Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence.

 

No apologies for absence were received at the meeting.

 

 

To disclose any pecuniary, other registerable or non-registerable interests as set out in the adopted Code of Conduct. In making their disclosure councillors are asked to state the agenda item, the nature of the interest and any action they propose to take as part of their declaration.

 

If required, further advice should be sought from the Monitoring Officer in advance of the meeting.

 

Cllr Fry declared that he was pre-determined on Items 4a and 4b, therefore he would speak as the Ward Member then withdraw from the meeting.

 

Cllr Penfold declared that she knew the applicant for Items 4a and 4b, therefore she would withdraw from the meeting for these items.

 

For transparency, prior to Items 4c and 4d, Cllr Penfold informed the committee that she was a Councillor Champion for mental health services but did not have any connection to the applications.

 

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 george.dare@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, 26 November 2021.

 

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.

 

Change of use & conversion of former military hospital to 5 No. flats (C3).

 

The Senior Planning Officer introduced the application for the change of use & conversion of former military hospital to 5 No. flats (C3) and the application for alterations to facilitate the conversion of former military hospital to 5 No. flats (C3).

 

The first application members considered for the Old Military Hospital was in respect of planning permission whilst the second application was in respect of the listed building consent.

 

The Senior Planning Officer presented the applications to the committee. The site was located within an area of employment and the building has had a number of previous uses but has remained vacant for 26 years. The Committee saw photographs of the building and proposed plans, which included restoration of the central chimney, an amenity space, and parking area, as well as an open plan nature which reflected the previous use of hospital wards. There would be less than substantial harm to the listed building, however the public benefits could outweigh the harm.

 

The Planning Technical Support Officer read the written representations. The representations are attached as an appendix to these minutes.

 

Cllr Les Fry – Ward Member

Cllr Fry read a statement on behalf of himself and Cllr Canning, the Ward Members for Dorchester West. The Ward Members were against the application and urged the committee to refuse the application on the grounds of heritage and amenity, as well as preserving commercial areas to protect future jobs.

 

Members’ Questions and Comments

Members were invited to ask questions of the Senior Planning Officer. Questions related to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), air pollution, safety, and pedestrian routes. In response to questions, officers advised that:

 

·       The public benefits should be weighed against heritage harm

·       Roads have footways throughout the estate.

·       There are no residential properties surrounding the site

·       There are commercial buildings which could produce air pollution

·       There is a coach depot behind the building

·       Vibrations from passing traffic is not material to this case

 

After the opportunity for questions, Members discussed and debated the following points:

 

·       Noise and disturbance from industrial units

·       Amenity

·       The use of heritage assets and not allowing them to fall into disrepair

·       The effects of residential use on the building

·       Mixing commercial and residential uses

 

Proposed by Cllr Stella Jones and seconded by Cllr Cook that the application be refused.

 

There were an equal number of votes cast for and against the proposal, therefore the Chairman used her casting vote against the proposal. The vote was therefore not carried.

 

Proposed by Cllr Carole Jones and seconded by Cllr Ridout that the application be granted.

 

There were an equal number of votes cast for and against the proposal, therefore the Chairman used her casting vote for the proposal. The vote was carried, and the Committee were ‘minded to’ grant the application, subject to conditions.

 

The Service Manager for Development Management and Enforcement, having considered the representation and the officer’s presentation and having taken into account the views of the committee, made the following decision under delegated authority: that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 31.

Alterations to facilitate the conversion of former military hospital to 5 No. flats (C3).

 

Members had no further questions or comments related to this application.

 

Proposed by Cllr Pothecary and seconded by Cllr Carole Jones.

 

The Committee were ‘minded to’ grant the application.

 

The Service Manager for Development Management and Enforcement, having considered the representation and the officer’s presentation and having taken into account the views of the committee, made the following decision under delegated authority: that the application be granted, subject to conditions.

 

Decision: That the application be granted, subject to the conditions outlined in the appendix attached to these minutes.

 

The meeting adjourned at 11.47 until 12.00 midday.

 

Cllr Cook raised a point of order relating to Standing Order 19 – Voting. The Chairman confirmed that she had the right to use a casting vote under Standing Order 19.2.

 

Extension to rear & associated works to provide 20no. extra care accommodation units.

 

The Senior Planning Officer introduced the application for an extension to rear & associated works to provide 20no. extra care accommodation units; then the application for alterations for extension to rear & associated works to provide 20no extra care accommodation units.

 

The first application members considered for Cerne Abbas Care Centre was in respect of planning permission whilst the second application was in respect of the listed building consent.

 

The Senior Planning Officer presented the applications and members were shown the site location, proposed plans, and photographs. The proposal would be situated behind the existing care home and would have a green roof to mitigate impact on the scheduled monument of Giant’s Hill and so it would reduce harm on the landscape and the AONB.

 

The key planning matters were highlighted:

• Principle of development
• Scale, design, impact on character and appearance
• Impact on amenity
• Impact of landscape and heritage assets
• Economic benefits
• Access and Parking
• Flooding and Drainage

 

The Planning Technical Support Officer read the written representations. The representations are attached as an appendix to these minutes.

 

Members’ Questions and Comments

Members asked questions of the Senior Planning Officer. Questions related to the use of glass, the maintenance of the green roof, tree planting, and the local neighbourhood plan.

 

In response to the questions, the Senior Planning Officer advised that: the building materials were conditioned to ensure that they were appropriate for the setting; there was a condition for the green roof and its maintenance; the application was a major development outside the settlement boundary; there would be trees planted, as well as a wildflower meadow and climbing plants.

 

Proposed by Cllr Andrews and seconded by Cllr Ridout.

 

The Committee were ‘minded to’ grant the application, subject to conditions.

 

The Service Manager for Development Management and Enforcement, having considered the representation and the officer’s presentation and having taken into account the views of the committee, made the following decision under delegated authority: that the application be granted, subject to conditions.

 

Decision: That the application be granted, subject to the conditions outlined in the appendix attached to these minutes.

 

Alterations for extension to rear & associated works to provide 20no extra care accommodation units.

 

Members had no further questions or comments related to this application.

 

Proposed by Cllr Andrews and seconded by Cllr Ridout.

 

The Committee were ‘minded to’ grant the application, subject to conditions.

 

The Service Manager for Development Management and Enforcement, having considered the representation and the officer’s presentation and having taken into account the views of the committee, made the following decision under delegated authority: that the application be granted, subject to conditions.

 

Decision: That the application be granted, subject to the conditions outlined in the appendix attached to these minutes.

 

Erect 34 No. dwellings with garages, parking, landscaping and amenity space (alternative layout & design of 32 No. dwellings previously approved, plus 2 No. additional dwellings).

 

The Senior Planning Officer introduced the application to Erect 34 No. dwellings with garages, parking, landscaping and amenity space (alternative layout & design of 32 No. dwellings previously approved, plus 2 No. additional dwellings).

 

The dwellings which were previously approved on the site were single storey, however the new plans were for 2-storey dwellings and an additional two affordable dwellings. The Senior Planning Officer showed photographs of the site to the committee, as well as proposed boundary materials and separation distances between the proposed development and nearby homes.

 

The key planning matters were highlighted:

·       Principle of development

·       Affordable housing

·       Housing mix

·       Layout, scale and design

·       Impact on residential amenity

·       Impact of landscape

·       Highways impact

 

An update sheet was circulated to Members before the committee meeting. It is attached as an appendix to these minutes.

 

The Planning Technical Support Officer read the written representations. The representations are attached as an appendix to these minutes.

 

Members’ Questions and Comments

Cllr Hall asked whether some of the roads on the site would be offered for adoptions. The Development Management Area Manager confirmed that the main road through the development could be offered for adoption.

 

Members made several comments and debated the application. Discussion points included: the consultee response from Cranborne Chase AONB; the impact of 2-storey dwellings on public parkland; tree maintenance; and the housing land supply.

 

Proposed by Cllr Cook and seconded by Cllr Pothecary that the application be refused.

 

The vote was not carried.

 

Proposed by Cllr Ridout and seconded by Cllr Andrews that the application be granted.

 

Upon being put to the vote, the Committee were ‘minded to’ grant the application.

 

The Service Manager for Development Management and Enforcement, having considered the representation and the officer’s presentation and having taken into account the views of the committee, made the following decision under delegated authority:

 

Decision

A)   That the application be granted subject to the conditions outlined in the appendix attached to these minutes, and the completion of a legal agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) in a form to be agreed by the Head of Legal Services to secure the following:

1.    On site affordable housing provision of two shared ownership dwellings

2.    Developer financial contributions towards

·       Education

·       Off-site highways contribution

·       Community Hall and Leisure Facilities

·       Health

 

B)   That permission be refused if the agreement is not completed within 6 months of the date of decision or such extended time as agreed by the Head of Planning.

 

Erect Yoga Studio with attached deck and sauna facilities, use of existing on site parking and turning to serve the proposed use, improvements to the access onto Chaffeymoor Hill and change of use Grove Farm from C3 to C1 use to provide B&B accommodation for not more than 20 persons in connection with the proposed use.

 

This application was deferred prior to the committee meeting.

 

Cllr Jon Andrews left the meeting at 14.47

 

Develop the land by the erection of 4 no. detached dwellings with associated footpath, access, car parking and landscaping.  (Outline application to determine access).

 

The Senior Planning Officer presented the application to develop the land by the erection of 4 no. detached dwellings with associated footpath, access, car parking and landscaping. This was an outline application to determine access only at this stage.

 

The site would be accessed from Kentisworth road and it is located next to a site with 9 dwellings which were previously approved. Between the two sites there was a footpath which goes through a tree line. Members were shown various photographs of the site and an indicative plan for the development.

 

The key planning matters were highlighted:

• Principle of development – lack of 5-year housing land supply
• Landscape and visual amenity
• Impact on amenity

 

The Planning Technical Support Officer read the written representations. The representations are attached as an appendix to these minutes.

 

Members’ Questions and Comments

Members asked several questions relating to the application and in particular, the footpath, and drainage.

 

In response to questions, the Senior Planning Officer confirmed that the footpath was between the two sites and it was owned by the landowner on the eastern side of the proposed site. There was no road alongside the footpath. Officers were satisfied that the proposed site would not affect drainage or increase flooding downstream.

 

Proposed by Cllr Carole Jones and seconded by Cllr Belinda Ridout.

 

The Committee were ‘minded to’ grant the application, subject to conditions.

 

The Service Manager for Development Management and Enforcement, having considered the representation and the officer’s presentation and having taken into account the views of the committee, made the following decision under delegated authority: that the application be granted, subject to conditions.

 

Decision: That the application be granted, subject to the conditions outlined in the appendix attached to these minutes.

 

First floor extension over existing garage, new dormer windows and associated works.

 

The Planning Officer introduced the application for a first floor extension over existing garage, new dormer windows and associated works. The Committee were shown the proposed plans and elevations for the site, as well as photos. The site is located within a conservation area and is close to a Grade 2 listed building.

 

The key planning matters were highlighted:

·       No consultee responses have been received

·       One neighbour comment received

·       Neighbour amenity

·       Impact on heritage asset

·       Concern regarding tree

·       Concern was raised over boundary treatment – not a planning consideration.

 

There were no written representations for this application.

 

Members’ Questions and Comments

One member asked a question about the tree and whether it would be cut down. The Planning Officer responded and informed the committee that the tree would not be cut down with this application, but there may be an application made in the future.

 

Proposed by Cllr Cook and seconded by Cllr Ridout.

 

The Committee were ‘minded to’ grant the application, subject to conditions

 

The Service Manager for Development Management and Enforcement, having considered the representation and the officer’s presentation and having taken into account the views of the committee, made the following decision under delegated authority: that the application be granted, subject to conditions.

 

Decision: That the application be granted, subject to the conditions outlined in the appendix attached 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 x 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.