Use the below search options at the bottom of the page to find information regarding recent decisions that have been taken by the council’s decision making bodies.
Alternatively you can visit the officer decisions page for information on officer delegated decisions that have been taken by council officers.
Reason
for the Decision
The rails have been put permanently out of use by
Network Rail. This network change has
been agreed by government. The now
redundant rails are an ongoing safety hazard and maintenance burden to Dorset
Council. Should the scheme not go ahead
within the planned window, there is the risk that Dorset Council will have to
return the grant.
Alternative
Options considered and rejected
Dorset Council has been working with Network Rail
to identify a satisfactory, long term solution to the problem.
Options considered include surfacing over and
infilling. An infilling trial was
undertaken in 2012. Four different
options were tested, but none proved durable.
In addition, infilling only addresses on aspect of the risk (cycle
wheels being caught in the void between the tracks) The slip hazard remains,
and there has been no reduction in the accident rate.
An option for partial removal has been considered
and discounted because although it may remove the risk to cyclists at key
locations, the risk remains elsewhere, and the long-term maintenance issue
would remain unresolved including the presence of wooden sleepers under the
carriage.
Surfacing options have been discounted because they
only provide a temporary solution and leave the long-term maintenance liability
in place.
Do
nothing was ruled out as untenable due to the ongoing risk to safety, the
long-term maintenance issues and the positioning of the rails precludes the
development of an on-road cycle route to be developed separately as part of the
town wide network.
Consultees
External: Network Rail, Weymouth Town Council,
Internal: Local Member, Conservation Officer and
Archaeologist. Engagement with local
members
Budget Implications
£200,000
from the Local Transport Plan budget.
£1.137M from the Department for Transport. £200,000 from Network Rail. (update: Network Rail given an extra £41,319 – total of £241,319)
Notice amended on 21/12/2020
Legal
Implications
The
transfer of ownership of the rails is
underway and will be completed on receipt of documentation from Network Rail,
who are joint funders of the scheme. We have assurances from Network Rail that
they have instructed their legal representatives to effect the transfer and
finance has been authorised.
Reference
Documents
For full information about the rationale behind the
scheme, see our funding bid.
Decision Maker: Portfolio Holder for Highways, Travel and Environment
Decision published: 17/11/2020
Effective from: 28/09/2020
Decision:
Decision
To proceed with the removal in accordance with the terms of the £1.137M Department for Transport grant – while being sensitive to the historic context.
Lead officer: Kate Tunks
Reasons
for Decision
a)
The available evidence shows on balance that the application route
(Bailey Drove) between points C – D – D1 – E on Drawing 18/07 was dedicated as
a public carriageway in the Leigh Inclosure Award
1804. That part of Bailey Drove between points A – B – C was a pre-existing
highway of carriageway status. As the
application was submitted before 20 January 2005. The public vehicular rights
remain unaffected by the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006.
b)
The evidence shows on balance, that the whole application route
between points A – B – C – D – D1 – E on Drawing 18/07 should be recorded as a
byway open to all traffic. Accordingly,
in the absence of objections the Council can itself confirm the Order without
submission to the Planning Inspectorate.
Alternative
options considered and rejected
None.
Decision Maker: Officer Delegated Decision
Decision published: 06/10/2020
Effective from: 05/10/2020
Decision:
Decision
a) An order be made to modify the definitive map and statement of rights of way by recording Bailey Drove as shown between points A – B – C – D – D1 – E on Drawing 18/07 (appendix 1) as a byway open to all traffic.
b) If the order is unopposed, or if all objections are withdrawn, it be confirmed by the Council.
Wards affected: Yetminster;
Lead officer: Vanessa Penny
Reasons
for Decision
a)
The proposed diversion meets the legal criteria set out in the Town
and Country Planning Act 1990.
b)
The inclusion of these provision in a public path order means that
there is no need for a separate legal event order to modify the definitive map
and statement as a result of the diversion.
c)
Accordingly, the absence of objections may be taken as acceptance that
the proposed new routes are expedient and therefore Dorset Council can itself
confirm the Order.
Alternative
options considered and rejected
N/A
Decision Maker: Officer Delegated Decision
Decision published: 01/10/2020
Effective from: 30/09/2020
Decision:
Decision
a) The application to divert Footpath 45, (part), Gillingham, be accepted and an Order made;
b) The Order includes provisions to modify the definitive map and statement to record the changes made as a consequence of the diversion; and
c) If the Order is unopposed, or if any objections are withdrawn, it be confirmed by Dorset Council without further reference to the Executive Director for Place.
Wards affected: Gillingham;
Lead officer: Vanessa Penny
Reason
for Decision
The
lease requires us to give permission as the requirements are met.
Alternative
options considered and rejected
The Delegated Powers clearly gives the authority, the delegated powers
the obvious way forward
Decision Maker: Officer Delegated Decision
Decision published: 01/10/2020
Effective from: 11/09/2020
Decision:
Decision
A Licence to assign the 60 year lease at 98 The Esplanade, Weymouth.
Wards affected: Melcombe Regis;
Lead officer: Ben Lancaster
Reason
for Decision
To ensure that the
use of the accommodation continues to support the farm holding.
Alternative
options considered and rejected
N/A
Decision Maker: Officer Delegated Decision
Decision published: 01/10/2020
Effective from: 23/09/2020
Decision:
Decision
To enter into
Section 106 agreements to tie accommodation to the farm holding at Patson Hill Farm (planning applications WD/D/19/001247 and
WD/D/19/001248).
This decision is
taken under delegated authority, under paragraph 134 of the Officer Scheme of
Delegation, which includes the power to determine “whether to require / impose any condition, obligation, limitation
and/or any other restriction and/or any other requirement in respect thereof” in relation to any planning
application, providing that certain triggers have not been met. The triggers
have not been met in this case.
Lead officer: Anna Lee
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
alternative options to the appointment of an examiner, as the appointment of an
independent examiner is a legal requirement.
Four potential examiners have been considered, and the choice was made
jointly with the neighbourhood qualifying body.
Decision Maker: Officer Delegated Decision
Decision published: 01/10/2020
Effective from: 17/09/2020
Decision:
Decision
The appointment of
an independent examiner for the examination of the Chickerell neighbourhood
development plan.
Wards affected: Chickerell;
Lead officer: Hilary Jordan
Reasons
for Decision
a)
The proposed extinguishment and diversion meet the legal criteria set
out in the Highways Act 1980.
b)
The inclusion of these provisions in public path orders means that
there is no need for separate legal event orders to modify the definitive map
and statement as a result of the extinguishment and diversion.
c)
Accordingly, the absence of objections may be taken as acceptance that
the proposed extinguishment and diversion are expedient and therefore Dorset
Council can itself confirm the Order.
Alternative
options considered and rejected
N/A
Decision Maker: Officer Delegated Decision
Decision published: 01/10/2020
Effective from: 25/09/2020
Decision:
Decision
That:
a) The proposal to extinguish Footpaths 92 and 96 and divert footpath 69, Beaminster, Windy Ridge be accepted and extinguishment and diversion Orders made.
b) The Orders include provisions to modify the definitive map and statement to record the changes made as a consequence of the extinguishment and diversion; and
c) If the Orders are unopposed, they can be confirmed by the Council.
Wards affected: Beaminster;
Lead officer: Vanessa Penny
To
consider price setting for 2020-21.
Reason for the Decision
To
cover the increase in costs of delivering the commercial waste services.
Alternative Options
considered and rejected
Three
other options were considered and rejected. There were:
·
Apply no uplift and maintain current 2019-20 prices
·
Apply a 4% uplift
·
Apply a 5% uplift
Budget Implications
Applying
the variable price increase will allow for the 2020-21 income target to be met.
Legal Implications
No
implications identified
Any conflict of Interest
No
conflict of interest
Reference documents
Commercial
Waste pricing options 2020-21 report
Decision Maker: Portfolio Holder for Culture and Communities
Decision published: 25/09/2020
Effective from: 16/01/2020
Decision:
To apply a variable level of price increase with a minimum of 4% and averaging 8.79%
Reason
for the Decision
To progress the
Milton Abbas Neighbourhood Plan to
referendum so
that pending a favourable vote, the plan can
be ‘made’.
(Current Regulations linked to the Coronavirus
Act 2020 mean
that no neighbourhood plan referendums
can take place
until 6 May 2021. However, the
Government’s
Planning Practice Guidance has been
updated and sets
out that neighbourhood plans that have
been subject to a
decision statement, stating that they can
proceed to
referendum, can be given significant weight in
decision-making.)
Alternative
Options considered and rejected
The Council can
decide not to follow the recommendations
of the Examiner,
but it must set out its reasons for doing so.
Regarding the
examiner’s recommendations, in paragraph
90 of his report
(see Appendix A) he states “I nevertheless
recommend that
consideration be given to the identification
of a reserve
site, which could potentially be released in the
event that there
is a shortfall in meeting the housing
requirement over
the Plan period as a result of the decisions
reached on
applications for any of the allocated sites. The
Plan should make
it clear that this site should only be
considered for
release if evidence exists that, without it, the
Plan would not be
able to meet the identified need for
housing.”
The neighbourhood
plan group and Milton Abbas parish
council (as the
qualifying body) have both considered
whether to
include a reserve site. The minutes from the
parish council
meeting held on 13 August 2020 (see
Appendix B) show
that both the neighbourhood plan group
and the parish
council agreed that the draft neighbourhood
plan meets the
needs of the parish and therefore can
proceed without a
reserve site.
Dorset Council
has separately considered the matter of
whether a reserve
site should be included in the plan. There
is no suggestion
by the examiner that a reserve site is
necessary in
order for the plan to meet ‘basic conditions’ or
any other legal
requirement. Dorset Council notes that the
parish council
has given the matter due consideration and
taken a vote.
Since production of a neighbourhood plan
should be led by
the qualifying body (in this case, the parish
council), Dorset
Council sees no reason on this occasion to
amend the plan to
include a reserve site.
Aside from the
matter of a reserve site, the Council has
agreed to accept
all of the Examiners recommendations
made
within his report (see Appendix A).
Budget
Implications
Once a referendum
date has been set, the Council becomes
eligible for a
grant of £20,000. This grant is intended to
cover the costs
associated with the Council’s input into the
production of the
neighbourhood plan including the
examination and
referendum. The grant of £20,000 will be
sufficient to
cover the costs associated with the examination
and
referendum.
Legal
Implications
A legal challenge
could theoretically be made against a
decision to
proceed to referendum. Such a challenge could
be made on the
basis that the neighbourhood plan, as
modified, does
not meet the basic conditions, is not
compatible with
the Convention rights or because it does not
comply with the
definition of a neighbourhood development
plan. However,
the independent Examiner has considered
these matters in
light of all of the objections that have been
made to the plan.
Given the evidence before them officers
consider that
there is no basis for reaching a different view
to
the Examiner.
Decision Maker: Portfolio Holder for Planning
Decision published: 25/09/2020
Effective from: 04/09/2020
Decision:
Decision
a) The Milton Abbas Neighbourhood
Plan 2019 - 2031,
as modified (please see Appendix
C), can proceed to
referendum.
b) A recommendation to ‘make’ the
Milton Abbas
Neighbourhood Plan 2019 - 2031 be
made to a
Cabinet meeting after the
referendum if the result of
the referendum is in support of
making the plan and
there are no other issues
identified that would go
against such a decision.