Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence

An apology for absence was received from Cllr Robin Legg.

To receive any declarations of interest

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

However, in respect of Minute 109 Cllr Jon Andrews advised that he had been a member of the Regulatory Committee back in 2018, and would not take part in the debate or vote.

Cllr Mary Penfold declared a non-pecuniary interest in the Traffic Regulation Order at Sheeplands, Sherborne (Minute 110) because as a former district councillor she had previous involvement in the Barton Farm Development Site. Cllr Penfold undertook to withdraw from the meeting during consideration of the item.  Cllr Matt Hall also declared an interest in this item, in respect of pre-determination. Cllr Hall advised he would speak as the Local Member but not take part in the debate or vote.

In respect of Minutes 112 and 113 Cllr Val Pothecary advised that although she chaired the Planning Committee at Gillingham Town Council she had not pre-determined on either of the Gillingham applications being determined on this agenda.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 14 May 2020.

The minutes of the meeting held on 14 May 2020 were confirmed and signed.

Members of the public wishing to submit a written representation to the Committee on a planning application should notify the Democratic Services Officer listed on the front of this agenda. This must be done no later than two clear working days before the meeting.

Please note that the deadline for written submissions to the

Northern Area Planning Committee is at 8.30am on Friday 19 June

2020.

Please refer to the Guide to Public Speaking at Planning Committee and specifically the "Covid-19 Pandemic – Addendum to the Guide to Public Speaking Protocol for Planning Committee meetings" included with this agenda.

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 attached application.

Cllr Jon Andrews withdrew from the meeting for this item.

The Committee received a report which considered representations received to the Dorset Council (Part of Footpath 6, Gussage St Michael at Ryalls) Public Path Diversion Order 2020, whether or not to submit it to the Secretary of State for confirmation and the stance that the Council should take if submitted.

The Senior Definitive Map Technical Officer explained that as objections had been received the Order the Council could not confirm, the Order itself and had to come before the Committee.  A presentation was given to members showing the current and the proposed new route of the Path. 16 objections to the Order had been received. The majority of the objectors felt there would be a negative impact on the enjoyment of the Path.  Those in support of the Path felt the new proposed route was a more enjoyable and accessible route.  Members would need to decide if the application should be submitted to the Secretary of State, either supporting the Order or taking a neutral stance.  The Senior Solicitor explained to members the reason for the Council taking a neutral stance instead of supporting the Order would mean the Council would not take an active part in any Public Inquiry that may arise and therefore reduce the burden of resources on the Council.

A number of written submissions in support and one objection of the proposal and a statement by the applicant were read out at the meeting and are attached to these minutes.

The Senior Definitive Map Technical Officer felt that the points raised by members of the public had all been covered in the report.  There were a couple of suggestions that the Path was being altered to go over the packhorse bridge which was not the case as the current route already ran over it. The safety of the bridge was mentioned in some statements and paragraphs 5.5 and 5.6 in the report clarified that the accessibility of the structure should be balanced against the enjoyment that it brings to those who have objected to the Order.  The use and availability of the current footpath was also raised in some statements which was dealt with in paragraphs 4.22 to 4.33 of the report which stressed that the use of the current footpath was not a pre-requisite for diverting a path and any obstructions should be disregarded.  The issue regarding incorrect search information being provided to the applicant by East Dorset District Council when he bought the property was dealt with in the report at paragraphs 6.1 to 6.4 which stated that these circumstances could not be taken into account.

Members comments and questions

Cllr Taylor sought clarification on the view being maintained with the path going past the packhorse bridge.  The Senior Definitive Map Technical Officer advised that it was not possible to protect the view but those in support of the Order preferred to see the packhorse bridge from the new path whilst those  ...  view the full minutes text for item 109.

To consider the Order listed below.

To consider a report by the Executive Director of Place.

Cllr Penfold withdrew from the meeting for this item.

Cllr Matt Hall spoke as the Local Member and did not participate in the vote.

The Committee received a report which considered the objections made in relation to a Traffic Regulation Order which was required in to give effect to the one-way system for vehicular traffic at Sheeplands Lane, Sherborne.

The Development Team Leader for Highways explained this Order had been brought forward as a condition in relation to a recent planning application.  The Order had been advertised in the Western Gazette and notices had been erected on Sheeplands Lane.  Members were advised that 12 responses had been received in support of the Order. 3 objections had been received, 2 of which were from the same household and were therefore counted as 1.

Local Members Cllr Matt Hall and Cllr Jon Andrews

Cllr Hall made reference to the planning permission for the Barton Farm development and the Order that had been made as a result.  The road was very narrow and was not suitable for 2 way traffic.  The residents on the new estate were effectively turning on a blind bend.  Part of the new estate was employment land and therefore there was an increase in HGVs using the road. He felt this was an excellent scheme which would improve safety and was much needed.

Cllr Andrews agreed with the previous comments that had been made. He made reference to the climate impact slide from the presentation and noted that the new road did actually go a bit further.  This scheme was part of planning permission that had been granted and the visibility of junction was dangerous. Following a question about Give Way signs, the Development Team Leader advised that there would not be a Give Way sign itself but there would be road markings to show this.  Other signage had been detailed in the officer’s report and presentation.

Following discussion members could see the benefits and the need for this Order.

Proposed: Cllr Andrews

Seconded: Cllr Fry

Decision

That having considered the representations received in response to public advertisement and the officers report, that the Portfolio Holder be recommended to implement the Traffic Regulation Order as advertised.

To consider the applications listed below for planning permission

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

To consider a report by the Head of Planning.

The Area Manager for Planning and Community Services introduced the application to erect 50 No. dwellings, form vehicular and pedestrian access. (Reserved matters application to determine access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale; following grant of Outline Planning Permission No. 2/2016/0149/OUT).

The Area Manager explained the reasons for the previous refusals and described the revised plans.  The proposed layout was highlighted and explained to members.

The proposal was considered to protect the amenity of the neighbours to the site.  The proposed bungalows would have no permitted development rights for roof alterations.  No harm was identified in relation to heritage assets.

The Transport Development Liaison Manager advised members that the outline application had fully considered the traffic impact and highways were content with it. The road layout had been restricted to a 20mph speed limit.  The application was fully compliant with the guidance provided and car parking had also been provided within the plans. A refuse vehicle could drive around the site with ease, therefore there were no objections from the Highways department.

A number of written submissions objecting to the proposal and a statement by the applicant were read out at the meeting and are attached to these minutes.

The Area Manager for Planning and Community Services responded to comments from members of the public in respect of drainage which had been dealt with in the outline consent, so therefore had been addressed.  In respect of access, highways safety was looked at during the outline stage and no objections had been raised. 

In respect of the solar panel, some harm was identified as there would be partial shading.  However, the weight attached to this was for members to decide, and officers did not consider it would amount to demonstrable harm that would outweigh the benefits in terms of housing provision against the current shortfall.

In respect of a question raised by an objector relating to the low traffic levels identified by the outline application’s transport assessment, the Transport Development Liaison Manager advised that the assessment had provided a future year scenario for 2020 which predicted a realistic traffic level.

Local Members for Gillingham

Cllr David Walsh supported the application and believed that the applicant had worked hard to mitigate measures.  This was the first time bungalows had been incorporated into a development to alleviate concerns by local residents.

Cllr Belinda Ridout had followed this application for a long time and was satisfied that material concerns had been addressed.  She felt that the impact on the character of Bay had also been addressed. This was a highly sustainable location with a good mix of housing.

Cllr Val Pothecary noted that although objectors felt there was overdevelopment of the site she felt the scheme was far improved from the last one with the inclusion of bungalows.  She recognised that the addition of flats was not welcomed by everyone. However, she was concerned about the planting and the solar array.  The Area Manager felt that these concerns had been addressed with Condition 14. Cllr  ...  view the full minutes text for item 112.

To consider a report by the Head of Planning.

The Planning Officer introduced the application to erect a replacement dwelling and retain 3 No. parking spaces.

This application followed a previous application which had been refused and was then dismissed at appeal.   This revised scheme now proposed a 2 storey element but with a reduction in width and was set back further from the edge of the field.  The Planning Officer highlighted a full landscaping plan which was also available on the website

The Transport Development Liaison Manager advised that there was no objection from highways as the application was a like for like replacement dwelling.

A statement from the applicant was read out at the meeting and is attached to these minutes.

Local Members for Gillingham

Cllr Val Pothecary made reference to the objections and noted that there seemed to be some confusion of existing farmhouse in comparison with the new development.  The Planning Officer explained that the 50% increase was not a policy requirement but assists in the assessment of the application, this was not a key policy requirement.  The Inspector in the appeal decision advised that the outbuilding could be deemed part of the dwelling.  Following a question about whether the enclosed covered balcony had been included in the calculations, the Planning Officer advised it had not, only the external habitable floor space was calculated. Cllr Pothecary felt that any large building on the ridgeline was bound to be controversial and feared there would be light pollution.  Her main in concern was the increase in scale on the existing farmhouse and was unable to support application.

Cllr Belinda Ridout noted that this proposed dwelling was in a very elevated position overlooking the Stour Valley and was a contemporary design which would not suit everyone.  She had a few concerns:

• Landscaping a good mix listed but in respect of a future maintenance scheme (Condition 5) could this be made more robust, maybe protect the planting and number of years for maintenance. The Area Manager advised that the standard condition was for 5 years but this could be extended to 15 years.
• Glazing, concerned about glare. The Area Manager advised that this would need to be amended on the Plan but a condition for anti glare glazing could be included.  A condition could be added to require submission of detail of automatic blinds to come down outside of daylight hours.
• Future maintenance of exterior cladding, can a condition be added to this effect.  With reference to the materials there was a need to ensure the property was nestled into the hills and this would need to be a neutral palette. The Planning Officer advised that Condition 8 could be amended to remove permitted development rights by stating this would include any rendering or cladding of the walls to address any long term concerns. 

Members comments and questions:

Cllr David Taylor asked where the balcony would look over to and that it could be rather imposing if it looked over the village.  The Planning Officer advised that the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 113.

To consider a report by the Head of Planning.

The Area Manager for Planning and Community Services introduced the application to develop land by the erection of 9 No. dwellings. (Outline application with all matters reserved).  Looking at the principle of development.  Members were advised there was no affordable housing requirements with this application due to the number of units reducing to 9, and that no Neighbourhood Plan had been developed for this area.

The Transport Development Liaison Manager advised that the existing section of Pond Walk was adopted for the majority of its length. Final remedial works were being carried out on last piece in readiness for adoption. In principle Highways were supportive of the application.

An objection to the proposal was read out at the meeting along with a statement from the applicant, both are attached to these minutes.

Following discussion members were content with the proposal.

Proposed: Cllr Andrews

Seconded: Cllr Taylor

Decision

That the application be approved subject to the amended conditions outlined in the appendix to these minutes.

To consider a report by the Head of Planning.

The Area Manager for Planning and Community Services introduced the application to erect a perimeter security fence and matching gates, 2.33 metres high with Exempla welded steel wire mesh panels.

Members were advised that the purpose of the fence mainly was to keep the children safe and to keep intruders out. 

Cllr Les Fry, was content to propose the recommendation.  He advised members that in his previous occupation he had on numerous occasions had to recommend such a fence and felt this application was both sensible and practical.

Proposed: Cllr Fry

Seconded: Cllr Taylor

Decision

That the application be approved subject to 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 of business.