Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received Councillors Bill Pipe and Val Pothecary.

To receive any declarations of interest

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

Councillor Mary Penfold considered that she might well have a prejudicial interest in minute 29, having been a participant in discussion of the principles of the DTEP scheme, within which the Great Western Traffic Management scheme was a part. On that basis, she withdrew from the meeting during consideration of the item.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 23 July 2019.

The minutes of the meeting held on 23 July 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.

The Committee considered the officer’s report for the introduction of a 20 mph zone for Victoria Road and adjoining residential roads in Dorchester. As part of the Dorchester Transport and Environment Plan (DTEP), enhancements had been made to pedestrian crossing provision on all major arms of the Great Western Junction to improve the accessibility of the junction for vulnerable road users as well as maintaining throughput capacity and accessibility.

Whilst this scheme had proved largely successful, in implementing the scheme, there had been a need to prohibit certain traffic movements to complement this, with an ‘access only’ Order being made to restrict motorists from using Victoria Road as a convenient alternative. However, since being introduced in July 2017, subsequent monitoring of traffic flows had shown that it had not been as effective as thought in deterring through traffic.

Moreover, the volume of traffic using the route out of convenience had increased. This, coupled with the speed of vehicles using the route as a means of a short cut, had given rise to the proposal Members were now being asked to consider.  Whilst every effort was being made as far as practicable, it was generally recognised that enforcement alone was a challenge without additional measures being implemented.

The proposals were considered by officers to now be necessary as a consequence of the implementation of the original scheme to ensure all that could be done to deter traffic from using Victoria Road unnecessarily. What was now being experienced had been previously raised as a concern by some residents prior to the Junction scheme being implemented.

Officers described the proposal, what it was designed to achieve and set out the practicalities of delivering this, including providing an understanding of those traffic flows and manoeuvres undertaken. To complement the zone, physical measures – raised, cushioned platforms – would be constructed as a means, making the scheme self enforcing. Road closures were not possible and there was no space to accommodate a turning head. Illustrations showed the scheme’s setting within the character of the townscape and the local road network, the junction’s and the roads’ configuration and the residential roads’ relationship with each other; with the Great Western Junction (GWJ) and with the amenities in the area. Officers were satisfied that acceptable, alternative routes were available to motorists wishing to gain legitimate access.

Advertisement of the proposed 20 mph zone, with its complementary physical measures, had resulted in objections and representations being received and the Committee was now being asked to give these due consideration and whether the proposed Order should be recommended to Cabinet for implementation as advertised, apart from the inclusion of the speed cushion at the junction of Albert Road and Victoria Road which, following consideration of those representations, had since been discarded.

Public Participation

David Sharman, local resident, had previously raised concerns about the prospect of rat running along these roads as a result of the GWJ improvement scheme prior to the matter being considered by the County Council’s Regulatory Committee  ...  view the full minutes text for item 29.

To consider the applications listed below for planning permission

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

Application for approval of reserved matters for access, appearance, landscaping, layout & scale for Sectors 3.63 & 4.31 of outline planning permission 1/D/09/001363.

The Committee considered planning application WD/D/19/001272 by ZeroC Holdings Ltd, with approval being sought in respect of reserved matters for access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale for the development of Sectors 3.63 and 4.31 North Quadrant, Poundbury, Dorchester of outline planning permission 1/D/09/001363.

The approved reserved matters application was for 83 dwellings across the 2 sectors. The proposal was now for 85 dwellings, with both additional dwellings being affordable units. Of the 85 units, 53 were indicated to be private and 32 affordable, which equated to 60% of the total number of units.

In respect of Sector 3.63 the main changes when compared to the consented

scheme were:

·        Plot 438 had been moved slightly south and was now detached from plot

437.

·        There was to be a single coach house unit above the garages in the

parking courtyard and it was now proposed to be split into 2 units.

·        Plots 439 – 444, shown as being affordable dwellings, had a reduced

internal floor area of 72.4 sq m, as opposed to the approved 76.5 sq m.

·        Plots 450 – 454 shown as being affordable dwellings had a reduced

internal floor area of 83.2 sq m, as opposed to the approved 93.5 sqm

·        The width of the terrace (plots 446 – 448) was reduced and as a result, the

windows were proposed to be reduced by 1 module in width, from 4 panels to 3.

·        Plots 439 – 444 were no longer proposed to have a stepped ridge and the width of the windows had been reduced.

·        Plots 450 – 454 were no longer proposed to have a stepped ridge.

In respect of Sector 4.31, the main changes when compared to the consented scheme were:

·        Blocks 633 & 634 had been staggered by 450mm. The internal floor

areas of the flats had also been reduced and a third floor flat omitted

from the scheme. The design of the two blocks was now proposed to be the same.

·        Amendments to doors and fenestration on Plots 625 – 630.

·        Block 631 – individual access to each flat above the garages, as opposed to the previously approved shared access. Width of garages had been reduced to accommodate the change.

·        Steps to Flat 632b amended so that a set would rise each side of the door to a landing area as opposed to the steps that led straight to the front door in the approved scheme.

·        Block 635 – amendments to fenestration and the omission of ground floor windows from the south west elevation.

·        Changes to the carport/refuse/cycle store building on west side of site to incorporate two flats above.

The Committee were provided with a visual presentation and, taking into

consideration the provisions of the Update Sheet appended to these minutes, for

context, officers described the main proposals and planning issues in detail, how the development would contribute to meeting housing needs; what the key elements of the reserved matters were; how detail to individual properties had been changed and the reasons for this as  ...  view the full minutes text for item 31.

Erect 4 No. dwellings (demolish agricultural buildings).

The Committee considered planning application 2/2019/0686/FUL for the proposed construction of two pairs of conventionally styled, domestic dwellings in Sandpits Lane, Madjeston, Gillingham, in place of the current, modern agricultural barn situated close to a farm complex. The four dwellings would be brick built alongside each other, with slate roofs and timber fenestration, and located behind an aged stone wall, which currently supported one side of the barn, with shared access and rear gardens and parking.

In view that permission had been granted for the conversion of the barn to four dwellings - under Class Q application - the principle had already been established for the delivery of housing at this location. However, this permission did not provide for the demolition of the barn, rather the conversion of it. Permission was now being sought to develop the site as now proposed.

For context, the Committee were provided with a visual presentation and officers described the main proposals and planning issues in detail, covering the key elements of the development. Plans and photographs provided an illustration of the location and design of the development, how it would look and showing its dimensions - form, mass and size - and the materials to be used. Members were provided with views from various directions and the presentation also confirmed what the access arrangements being proposed would be; its relationship with the highway network and explained the context of the development in relation to the characteristics of the surrounding countryside and its setting within it.

As part of the formal consultation process, Gillingham Town Council had objected to the application, claiming it would be out of character as well as being dominant, over-bearing and harmful to the landscape. Eight residents had also made their objection known on the grounds that the development would attract additional traffic; that the site would be unsuitable for families and would set a precedent for developing homes in the open countryside.

However officers considered that this would not be the case on the basis that each application was considered on its own merit and would not therefore set a local precedent for more isolated houses, as there was already a prior approval for four dwellings on the site.

Public Participation

Martin Carpenter, EnPlan, spoke on behalf of the owners of the neighbouring Madjeston Farm, considering the application to be unacceptable on the grounds that it did not comply with Policy 20 of the North Dorset Local Plan (2016) in that

paragraph 8.172 stated that “new dwellings should be located where they will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities and new isolated homes in the countryside should be avoided unless there are special circumstances”. It was the view of his clients that this was not the case here and should be rejected.

Robyn Harper, for the applicant, Symonds and Sampson, considered the application should be granted permission in that the principle for domestic dwellings had already been established by Class Q, whereas the existing  ...  view the full minutes text for item 32.

Install a modular construction classbase for a new CCN provision within the School. A glazed link corridor to connect the proposed building with the existing school.

4no. additional parking spaces to be provided to suit extra staffing levels.

The Committee considered planning application WD/D/19/001826 for St Marys Church of England Middle School, Coombe Road, Puddletown to install a modular construction classbase for a new Complex Communication Needs (CCN) provision within the School, incorporating a glazed linking corridor to connect the proposed building with the existing school, together with 4 additional parking spaces to meet increased staffing levels.

With the aid of a visual presentation officers described the proposal and planning issues in detail, covering the key elements of the development. Photographs and plans were shown to the Committee which provided an illustration of the location and design of the proposed development, how the modular unit would look and its dimensions - form, mass and size - and the materials to be used; parking and access arrangements; and its relationship with the school and other neighbouring development in that part of Puddletown. Officers referred to the detailed design, including the school’s construction and the materials to be used. The Committee was also shown the context of the development within the character of the surrounding landscape.

Officers reported that no objections or representations had been received to the published planning application, with the Puddletown Area Parish Council and the local Ward Member, Emma Prker, having had the opportunity to respond, and being satisfied in that regard.  

The Committee were then provided with the opportunity to ask questions of the

officer’s presentation and officer’s provided clarification in respect of the points raised

including questions about what mitigation there would be for tree replacement; what colour scheme would be used for the external paintwork, considering cedar red to be complementary to that which existed; and if solar energy could be incorporated within the scheme.

Officers confirmed that there would be sufficient tree management, covered by condition; the development’s external colour scheme would be wholly in keeping with the surrounding characteristics of the other school buildings, covered by condition ; and, where practicable, consideration was given to the inclusion of renewable energy source in developments affecting Council properties, including the installation of solar energy, if able.

The Committee agreed that as the proposed development would create a new facility for children with complex communication needs across Dorset it was to be wholly accepted.  They were assured by officers that an Informative note would complement any grant of planning permission in addressing the issue of inclusion of renewable energy source, wherever practicable. On that basis, and on being put to the vote it was 

Resolved

That planning permission be granted for planning application WD/D/19/001826, subject to the conditions set out in the officer’s report, with a variation to conditions 3 and 4, namely:-

·        3          No development above ground level shall proceed until all external facing materials for the walls and roof the modular unit hereby approved have been agreed in writing. The development shall thereafter proceed in accordance with the agreed materials. Materials should be made available on site for inspection and retained thereafter until the development has been completed.

Reason: To ensure a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 33.

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 be considered.

WD/D/19/001272 - Development of Sectors 3.63 & 4.31 North Quadrant, Poundbury, Dorchester

Update(s):-

1.     Additional plans to go in condition no. 1 (plans list condition):

Preliminary Plot Levels Drwg no. PHL – 3631 Rev A received on 03/07/2019

Preliminary Plot Levels Drwg no. PHL – 4311 Rev A received on 03/07/2019

General Arrangement Plan Drwg no. GA-3631 Rev A received on 08/07/2019

2.     Amendment to paragraph 14.10 of committee report to read:

“Both the Royal Pavilion and the building in Great Cranford Street opposite the site, which appears to have residential accommodation on the upper floors, are of a greater number of floors than the proposed buildings 633 and 634 in Sector 4.31, and are separated from the site by the intervening road.”