Agenda and minutes

To receive any declarations of interest

No declarations of disclosable pecuniary interests were made at the meeting.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 19 November 2019.

The minutes of the meeting held on 19 November 2019 were confirmed and signed.

There will be no opportunity for Members of the public to speak on a planning application unless proper notification is given to Democratic Services no later than two clear working days before the meeting in accordance with the Guide to Public Speaking at Planning Committee.

Representations by the public to the Committee on individual planning applications are detailed below. There were no questions, petitions or deputations received on other items on this occasion.

To consider the applications listed below for planning permission

Members considered written reports submitted on planning applications as set out below.

Conversion of agricultural building to 1No. dwelling with associated internal and external alterations.

This application had been the subject of a site visit on the morning of the committee meeting.  Cllr Pothecary was not at the site visit and did not take part in the debate and vote.

The report which sought conversion of agricultural building to 1 No dwelling with associated internal and external alterations was introduced by the Senior Planning Officer.

The agricultural building was a disused and II* listed barn.

The application complied with Policy SUS3 as a designated heritage asset suitable for conversion subject to site specific requirements.

The application which followed a recent refusal for the conversion of four barns and outbuildings was recommended with the application of a number of draconian conditions to include restrictions on the erection of fences, walls and sheds in order to maintain the openness of the space.

The Senior Planning Officer was confident that with those conditions imposed, the historic interest of the site could be maintained whilst conserving original features and making good use of the building.

The Transport Development Manager addressed the points raised in the report by the Parish Council.  He felt that there was enough parking allocated for a dwelling of this size and as the vehicular access to the site was used for large agricultural vehicles the visibility splay on exiting the site was acceptable.  Any parked cars on the C class road would also help to reduce the speed limit in the area, he therefore advised he could not sustain a refusal on Highways grounds.

Oral representation in objection to the proposal was received from Mrs J Read and Mrs J Witherden (on behalf of Yetminster Parish Council)

Their objections related to Highways safety issues in terms of the visibility splay for vehicles exiting the site onto the road where young children often rode ponies and bikes.  The access track was not considered suitable for lorries or a fire engine to manoeuvre.  The site was in a flood plain area which raised doubts to the suitability for residential accommodation and severing the buildings from the others on the site could fracture the historic element. 

Mr R Anstis the agent for the applicant addressed the committee in support of the application

In response to member questions the Traffic Development Manager advised that in a residential property the number of vehicle movements would be approximately 6 to 8 a day between the hours of 7.00hrs to 19.00hrs, less than would be predicted for agricultural traffic (probably 2 movements a day).

Members were advised that conditions could be implemented to ensure that parking spaces were used and maintained.  Conditions prohibiting domestic paraphernalia could be imposed to include caravans, mobile homes etc in order to maintain the open green swath.

The Senior Solicitor (Planning) suggested that it was within the gift of the committee to agree conditions that would restrict chattels etc, as long as it didn’t take away what the permission was granting, ie residential use.

In respect of condition 11 it was suggested that the word “within” was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 69.

Conversion of agricultural building to 1No. dwelling with associated internal and external alterations.

The committee members felt that the setting would be compromised and that to convert the agricultural building to a dwelling house would be harmful.

The Senior Solicitor (Planning) advised that should members be minded to, they could refuse an application on planning grounds but have a different decision on the Listed Building Consent.

It was proposed by Cllr Hall, seconded by Cllr Andrews.

Decision: that the application be refused due to the reasons outlined in the appendix to these minutes.

Cllr Pothecary did not take part in the vote.

Change of use and conversion of agricultural buildings to 1 No. dwelling with associated internal and external alterations.

This application had been the subject of a site visit on the morning of the committee meeting.  Cllr Pothecary was not at the site visit and did not take part in the debate and vote.

The report which sought change of use and conversion of agricultural building to 1 No dwelling with associated internal and external alterations was introduced by the Senior Planning Officer.

He advised that this was a grade II listed building and the proposed conversion was addressed by policy SUS3, it was planned to re-use the existing external openings, the internal changes were also within reason.

He addressed the main issue of the setting, the sub-division and the suggested implementation of draconian conditions.  Although within a flood zone 2 area, conversion was supported subject to resilience measures, however new builds would not be permitted.

The revised conditions circulated at the meeting referred to the original doors and shutters which could be maintained and pinned back to retain the historic fabric of the building

There were no objections from Highways.

Oral representation in objection to the application was received from Mr S Cox and Mrs J Witherden (on behalf of Yetminster Parish Council).  Their concerns included the importance of a historic site, boundary lines drawn across open farmyard and a piecemeal application.  Traffic issues were also sited together with flooding and flood risk issues.

Mr R Anstis the agent for the application addressed the committee again with additional supporting points.

In response to a member question regarding the access to the coach house being through the site, the Development Manager advised that access details had not been provided.

It was proposed by Cllr Ridout and seconded by Cllr Jones that the application be approved as this was the only way to preserve the buildings and bring them back to life.

Committee members were concerned about the heritage of the buildings and their duty to conserve them. 

On being put to the vote the proposal was LOST

It was proposed by Cllr Fry, seconded by Cllr Andrews.

Decision: that the application be refused due to breaking up of the site, destruction of heritage asset and the reasons outlined in the appendix to these minutes.

Conversion of agricultural buildings to 1 No. dwelling with associated internal and external alterations.

It was proposed by Cllr Penfold, seconded by Cllr Fry.

Decision: that the application be refused due to insufficient information about the mezzanine floor, windows and the lack of methodology  (Policy 4 NPPF) and the reasons outlined in the appendix to these minutes.

Technical Details Consent on a site that has been granted Permission in Principle 2/2018/0889, to erect 9 No. flats, retain 6 No. parking spaces and create 9 No. cycle spaces. Carry out ancillary works in association with this.

The Planning Area Manager presented the application for Technical Details Consent on a site that had been granted Permission in Principle.  The application was to erect 9 No. flats, retain 6 No. parking spaces, create 9 No. cycle spaces and carry out ancillary works in association.

The application site was within the settlement boundary of Blandford Forum on the edge of the Town Centre where there was already a pattern of development with quite a high density mix of houses and flats.  The site was outside of the flood zone with no risk of flooding.

There was proposed cycle storage for each unit, although there were only 6 car parking spaces this complied with policy, being in the Town Centre.  The materials proposed were of a high quality and reflected the character of Blandford.  The proposal would not result in any overshadowing issues and climbers on the boundary wall would soften the appearance.

The Planning Area Manager highlighted the need for smaller units of accommodation across the whole of Dorset and the fact that the Council was below it’s 5 year housing land supply.

There were no objections from the Transport Development Manager.

Oral representation in objection was received from the Local Ward Member, Cllr Lacey-Clarke.   His concerns focussed on the lack of parking available and the inability of a fire engine to access the site when cars were parked on the side of the access road.  He urged the committee to defer the application for a site visit.

Mr R Davis, the agent and architect, together with the director of the applicant Mr B Plisken both addressed the committee in support of the application.

The Planning Area Manager responded to questions regarding parking and post build horticultural maintenance.  She was confident that the Tree Officers would ensure that planning was correctly maintained and re-assured members that the Tree Officer had already been in detailed correspondence with the Applicant.

The Committee appreciated the need for open market private rental accommodation, especially for those in the bronze housing band.  Although the accommodation was slightly below government space standards, it was comparable enough to make it acceptable.

Although there were concerns over the limited parking in the area, it was accepted that the location was sustainable, on a brownfield site and would create affordable homes to rent which would override those parking issues.

It was proposed by Cllr Ridout, seconded by Cllr Pothecary

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

Erect two storey extension (demolish existing conservatory).

The Planning Area Manager presented the application for the demolition of an existing conservatory and the erection of a two storey extension.  The building had already been characterised through some extensions which would be replaced and enhanced with a dining area and bedroom on the first floor.  The extension was designed to be in keeping with the main house in terms of materials, pitch and design. The building would be greater than previous but not considered harmful to the conservation area.

Mr G Adlam the agent for the Applicant addressed the committee in support of the application.

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

Decision: that the application be granted subject to a condition on materials and the conditions outlined in the appendix to these minutes.

To consider any items of business which the Chairman 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 recorded in the minutes.

There were no urgent items.

To move the exclusion of the press and the public for the following item 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)

The public and the press will be asked to leave the meeting whilst the item of business is considered.

There was no exempt business.