Agenda item

To consider a report by the Head of Planning.

Cllr Fry spoke as the Local Member only and then removed himself from the meeting for this item.

 

The Lead Project Officer introduced the application for the erection of a multi storey car park and improvements to internal site roads and temporary change of use of former school field to car parking and Dorset County Hospital.

 

The officer identified the whole hospital campus and drew members’ attention to the main access point s on the site. The location and extent of the Dorchester conservation area was highlighted and it was noted that no development was planned in the designated conservation area. The nearby Listed Buildings were also highlighted. The proposed site plans and the proposed elevation and section drawings were highlighted to members.

 

There was no in principle land use objection  and the main considerations in the determination of the application were set out int the application report.

 

The officer highlighted a number of updates for members since the publication of the report which included:-

• A review of screening under the EIA Regulations, environment impact was not considered necessary and the original screening opinion considered to be sound.
• Further consultation responses from the Council’s Transport Planning Manager and Flood Risk Management Team:
•  The Travel Plan was now acceptable. 
• Surface water discharge element objection was still not resolved and this was explained to members.
• Representations in support of the proposed development had been received from Richard Drax MP and Simon Hoare MP. 6 further representations supporting the proposed development had also been received including previous county councillor and representative on the Hospital Board, Ian Gardner.
• Further representations objecting to the proposed development included a petition from the residents of Damers Road. Further representations had also been received expressing concern about air quality impact and damage to properties during the construction period.

 

The Conservation Officer had no further comments to make.

 

The Transport Development Liaison Manager highlighted that on-site parking provision would be increased to 1064 spaces once the works were completed.  The view from the Highways Authority was that the proposed development was satisfactory and robust and had no objection in principle to the proposal.

 

A number of written submissions supporting and objecting to the recommendation and a statement by the applicant were read out at the meeting and are attached to these minutes.

 

Cllr Tony Alford who was the Dorset Council representative on the hospital Board addressed the committee. He focussed on the concept of heritage significance and noted that it was not clear from the report that Historic England had set any guidance about how heritage should be discussed. He felt this was missing from the Planning Officer’s report. He concluded from the report there would be a very low level of harm arising from the proposed development.  There was a high level of compliance with other areas of the application.  Sustainable development was mentioned in the report, and this application would help to deliver all three elements.   He highlighted that approval of this application would ensure the funding of £62.5m for the hospital was secure.

 

Local Members for Dorchester West – Cllr Les Fry

Cllr Fry highlighted that this application was contentious for a number of reasons but felt this could be avoided. He felt the point on conservation was not relevant as there were plenty of building nearby that did not compliment the town.  Whilst he did have sympathy for the residents the hospital needed to adapt and expand.  He felt that the multi-storey car park would stand out but not as much as the buildings on Poundbury.  He had worked with the Hospital Estates Team to try and sort a number of parking issues on the current site. He asked if the hospital had taken into account COVID and the number of people that were now working from home and if the car park was still needed.  Cllr Fry made reference to the water issues and solar panels and asked for a condition to be added that local people had a say in what the final building would look like.

 

Members comments and questions

In respect of the question regarding staff working from home at the hospital, the officer advised that he had had some discussion with various people, and on occasions when he had visited the car park had not had any difficulty parking but recognised this was not the finding of other people.  With reduced visitor numbers he felt there may have been a noticeable reduction in parking demand during the COVID period.  However, he felt that planning decisions should not be taken on the basis of what remained an emergency situation.

 

With regards to the incorporation of renewable energies, the officer advised there were no proposals within the application for onsite renewable generation, but later noted that the photovoltaic cells are proposed on the roof of the service cores. In terms of climate change impact the proposals for providing a car park with electric vehicle charging points and a commitment to green travel was a positive element to the application.

 

Cllr Jones asked if there were any specialist reasons to consider in order for members to go against the officers’ recommendation.  The officer advised that the decision members were being asked to take involved balancing the harms that had been identified by council officers against the public benefits claimed by the applicants and that are acknowledged in the application report.  There was nothing in the report that invited members to put weight to issues that were not material planning considerations.  The recommendation for refusal related to the landscape, townscape and visual impacts of the proposed multi storey car park and related implications for designation of heritage assets. The committee can and should have regard to the public benefits associated with the proposed development.  Members should not approve unless they were satisfied that the harm to the significance of designated heritage assets was clearly and convincingly outweighed by the public benefits.

 

Cllr Taylor asked if a sprinkler system was planned for the building.  The officer advised any such system would be covered under building regulations.

 

Cllr Andrews highlighted the social and economic benefits of the scheme and highlighted his experiences of trying to secure a disabled space when visiting the car park. He was content to proposed that the recommendation be refused.

 

Cllr Heatley felt the application was centred on 3 areas, parking, the future plans for the hospital and potential damage to heritage.  He had no objection to the modest increase in parking capacity and felt in respect of the heritage and landscape, it was sometimes too easy to make too much of this. 

 

Cllr Pothecary found the recommendations to be brave and exemplary.  However, the word harm was subjective and she would vote to approve application. She asked that an informative be included regarding the objection raised by the Flood Risk Management Team.

 

Cllr Ridout noted that the development was large but was part of the site so would be viewed in context and was outside the conservation area.  She appreciated there were heritage assets close by but there was distance.  The proposed development was in the best location on the site and would be a huge benefit to staff, patients and visitors. It was important for the hospital to carry on increasing their green travel plan. In her view the public benefit far outweighed the harm.

 

Cllr Jones highlighted the £62.5m increased funding to the area which could not be taken lightly.

 

Following a vote, members agreed to grant planning permission for the multi-story car park at Dorset County Hospital.

 

The Lead Project Officer highlighted some headline conditions that members may wish to impose should they be minded to approve the application.  Members discussed these and agreed to leave the detailed wording for the Head of Planning, to be agreed in consultation with the Chairman.  The Chairman asked that a condition be included regarding the involvement of the community in the choice of design and artwork of the exterior of the building. 

 

Cllr Ridout wanted to ensure that the proposal for planting 170 new tees off-site would go ahead and asked if that would be in the landscaping condition. The officer advised that he thought that this was included in the biodiversity mitigation and enhancement plan,  but could reasonably be secured by condition.

Proposed: Jon Andrews

Seconded: David Taylor

 

Decision

1. To grant planning permission on the grounds that the social and economic benefits in respect of parking and funding for the hospital outweighed the harm to the landscape, to visual amenity and to the significance of heritage assets.  Members were satisfied that the harm to heritage significance was clearly and convincingly outweighed by the public benefits associated with the proposed development.

2. That the Head of Planning, in consultation with the Chairman, agree the conditions.

3. That an advisory note be added regarding community involvement in the design and artwork of the exterior of the building.