Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence

Apologies for absence were received from Tim Cook and Emma Parker.

To receive any declarations of interest

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

With regards to Item 5b, Cllr Hall declared an interest in respect of predetermination, as the Local Member and as a local resident.  Cllr Hall undertook to not take part in the debate and agreed to speak only as the Local Member for this item.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 10 November 2020.

The minutes of the meeting held on 10 November 2020 were confirmed and signed.

To receive questions or statements on the business of the committee from town and parish councils and members of the public.

Public speaking has been suspended for virtual committee meetings during the Covid-19 crisis and public participation will be dealt with through written submissions only.

 Members of the public who live, work or represent an organisation within the Dorset Council area, may submit up to two questions or a statement of up to a maximum of 450 words.  All submissions must be sent electronically to fiona.king@dorsetcouncil.gov.uk  by the deadline set out below. 

When submitting a question please indicate who the question is for and include your name, address and contact details.  Questions and statements received in line with the council’s rules for public participation will be published as a supplement to the agenda.

Questions will be read out by an officer of the council and a response given by the appropriate Portfolio Holder or officer at the meeting.  All questions, statements and responses will be published in full within the minutes of the meeting. 

The deadline for speaking at this meeting is 8.30am on Friday 11 December 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 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 Lead Planning Officer introduced the application to erect 40no affordable homes with associated internal access, parking, gardens and open space. (Reserved Matters application to determine scale, appearance and landscaping; following the grant of Outline Planning Permission No. 2/2018/0981/OUT). The application was before members as the property was owned by the Council.

Members were advised that although the Blandford Neighbourhood Plan had progressed, outline planning permission had already been granted for this site, therefore this would not be revisited.

The scale of development was 2 storey buildings which was in keeping with the area.

The key planning matters were highlighted:-

• Appearance, Scale and Landscaping
• Neighbour amenity; and
• Heritage impact

An additional condition had been added regarding the 4 trees in front of units 1,2,3 and 4 which was highlighted to members.

Members were advised that highway matters had been previously agreed in the outline permission.

A number of written responses were received and are attached as an

annexure to these minutes.

Local Member for Blandford

Cllr Byron Quayle was speaking on behalf of himself and Cllr Noc Lacey Clarke.

He urged members to vote against the application, as he felt the site was over developed and would substantially change the town forever. The retention of trees was fundamental to this area along with the Nordon building.  He was aware that outline permission for 40 dwellings had been given but felt that one-bedroom buildings would suit the area better. The original outline permission did not take into account the massive impact on traffic and his view did not address the needs of the town. He felt strongly that this was the wrong development.

The Chairman reminded members this was the final stage of this particular planning application. Matters of layout, demolition of the house, highways, access and the Section 106 Order had already been decided upon in 2018 and were not for discussion at this meeting. Members needed to focus on the appearance of the proposed units.  The Section 106 Agreement had already been determined and specified only the amount of affordable housing.  The Area Lead Planning Officer clarified the policy position in that just 30% was affordable. If there were attempts to try to secure any more in the Section 106, it could be taken out at a later date. Some providers did struggle to get more than 30% funding from Homes England.  It was noted that Aster was a registered housing provider. 

In response to some of the written representations, the Area Lead Planning Officer advised that the conservation area had not been ignored at the outline application.  He also highlighted the large outdoor area play area highlighted.  He also highlighted to members the group of trees that were being saved.

Members comments and questions

Cllr Jones asked if Aster would have leeway of putting some of the properties at full market value.  The Area Lead Planning Officer advised that the policy position was that officers could only secure 30% as affordable housing but had made an  ...  view the full minutes text for item 26.

To consider a report by the Head of Planning.

Cllr Hall declared an interest in this application – predetermination

The Senior Planning Officer introduced the application to erect 10no. dwellings with associated amenity, landscaping and infrastructure including widening of the access road.

Key Planning issues were highlighted:-

• Principle of Development
• Affordable Housing
• Highways Safety; and
• Residential Amenity

There had been no objections from highways as any issues that had been raised had been addressed with a condition

Members’ attention was drawn to the update sheet which included a slight amendment to condition 11 to allow more flexibility in the scheme for a pedestrian dropped kerb.

Local Member for Sherborne

Cllr Matt Hall

As an elected councillor for this area and a local resident he was very aware of the site.  He supported building on this site and the types and numbers of dwellings.  However, he did not support the application as by the side of Littlefield there was a long trail of vehicles that parked there regularly. He felt the road was effectively a blindspot and failed to see how the access was safe. He was struggling to see how large lorries would be able to access the site. He felt that the widening of the access road was a misnomer as it was not that part of the road that was the issue. With reference to the pedestrian access he felt this could have been widened.  In his view the lack of a traffic management plan was unbelievable and should be added as a condition. He felt the 10 houses would feel imprisoned rather than part of the community and urged members to refuse.

In response to the highways issues raised by Cllr Hall, the Highways Engineer advised that Littlefield was not an unusual road in Dorset and visibility was acceptable and it was in a low speed environment. There were footways either side of the roadways and room for 2 vehicles to pass. He did not feel there were reasons to refuse on highways terms.

Members comments and questions

Cllr Taylor felt the houses would be very overlooked.

Cllr Andrews made reference to the access road into Littlefield and felt the issues occurred outside of working hours.  Nos 9 and 10 in the development were a 2 storey building which overlooked the gardens of 2 bungalows and he felt this would overshadow them. The Senior Planning Officer highlighted that there were only 2 small windows that would overlook the bungalows and they would have obscured glazing, one would also be fitted with a restrictor. She did not feel this would be a significant impact on those properties.

Cllr Fry asked if access via Noake Road had been considered.  The Chairman reminded the councillor that the application being considered was the one before them.  Cllr Fry was concerned with the proposed access in respect of emergency vehicles and refuse lorries being able to access the site.  The Highways Engineer advised there was sufficient width and would be dealt with via building regulations.

In response to a question about  ...  view the full minutes text for item 27.

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.

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 were no exempt items of business.