Decisions

Reason for Decision

The appointment of an independent examiner is a legal requirement of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Localism Act 2011 once a neighbourhood plan has been submitted to the Council.

 

Alternative options considered and rejected

There are no alterative options to appointing an examiner, as it is a legal requirement. Alternative examiners have been considered and the choice of examiner has been made jointly with the neighbourhood plan qualifying body.

Decision

The appointment of an independent examiner for the examination of the Puddletown  neighbourhood development plan.

 

Reason for Decision

The allotments were due to be transferred by Weymouth & Portland Borough Council to WTC in the 2019 reorganisation order as the provision of allotments is not a function of a unitary authority.  For historical reasons the allotments were situated on land owned by the former Dorset District Council which had never been transferred to WPBC and could therefore not be included in the reorganisation order.  The land vested in DC and is now being transferred as planned to WTC.

 

Decision

To transfer allotments at Parsons Close Weymouth to Weymouth Town Council.

 

Reason for Decision

Reasonable request to make a connection to services already running under the existing accessway.

 

Decision

To complete a wayleave in favour of SSE plc over land belonging to the Council adjacent to 72 Barnes Close Wimborne to enable a newly constructed dwelling to be connected to the electricity network.

 

Reason for Decision

Housing the homeless under

Decision

To lease 20 Pipit Close, Weymouth, DT3 5RT under the direct leasing scheme for homeless households.

 

Alternative options considered and rejected

Not to lease this particular property.

The Licensing Officer set out the application for a new premises licence made by Cove Café Ltd for on and off sales of alcohol, regulated entertainment and late night refreshment.

 

The Licensing Officer advised that the applicant had withdrawn some parts of the application in his letter dated 9 July 2020 and this information had been circulated to all parties. The application was now for:-

 

The supply of alcohol (on sales only) between 1100hrs and 2330hrs daily, with an additional hour on New Year’s Eve and all national bank holidays. 

 

Regulated entertainment indoor only (live and recorded music) between 2300 and 2330hours with an additional hour on New Year’s Eve and all national bank holidays, and 

 

Late night refreshment between 2300 and midnight with an additional hour on New Year’s Eve and all national bank holidays. 

 

The Licensing Officer continued that whilst it might look odd to see live and recorded music for only the half an hour on the application.  This was down to the Live Music Act which simply meant that any premises with alcohol licences did not need music on their licence in order to have music on their licence in order to have music playing between 8am and 11pm. 

 

The Licensing Act 2003 (Descriptions of Entertainment) (Amendment) Order 2013 meant that indoor sporting events and performance of dance were also not considered to be licensable activities if they occurred between the hours of 0800 hrs and 2300hrs (subject to certain audience size limitations). There was no similar provision for films.

 

The Licensing Officer  continued that one of the objectors had shared his submission that he intended to give prior to the hearing and this had been circulated to all parties. The Licensing Officer took this opportunity to remind the sub-committee about the relevance of representations.  All of the representations had been included in the committee papers in their entirety for the purposes of transparency. However only those elements that related to the licensing four objectives should be taken into account.

 

There were no questions of the Licensing Officer at this stage.

 

The applicant’s solictor, Mr Elford on behalf of Seals Cove Ltd advised the sub-committee that the premises was sited on a trading estate within Bridport.  He thanked the Licensing Officer for listing the changes made  and indicated that the rest of the application remained as originally stated. The premise was aimed at families not just with young children, but for all age groups of the family and the application sought flexibility in order to cater for the demand from customers.

 

Mr Elford acknowledged that there was some objections from local residents, but pointed out that there had been no representations received from the responsible authorities.

 

Mr Elford also proposed a number of additional conditions to address some of the concerns raised by representations received. These were set out as:-

 

(i)         To provide a smoking area for customers of the premises

(ii)        To monitor the smoking area to ensure that customer behaviour is not a nuisance to business or residents

(iii)       Notices to be displayed in the smoking area reminding them to respect local residents.

(iv)       No noise that the premise will give rise to a nuisance to local residents

(v)        That the premises licence holder shall install a noise limiter set at a level where no nuisance is caused to local residents

(vi)       A noise test to be carried out before opening to the public.

 

By setting these conditions the applicant aimed not to upset any local business or resident. Mr Elford also indicated that the premises licence holder would provide the duty manager contact number to local residents in the unlikely event that there were concerns at an event.

 

He advised members that the premises would not be operating as a nightclub and would offer the following condition (vii) that the premises will not operated as a late night drinking venue. Plus (viii) that licencing activities shall be ancillary to the use of the premises for a family leisure complex. It was hoped that this would give local residents assurance.

 

He continued that there had been concerns raised about the booking arrangements and he suggested that the premises licence holder would incorporate the conditions of the licence within the hire agreement of its customers. The premises licence holder would appoint sufficient employees to run the business and at the moment they were looking to hire a minimum of 10 full- time and 10 part-time staff to the business. But that number was likely to increase as the business grows. 

 

Mr Elford also offered a condition relating to training (ix) That staff would be trained commensurate to their function within the business. (x) that the premises licence holder would ensure that a personal licence holder was on duty at the premises from 8pm every day. The applicant had already trained 7 staff as personal licence holders in addition to himself.

 

Mr Elford continued that he understood local residents concerns, but argued that there was no evidence at this time to support those concerns.  He asked members to approve the application.

 

He Licensing Officer  asked Mr Elford to clarify that the removal of anything of similar description to live music, recorded music and performances of dance (part H on the application) and that live music and recorded music remained on the licence between 2300-2330 hours.   Mr Elford on behalf of the applicant confirmed this was the case.

 

The Chairman invited  members to asked questions.  In response to a question regarding the responsible authorities, Mr Elford confirmed that there were no objections from the responsible authorities.

 

Cllr Pipe sought clarification in what was meant as “late night”.  Mr Elford advised that the premise was a family leisure complex not a late night pub/bar with “vertical drinking”.  The hours sought would allow flexibility. For example the climbing wall would be used in the day by school groups and the bar would not be required.  However in the evening adult amateur climbers may wish to enjoy a social drink after a climbing session. 

 

In response to another question, Mr Elford advised that the soft play area was not a licensable activity, but there would be a Challenge 25 initiative in place on the site. The applicant confirmed that around 8.30pm most children would be out of the soft play area, unless there was a family party event. All children would be expected to be supervised. 

 

In respect of the implementation of a noise limiter, members asked if an expert would be consulted for the installation.  In reply Mr Elford confirmed that this would be the case, and that the walls and roof had been insulated. He did not believe that there would be noise breakout from the premises.

 

Members asked where the smoking area would be sited? Mr Elford confirmed that it would sited in area which would not effect local residents and other customers. Members also asked about the siting of pop-up bars and the applicant confirmed that if there was a pop-up bar these would be manned by the premises staff. Members were further advised that these events would be risk assessed accordingly.  In response to a question in respect of capacity, members were advised that the final figure had not yet been established yet.

 

In respect to function room advertisements, members were informed that advertising would be by the website and onsite bookings  mainly for children’s parties.

 

In respect of a question about car parking, the applicant confirmed that parking was not a relevant issue to the application.  However the premise would have 50 spaces and in the summer months he was hoping to operate a bus service from West Bay to and from the site.

 

In response to a further question, Mr Elford advised that “vertical drinking model” was like a traditional  pub, for example drinking standing at the bar.

 

The Chairman welcomed Mr Cross an objector to the application.  He had concerns about drunk people using the footpath by the side of his property.  Was this the right place to sale  alcohol on an industrial estate when their were many public house in the town? Mr Cross indicated that he understood the business model but could not agree that it was appropriate to sale  alcohol on the site.  There were no questions to Mr Cross

 

The Chairman invited Mr Middleton to address the sub-committee. Mr Middleton appreciated that his points in his previous submission had now been taken into account.  However these were not addressed prior to him making his representation and this caused him some concern. The conditions proposed by the applicant showed that they are now listening to the residents but he did not think that the concessions put forward or the conditions proposed were substantiated. For example there were no smoking area indicated on the plan. 

 

In his view, this showed that there was no preparation or consideration for  this issue. He was concerned with the information given in particular regarding the capacity figures. Which could be amplified considerable.  He further expressed concerns about the parking issues.  He asked members to consider reducing the licensing hours as some of the conditions still remained unclear. He felt that it was important to consider the application with caution as it was sited on an industrial estate near the town with a residential area. He considered it to be reasonable for the business to operate with temporary event notices in the short to medium term.  The community was not adverse the business succeeding but he was surprised that the local residents had not had any consultation in this matter.

 

Mitigation was not successful and in response to a question from the Chairman the timings considered acceptable to Mr Middleton would be 11.00am to 6pm which was in keeping with the trading estate hours. He also asked Sunday trading hours to be considered as there is no Sunday trading on the industrial estate at the moment. 

 

In response to questions from members Mr Middleton confirmed that he had attended 2 mitigating meetings with a representative of the applicant, but there had been no consultation prior to the application being submitted.

                                                                              

The Chairman invited the Licensing Officer to respond to the public statements and she confirmed that applicants were not required to provide smoking areas for their customers. The capacity of the building was not recorded on the licence that was a matter for the fire risk assessment and with regards to consulting residents, the requirement of the regulations was that the application be advertised in a local newspaper and a notice be displayed on site.  These were both complied with and were considered sufficient.

 

The applicant had no questions of the Mr Middleton.

 

The Chairman invited all parties to sum up their case.  In summing up Mr Middleton asked the sub-committee to reject the application and Mr Cross also strongly objected to the application.

 

In summing up Mr Elford stated he was sorry that residents felt that they had not been consulted. However giving the conditions offered he was confident that the applicant would promote the four licensing objectives in the way that the premises was operated.

 

The Licensing Officer and the Legal Advisor had nothing further to add. 

 

In closing the meeting the Chairman advised that the sub-committee would consider the information provided and the decision would be sent to all parties in writing within 5 workings.  All parties had 21 days to appeal to magistrates court following the decision made by the sub-committee.

 

Decision

 

That the application be grant as set out in the appendix attached.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

An application for a new premises licence has been made by Cove Café Ltd for on and off sales of alcohol, regulated entertainment and late night refreshment. Representations have been received and remain unresolved therefore a hearing by the licensing Sub-Committee must be held to determine the application.

Cabinet agreed:-

 

(a)       To start each of the procurement processes as listed in Appendix 1 to the report the report to Cabinet of 28 July 2020;

 

(b)       That in each instance the further step of making any contract award be delegated to the relevant Cabinet portfolio holder, in consultation with the relevant Executive Director.

 

Reason for Decision 

 

Cabinet is required to approve all key decisions with financial consequences of £500k or more. It is also good governance to provide Cabinet with a summary of all proposed procurements prior to them formally commencing.

 

Decision

 

That the current 1.75 redundancy multiplier be extended until 31^st March 2021, to ensure parity between those that have already been subject to organisational change and those due to be at risk of redundancy as Dorset Council moves through the remainder of the financial year. 

 

Reason for Decision

 

This would reintroduce alignment with the additional protection arrangements and the review of terms and conditions. Consultation would take place before 31 March 2021 on the intention of reducing the multiplier thereafter.

 

 

Decision

 

The following item was closed to the press and public in view of the likely disclosure of exempt information within the meaning of paragraph 3 of schedule 12 A to the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended).

Decision

 

(a)       That the creation of a full business case to accelerate the deployment of full fibre and wireless / mobile connectivity predominately in the rural parts of the Dorset Council area, be supported;

 

(b)       That the Dorset Council budgetary commitment of up to £1m capital (from the Ringfenced Superfast Broadband budget) and revenue implementation commitment of £285k (funded from the Dorset Council Transformation fund) to leverage in external capital and commercial investment of up to £8.9m, be agreed;

 

(c)        That the commencement of the required public procurements be agreed;

 

(d)       That authority be delegated  to the portfolio holder for Corporate Development, in consultation with the Executive Director of Place, to submit a full business case, procure and award services and enter into the necessary grant agreements to deliver this programme of activity;

 

(d)       That the unusually short timescales involved in developing these proposals, and the importance of responding and mobilising quickly to meet delivery deadlines to facilitate economic recovery from the impacts of the Coronavirus pandemic be noted.

 

Reason for the Decision

 

To enable the business case process to be submitted, complete due diligence and to facilitate the quickest possible deployment by March 2022.

 

Decision

That the proposed spend allocation of the Transport Infrastructure Investment Fund be approved.

Reason for the Decision

That we can invest the Transport Infrastructure Investment Fund in accordance with Department for Transport (DfT) guidelines, to improve road condition, reducing the number of potholes, and to kick start the construction industry and wider economy. This is also intended to assist our recovery from the impacts of Covid 19 and flooding issues arising from the winter.

Decision

 

That the DRAFT Dorset Council climate and ecological emergency strategy be approved for consultation with the public following the development of a costed delivery plan. 

 

Reason for Decision

 

Dorset Council have declared a climate & ecological emergency and established a councillor led Executive Advisory Panel (EAP) responsible for gathering information and working with officers to make recommendations to Dorset Council’s Cabinet on actions that will help mitigate against climate change.

 

 

 

Decision

 

(a)       That the draft Dorset Council Economic Growth Strategy be approved.

 

(b)       That authority be delegated to the Portfolio Holder of Economic Development and Skills  to make any further, minor amendments required following consideration by Cabinet.

 

Reason for the Decision

 

One of the priorities in the Dorset Council Plan 2020-2024 is to ‘deliver sustainable economic growth, increasing productivity and the number of high-quality jobs in Dorset, creating great places to live, work and visit.’  A prosperous and inclusive local economy is vital to achieving the strategic priorities of the Council.  The Economic Growth Strategy explains how the Council will seek to deliver this priority and will be accompanied in due course by a detailed action plan.

 

Decision

.

1.         That the following specific arrangements be agreed:-

 

(a)       To spend CIL monies within the same geographical charging

area from which they were levied, pre and post 31/8/19.

 

(b)       The CIL infrastructure spending priorities pre 1/9/19, as laid out

in appendix C.

 

(c)        The mechanism for prioritisation and spend of CIL funded

infrastructure pre and post 31/8/19, as set out in the amended appendix A.

 

2.         That the Terms of Reference for Property Management Group

(PMG), be amended,  to enable it to scrutinise & prioritise infrastructure projects seeking funding from the Community Infrastructure Levy and provide recommendations to Capital Strategy and Asset Management Group (CSAMG) / the Executive Director of Place regarding which projects should receive such funding.

 

3.         That authority be delegated to the Executive Director of Place in consultation with the Portfolio Holder Planning, the approval of the prioritisation, of CIL spend on behalf of the Council as reported to CSAMG.

 

Reason for Decision:    

 

i)             To provide clarity, transparency and consistency in the allocation and spending of CIL receipts.

 

ii)            To set out the relationship between the Council as charging authority and key stakeholders and infrastructure providers (internal and external).

 

iii)          To ensure CIL receipts are spent on infrastructure required to support development, in accordance with the CIL Regulations 2010 specifically as amended in September 2019 (‘the CIL Regulations’).

 

iv)          To ensure CIL serves its purpose of supporting the delivery of the infrastructure necessary to support the development in Dorset.

 

 

Decision

(a)       That the outturn position for 2019/20 and the impact this had on reserves be noted;

(b)       That the Senior Leadership Team’s forecast for Dorset Council’s position at the end of Quarter 1 be noted;

(c)        That the position on the capital programme be noted and the projects recommend by officers (as set out in Appendix 1 of the report) be approved;

(d)       That the key milestones lifted from the draft timetable for budget/Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP) for 2021/22 be agreed (as set out in Appendix 2 of the report);

(e)       That the inherited and revised draft budget assumptions to allow development of the first iteration of the five-year MTFP be noted (as set out in Appendix 3 of the report);

 

Reason for the Decision

 

The Council has responsibilities to deliver against its 2019-20 Revenue Budget and 2019-20 Capital Programme and maintain adequate reserves. These recommendations and accompanying report demonstrate the Council’s performance in delivering against these responsibilities.

 

Cabinet need to understand the significant financial impact and consequences of the Council’s response to the Covid-19 pandemic.

Understanding the financial position at the start of the planning process is key to adopting the most appropriate assumptions in the development of the MTFP.  Agreeing an initial set of assumptions will allow officers to develop the first iteration of the MTFP and budget for 2021/22 for consideration and conduct sensitivity testing.

Governance of the financial strategy will be critical as we build the next MTFP and agreeing key milestones for the work and member review/challenge are important at this stage to ensure maximum engagement.

 

 

Recommendation to Council

Reason for Decision

The property comprising hotel accommodation requires a fire exit in order to comply with building regulations. While they already have an access onto our land, owing to the configuration of their building they need an access in a different location onto the same footpath

 

Alternative options considered and rejected

Not to grant the licence.

Decision

To grant a licence for emergency access only to Broad Street Car Park Lyme Regis from the rear of 5 Coombe Street Lyme Regis.

 

Reason for the Decision

 

For Welbeck to release their option on the property they requested that the Council enter into a works agreement so that if for any reason the council are unable to complete the highway improvement scheme at the junction of The Old Manse that they can step in and complete it as the development requires this junction to be improved.

 

Alternative Options considered and rejected

None

 

Consultees

Wellbeck

 

Budget Implications

 

The funding for the property acquisition and junction improvement scheme is part of the Dorset LEP grant from the Government’s Growth Deal.  

 

 

 

Decision

Agreement to enter into a works agreement with Welbeck, the developer, relating to the purchase of The Old Manse and the junction improvement scheme at the B3081 Shaftesbury Road/B3092 New Road junction.