it was necessary. Officers took the opportunity to describe this feature in some considerable detail as it might well be unfamiliar to some members and so that they had a clear understanding of what this entitled and why it was necessary. The safety features associated with the system and the limited times when it would be necessary to be operated were also described, only being installed to manufacturer’s specification and being fob operated.

Other material considerations of merit were the contributions to be secured through Community Infrastructure Levy of some £74605 (approx.) and the opportunity for employment gains with the creation of 20 jobs.

The officer’s recommendation was for permission to be granted on the basis

that the modifications made in this application to address the reasons for previous refusals were considered to now be satisfactory and acceptable, in that:-

- the proposed basement amenity space had been removed

- the bedrooms in the basement had been removed and the number of bedrooms reduced from 38 to 29

- hard landscaping had been reduced

- parking had been reconfigured as per the amended hard landscaping

- the two storey element to the north had been further set back away from the neighbouring property

- flood and drainage information had been revised

- a signed Biodiversity Mitigation and Enhancement Plan (BMEP) had been updated

The officer then provided the following updates to the published report  ...  view the full minutes text for item 111.

To consider any items of business which the Chairman has had prior notification and considers to be urgent pursuant to section 100B (4) b) of the Local Government Act 1972

The reason for the urgency shall be recorded in the minutes.

There were no urgent items of business for consideration at the meeting.

Application 6/2019/0443

Objection - John Stagg

Support -  Barrie Robinson, Adrienne King, Pauline Turner, John Westacott, Craig Parsons, Peter Smith, Julie O’Donnell, Alan Meggs, Adrian Hearn, Stephen Cope, James Boyt, Tina Buchanan, Helen Tucker, Neil Legg, Sheelagh Birks, Gillian Haberfield, Gill Diaper, Shirley Nebel, Tom Pickford, Jane Chadwick, Trudy Hicken, Paul Thompson, Michael Colegate, Ian Swinden, Bob Sprack, Bill Saxby, Malcolm Bradshaw, Barbara England, Marcelle King, Julie Almond, Liz Vigor, Leah Harley, Darren King, Alan Williams – Planning Potential (for applicant).

Application 3/19/2271

Objection – Martin Summers

Support – Daryl Howells – Pure Town Planning