Decision Maker: Officer Delegated Decision
Decision status: Recommendations Approved
Is Key decision?: No
Is subject to call in?: No
Decision:
At the 6th November 2024 meeting of the Eastern Area
Planning committee (EAPC), the committee resolved to grant consent for the
development of a Class E(a) retail food store with associated parking,
landscaping and access on land east of Sandford Rd Wareham (LPA reference
P/FUL/2022/06012), contrary to the officer recommendation
Resolution (from the 6.11.2024 minutes): to grant subject to securing the required
biodiversity compensation payment; planning conditions with authority delegated
to the Head of Planning and the Service Manager for Development Management and
Enforcement to agree the wording of conditions with the Chair and the
Vice-Chair of the Eastern Area Planning Committee; and referral to the
Secretary of State.
In accordance with the Committee resolution:
the wording of conditions has been agreed with the Chair and
the Vice-Chair of the Eastern Area Planning Committee
The application was referred to the Secretary of State for
Housing, Communities and Local Government by e-mail on the 2 December 2024.
Confirmation was received from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local
Government on 18th December 2024 that the Secretary of State has decided not to
call in this application confirming that she is content for the application to
be determined by the Local Planning Authority.
Since the EAPC resolution, in December 2024, the Government
published a new National Planning Policy Framework. In consultation with legal
officers and the EAPC chair, the proposal has been assessed against changes to
the NPPF to determine whether there are any material change in circumstances to
alter the member resolution.
For the reasons set out below I consider that there are no
material changes to the relevant paragraphs of the NPPF which could have led to
members reaching a materially different conclusion on the application.
(Decisions included can be executive or non-executive in nature, depending on the delegation given. Please state if the delegation was granted by the Cabinet or any other Committee or is detailed within the Scheme of Delegation in the Council’s Constitution.)
Reason(s) for Decisions:
The revised NPPF at Para. 155, notes:
The development of homes, commercial and other development
in the Green Belt should also not be regarded as inappropriate where:
a – The development would utilise Grey Belt land and would
not fundamentally undermine the purposes (taken together) of the remaining
Green Belt across the area of the plan;
b- There is a demonstrable unmet need for the type of the
proposed development;
c- The development would be in sustainable location, with
particular reference to paragraphs 110 and 115 of this Framework and
d – Where applicable the development proposed meets the
‘Golden Rules’ requirements set out in paragraphs 156-157 below.
In this instance the officer report to committee acknowledged that the site does not strongly contribute to Green Belt purposes a, b, or c; officers agreed there was a demonstrable unmet retail need as set out in the officer report; officers considered the site to be in a sustainable location as set out in the officer report; the ‘Golden Rules’ do not appear to apply to commercial development.
Alternative options considered and rejected:
To return
the application to committee for decision.
The EAPC chairman confirmed by e-mail to the case officer on
the 19.12.2024 that
I agree with the assessment that the revised NPPF
strengthens the Committee decision to Grant the application.
Publication date: 23/12/2024
Date of decision: 19/12/2024