Meeting documents

Members are required to comply with the requirements of the Localism Act 2011 and the Council’s Code of Conduct regarding disclosable pecuniary and other interests.

Check if there is an item of business on this agenda in which the member other relevant person has a disclosable pecuniary or other disclosable interest

 Check that the interest has been notified to the Monitoring Officer (in writing) and entered in the Register (if not this must be done within 28 days

Disclose the interest at the meeting (in accordance with the Council’s Code of Conduct) and in the absence of dispensation to speak and/or vote, withdraw from any consideration of the item where appropriate.  If the interest is non-pecuniary you may be able to stay in the room, take part and vote.

For further advice please contact Stuart Caundle, Monitoring Officer, in advance of the meeting.

Cllr Stayt and Cllr Westbrook both declared an interest in item 11 the Nordon application, as they had both been members of the Nordon Disposal Board.

To confirm the minutes of the last meeting of the Committee (previously circulated) as a correct record.

The minutes of the last meeting held on 29 January 2019 were agreed and signed as a correct record.

The Area Lead Gillingham presented a report to include both applications 2/2018/0036/OUT Wellbeck Strategic Land LLP and

2/2018/0077/OUT CG Fry & Son Ltd

He explained that these were individual applications but related, both being within the Local Plan Gillingham Strategic Site Allocation. The committee had been on a site visit the previous week and the application sought outline permission only for the principle of development, points of access and percentage of affordable housing.  Objections had been received primarily from residents in Woodpecker Meadows relating to loss of parking however the developer proposed to offset this loss with additional dedicated visitor parking on the development.

He re-iterated the key planning matters and advised that the flood risk objections had now been removed from the CJ Fry site. However there was still a flood risk holding objection from the Environment Agency concerning  the Wellbeck Strategic Land site.

The committee received updated information and a late representation from a resident of Woodpecker Meadow and the NHS Foundation Trust were reported. The addendum sheet circulated recommended further pre-conditions; refinements and additional conditions, and corrections to the report from 20% to 15% requirement for affordable housing in the first phase of development.  The recommendation was to delegate  to the Head of Planning to make the necessary refinements and additional conditions as outlined in the appendix to these minutes. 

The Transport Development Manager  detailed and explained how  DCC Highway Authority was satisfied with on and off-site transport infrastructure proposed..

The Area Lead Gillingham then took the applications 2/2018/0036/OUT and 2/2018/0077/OUT separately.

Develop land by construction of an urban extension to the south of Gillingham between Shaftesbury Road (B3081) and New Road (B3092). The urban extension would comprise up to 961 dwellings. Up to 2,642 sq. m. in a new local centre providing retail, community, health and leisure uses, new and enhanced pedestrian/cycle routes, open spaces, roads, car parking and vehicular access. To include all ancillary works and associated infrastructure (Outline application to determine access only). 

Public Participation

Oral representation was received from Mr W Edmonds the agent for the application.  He asked the committee to defer the application due to the ongoing holding objection from the Environment  Agency and potential costs not having been included in the viability figures.  Funding changes by Homes England could also have a large impact on the viability of the development. Alternatively he suggested a recommendation to approve with 11% affordable housing as part of the first phase.

Ward Member

Cllr Gould was keen to ensure longevity and ‘wow factor’ for the site, he wanted something that Gillingham could be proud of.

Members’ questions and debate

Members’ felt that it would not be advisable to defer as requested by the Applicant’s agent, there was only two weeks until the next committee meeting report deadline. Members noted that there was evidence from the District Valuer in the report and, in terms of delivery that needed to be balanced against evidence from the applicants that the scheme was not viable at 15% affordable housing. Members’ thought that the application should be delegated to the Head of Planning to negotiate the S106, including the precise affordable housing requirement; which may be less than 15% if the Head of Planning was satisfied that the proposed affordable housing level was reasonable and would aid the delivery of the site which was of critical importance to Members. The addendum sheet circulated had detailed additional pre-condition; refinements, corrections and additional conditions etc.

Proposed by Cllr Ridout, seconded by Cllr Williams

Decision: That the application be delegated to the Head of Planning  (Development Management and Building Control) to negotiate the final affordable housing requirement and approve outline permission subject to the specified pre-conditions; completion of a Section 106 Agreement and the refinements and conditions, including those outlined in the appendix to these minutes.

Develop land by the erection of up to 634 dwellings (use class C3), a primary school (use class D1), sports pitches with floodlighting, public open space, play facilities, access and internal estate roads, internal footpaths and cycleways, sustainable drainage system with ponds, landscaping, utility connections and associated groundworks/infrastructure. (Outline application to determine access only).

Public Participation

Oral representation was received from Mr S Coles the Agent for the applicant, he urged the committee to agree the same delegated authority to the Head of Planning to negotiate affordable housing delivery and a Section 106.

The Portfolio Holder for Planning Cllr Walsh addressed the committee.  He felt that the two applications were a reason to celebrate, he was pleased to have C G Fry and Son involved, both sites were allocated for housing in the Local Plan and he asked the committee to delegate to officers to negotiate terms with the developer.

Ward Member Cllr Mike Gould echoed his support for the application.

Proposed by Cllr Ridout, seconded by Cllr Williams.

Decision: That the application be delegated to the Head of Planning (Development Management and Building Control) to negotiate the final affordable housing requirement and approve outline permission subject to completion of a Section 106 Agreement and the refinements, pre-condition and conditions, including those outlined in the appendix to these minutes.

Erect50 No. dwellings. (Reservedmattersapplicationto determine access,appearance,landscaping, layoutandscale; following grant ofOutline Planning Permission No.2/2016/0149/OUT).

The Area Manager (Eastern) presented the application, which had been the subject of a site visit by the committee, for a reserved matters application to determine access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale for the erection of 50 dwellings.

She updated the committee with six additional objections that had been received, she advised that the application was policy compliant with regard to affordable housing.  There had been some revisions which had been detailed in the report.    The amendments included the removal of Plots 43 and 44 and the repositioning of the two dwellings adjacent to the open space..

The DCC Highways Representative advised that the outline established was acceptable for 50 dwellings.

Public Participation

Oral representation was received from Cllr Walsh on behalf of Gillingham Town Council who had objected to the application.  The Town Council considered the proposal contrary to Policy 24 and the impact on neighbouring properties, it was not in keeping with the area and would be over development

Oral representation in objection to the application was received from Ms J Lucas, Mr S Kidner and Mr H Kelliher.   Their objections focused on over-looking, not enough distance between the proposed properties and those already established, the development would be against policy, in relation to density and massing.  It was requested that no more than 25% should be affordable, there should be a safe and sustainable travel route and pathway to the school grounds.  The layout and design of the proposal disregarded the character of the area.

Mr D O’Shea the Agent for the applicant addressed the committee, he advised that they had worked with planners and invited residents to work with them but had received minimal comments.  The applicant had worked with the Town Council and incorporated their requests for play areas into the design of the scheme.

Ward Member

Cllr Gould agreed with Cllr Walsh, he felt that the application needed a re-appraisal and was unacceptable as it stood, it was the wrong development for the area and the objections of neighbours should be taken into account.

Cllr Lacey-Clarke read a statement on behalf of Cllr Chase re-iterating his objections to the plans.

Proposed by Cllr Ridout, seconded by Cllr Lacey-Clarke

Decision: that the application be refused for the following reasons –

1. The proposal by reason of its scale, mass and layout would result in the living conditions of the occupiers of numbers 18 and 19 Barnaby Mead being demonstrably and significantly harmed through unacceptable overlooking, overbearing and overshadowing. The development is contrary to polices 24 and 25 of the North Dorset Local Plan, Part 1.

2. The proposal by reason of its scale, mass and layout would result in the living conditions of the occupiers of numbers 18 and 19 Barnaby Mead being demonstrably and significantly harmed through unacceptable overlooking, overbearing and overshadowing. The development is contrary to polices 24 and 25 of the North Dorset Local Plan, Part 1.

Developland bythe erection of upto 80No. dwellings,form newvehicularaccess from NewRoad,open space,landscaping,ecological mitigation, drainage works andotherancillaryworks.(Outline applicationto determine access).

The Area Lead (Major Projects) Eastern presented the report for an outline application to determine access for the development of land by the erection of up to 80 dwellings.  The application had been the subject of a site visit by the committee members.

He advised that the application had been allocated in the Local Plan for development, a late representation had been received in relation to ecological and archaeological interest and a request from the NHS Trust for contributions.  The Area Lead (Major Projects) Eastern had spoken to the applicants who were willing to make reasonable contributions toward The Trust and these would be a matter of Section 106 negotiation.

Members were presented with an illustrative plan to give an indication of how the site may look.  The Area Lead (Major Projects) Eastern felt that although the application before members was for outline only, for reasons set out in his report conditions limit the number of dwellings to up to 75 dwellings, and for the ridgeline of any dwelling to be below the 55 contour line.

The application was support by a various reports including: landscape and visual impact assessment, ecological assessment, heritage impact, and transport assessment.

Public Participation

Oral representation was received from Mr P Hill on behalf of Blandford St Mary Parish Council, Mr Gale on behalf of Bryanston Parish Council and Ms S Woodlock.

Their concerns focused on the boundary changes having an impact on the area and the grade 2 listed buildings, 75 houses would be excessive.  More archaeological investigation was desired to find out if there were roman remains around the site. Conservation – concerns for wildlife, human health and public safety.

Mr S Williamson, the Agent for the applicant, addressed the committee.  He advised that the development had been sympathetically designed and the principal of development had already been agreed.  They had worked with Officers to address the relevant issues with the site, particularly landscape, and  Section 106 contributions subject to negotiations would be agreed. As an allocated site there were no policy objections in principle.

Ward Member

Cllr Kerby was concerned about the density and number of homes in the development, he agreed the number should be reduced.

The Area Lead (Major Projects) Eastern clarified that the number of homes was not an exact number in the local plan.  Previous suggestions of developing up to 65 dwellings were not supported by any research or evaluation of the site.  The final number of dwellings (up to 75) would be have to be considered at reserved matters stages along with landscape and design maters.  He re-iterated the 2 conditions proposed to restrict number and height of properties. 

The DCC Senior Archaeologist was satisfied with the details presented to him, and the Neighbourhood plan was not yet adopted so should not be given much weight.

Members questions and debate

In response to being asked when the traffic survey had taken place the DCC Highways Officer advised that this had been done in October 2017 over  ...  view the full minutes text for item 76.

Request todischargeAffordableHousingPlanning Obligation setoutinSchedule 3

/Section 2.0 - 2.17ofAgreementdated20 May 2016 of Agreement PursuantSection 106 ofthe Town & CountryPlanning Act 1990.

The Area Manager Eastern presented the report which sought to discharge Affordable Housing Planning contributions due to the viability of the development being in question because of unforeseen costs.  The District Valuer had reviewed the costs and the overall conclusion was that it would not be financially viable to provide £360,000 affordable housing contributions.

Public Participation

Mr Whitehead the Agent for the applicant acknowledged the ambition to achieve affording housing contributions but following abnormal costs which had been independently verified the scheme was found to be unviable.

Members debate

Cllr Williams had called the application in to committee  prior to the viability work that has been undertaken by the DVS.

Members considered that it was clear from the detailed viability work that the development was not profitable with the inclusion of the £360,000 offsite affordable housing contribution. 

Proposed by Cllr Williams, Seconded by Cllr Dowden.

Decision: That the application to discharge the offsite affordable housing contributions be approved.

At this Juncture, Cllrs Francis and Westbrook left the meeting.

Erect 1No. dwelling,form vehicular access.

The Area Manager (Eastern) presented the report which proposed the erection of one dwelling with vehicular access.  The application was within the settlement limits, the neighbour’s amenity had been taken into account with regard to site levels and the relationship with the house next door was acceptable.  There were no concerns from DCC Highways.

Public Participation

Oral representation was received from Mr Haynes in objection to the application, the area was a habitat for bats and he asked for the results of a bat survey, he was concerned about the boundary and the height of the proposed dwelling which he felt would tower over his home.

Cllr Cattaway felt it was out of context in the street setting and there had been 17 letters of objection.

Members debate

In response to queries from members regarding over-looking the Area Manager (Eastern) advised that the landing windows would not generally be obscured, there may have been bats in the old house and it would be possible to request a condition for bat boxes but a bat assessment would not be necessary in this instance.  Floor levels could be conditioned.

Proposed by Cllr Williams, seconded by Cllr Stayt.

Decision: that the application be refused for the following reason:

1. The development would result in an overdevelopment of the site which would be cramped and share a poor relationship with neighbouring properties. The proposal would give rise to unacceptable levels of overlooking and be overbearing to numbers 1, 2, and number 6 Badgers Close. The proposal is contrary to policies 24 and 25 of the Local Plan Part 1.

Developthe land bythe demolition of allexisting buildings and erection of 40No. affordable homes.Form vehicularaccess, parking and allassociated landscaping. (Outline application to determine access and layout).

This site is currently owned by North Dorset District Council and the outline application for demolition of all existing buildings and the development of 40 affordable homes was presented by the Major Applications Manager.  The outline application sought to determine access and layout.  An additional two representations were reported. The site had been the subject of a site visit by the committee members. 

The Major Applications Manager re-iterated the key planning matters and advised that whilst the  Nordon building was in a Conservation Area, it was not a designated heritage asset and was not listed.  The DCC Highways representative confirmed that access and road layout was acceptable.

Public Participation

Oral representation in objection to the application was received from Cllr Quale (DCC), Mr J Turnbull, Mr C Williamson, Mr Richens, Mr Imber, Mr S Hickman (Historic England) and Cllr Carter (Chairman of Blandford Town Council).  Their concerns focused on:

-       Affordable housing being provided on alternative developments, negating the need for this development

-       The effect of additional vehicles on Salisbury Street and traffic safety

-       Schools already being at full capacity. 

-       The development would have a detrimental effect on the wildlife

-       The Nordon building was of local historical importance, in a conservation area and demolition would cause substantial harm to the historic environment.

Public Participation

Oral representation in support of the application was received from Cllr Carr-Jones and Cllr l Roake and.  A lot of work had been put into the project, it had been considered by the Scrutiny committee and Cabinet and it was felt that a social led housing scheme would be preferable and would provide much needed homes.

Mr M Holmes the Agent for the application also spoke on behalf of Aster group.

Ward Member

Cllr Tanner suggest that the building was vital to the conservation and conversion would be a better option than demolition.

Member debate

Members felt that the surrounding area was of mixed character, with a number of 1970’s buildings behind the Nordon building.  In response to a request to include a condition to seek to re-cycle interior fixtures and fittings, the Major Applications Manager advised that he could impose a condition to seek to record elements of significance and importance and re-use where possible.   It was also pointed out by committee members that listing had not been achieved for the building even after three attempts and it was important to leave a legacy for the town.

Cllr Lacey-Clarke proposed, Cllr Ridout seconded.

Decision;  That in accordance with Part 4 of the Constitution – Procedure Rules, no 43 a recorded vote was taken.

Proposed by Cllr Ridout, seconded by Cllr Lacey-Clarke

That the application be refused due to substantial harm to the conservation area, Para 195 Of the NPPF should be applied.

Those who voted for the proposal to refuse; Cllr Lacey-Clarke, Cllr Ridout.

Those who voted against the proposal: Cllr Dowden, Cllr Croney, Cllr Fox, Cllr Stayt, Cllr Williams.

The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 80.

Developlandbythe erection of upto 27No. dwellings (Outline applicationwith allmatters reserved).

The Outline application for up to 27 dwellings with all matters reserved was presented by the Area Lead (Major Projects) Eastern.  He updated the committee on a ‘Pre-action protocol letter for Judicial Review’ the Council had received from an applicant for another major development in Okeford Fitzpaine. At the heart of that notification was the claim that the Council had failed to consider alternative sites in Okeford Fitzpaine for housing and that applications for housing in Okeford Fitzpaine, particularly the claimant’s, must be assessed by the planning committee at the same time to undertake a comparision as the scale of growth at Okeford Fitzpaine is limited.

The Head of Legal Services for the Council had responded to this letter.

The Major Applications Manager had taken legal advice prior to the Planning Committee and provided an update to the committee as follows:

-       The claim contained in the pre-action complaint is not relevant.

-       There is a significant housing shortfall across North Dorset totalling 3.3 yrs.

-       In circumstances where no Neighbourhood Plan and an identified housing shortfall exists, there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development.

-       The application(s) currently before NDDC can be considered on their own merits as there is no prescribed limit on the number of homes that Okeford Fitzpaine could accommodate. 

DCC Highways had carried out a traffic assessment and were happy to support the application.

Public Participation

Oral representation was received from Cllr Weeks on behalf of Okeford Fitzpaine Parish Council, Mr R Bellamy, Mr I Berry, Ms D Garside and Mr D Day.  The objectors felt that the 3 site allocations in the area should all be considered together and not in isolation.  They voiced concerns about drainage, landscape, parking and the increased dependency on transport, lack of footpath and access.  They asked for the application to be deferred.

Mr C Miell the agent spoke in support of the application, he felt there was no reason for deferral. The area was sustainable and had a variety of amenities.

Having no reason to defer or refuse the application., it was proposed by Cllr Williams, seconded by Cllr Lacey-Clarke.

Decision: That the application be delegated to the Head of Planning (Development Management and Building Control) to grant planning permission subject to conditions set out below and the securing of planning contributions through the signing of a Section 106 agreement.

Erect3 No.dwellings,createnewvehicularand pedestrian access(demolish existing shop/residential dwellingand outbuildings).

The Area Manager (Eastern) presented the application to demolish the existing shop/residential dwelling and outbuildings and erect 3 dwellings and create new vehicular and pedestrian access.  The report acknowledged that the property had been unsuccessfully marketed and had not been making a profit.  There were no Highways objections.

Public Participation

Oral representation in objection was received from Mr Quartermaine on behalf of Mr and Mrs Philpott, he advised that the National Planning policy required every effort to keep facilities, he felt that the proposed didn’t show that every effort had been made to dispose of the shop. 

Mr S Morgan the agent for the applicant said that all the planning concerns had been met and the shop was too small to be sustainable as a village shop.

Ward Member

Cllr  Brown supported the idea of keeping the village shop and the sustainability of the village.

It was proposed by Cllr Fox, seconded by Cllr Ridout.

Decision: that the application be approved subject to the conditions outlined in the appendix to these minutes.

Change ofuse ofagriculturallandto station 2No. shepherdhutsfor holidayaccommodation (retrospective).

The Area Manager (Eastern) presented the retrospective proposal for the change of use of agricultural land to station 2 shepherd huts for holiday accommodation.  The key planning matters were highlighted and there were no objections from DCC Highways.

Proposed by Cllr Lacey-Clarke, seconded by Cllr Williams.

Decision: that the application be approved subject to the conditions outlined in the appendix to these minutes.

Change of use of landto increase size ofgarden and alterparkingandmanoeuvringarea(retrospective) fornewdwellingsapproved byplanningpermissionNo.2/2017/0718/FUL.

The retrospective proposal to change the use of land to increase the size of garden and alter the parking and manoeuvring area for new dwellings was presented by the Area Manager (Eastern). She advised that the main issue was the replacement of a wall with a fence and whether this was acceptable in planning terms, She did not feel that it caused significant harm and the application was recommended for approval.  There were no issues from DCC Highways.

Public Participation.

Oral representation was received from Cllr May from Lydlinch Parish Council and Cllr Carr-Jones in objection to the application. 

The Area Manager (Eastern) reported that the permitted development rights had been removed and the authority did have control over the boundary treatment.

Proposed by Cllr Dowden, seconded by Cllr Ridout.

Decision: that the application be approved subject to the conditions outlined in the appendix to these minutes.

To note the report (attached) of Head of Planning Development

Management and Building Control on Planning Appeals.

The Area Manager (Eastern) updated the committee with recent appeals.

To consider any items of business which the Chair 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 specified in the minutes.

There was no urgent business.