Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Sherry Jespersen, Les Fry, Stella Jones, Valerie Pothecry and Jon Andrews.

Proposed by Cllr Penfold, seconded by Cllr Jones

Decision: That Cllr Ridout be elected as Vice-Chairman for 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.

No declarations of disclosable interests were made at the meeting.

To confirm the minutes of the following meetings: 27th April 2021 25th May 2021 29th June 2021 24th August 2021 30th November 2021 11th January 2022 8th February 2022

The minutes of the meeting held on 27^th April 2021, 25^th May 2021, 29^th June 2021, 24 August 2021, 30^th November 2021, 11^th January 2022, 8^th February 2022 were confirmed.

Members of the public wishing to speak 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.

The deadline for notifying a request to speak is 8.30am on Friday, 11 March 2022.

Please refer to 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 the planning applications set out below.

Erect 26 No. dwellings. (Reserved matters application to determine layout, scale, appearance and landscaping, following the grant of Outline Planning Permission No. 2/2019/0318/OUT).

The Case Officer presented to members. Members were shown the location of the site which was over 300 metres outside of a conservation area. They were presented with various photographs of the site as well as site plans and proposed building materials. The committee were informed of the provision of 40% affordable housing. Members were also provided with details of protected trees within the site. The recommendation was to grant the planning application.

Public Speakers

Mr Taylor, resident of Child Okeford spoke objecting to the application. Mr Taylor advised members he was a resident next to the proposed site. He strongly objected to application due to needing a better design development as resident windows directly faced the site. Members were also informed of the loss of neighbouring amenities and the damage to local landscape.

Mrs Ebdon, resident of Child Okeford spoke objecting to the application. Mrs Ebdon informed members that there was no consultation with residents regarding details of the designs. The application needed a better layout and design to be in keeping with the village and rural countryside. Mrs Ebdon also discussed the importance of wildlife corridors being enhanced rather than removed.

Mr Cotton, Child Okeford Parish Council spoke in objecting the application. Mr Cotton doesn’t believe that the development would have added positively to Child Okeford, and it conflicted with the current design of the village. Concerns were also raised about the lack of solar panels and charging points following Dorset Council’s Climate Change objectives. Mr Cotton also informed members that the application was near an AONB, stating the harm that the application would have on this.

Mr Moir, the applicant, highlighted that 40% would be affordable housing. He advised members that the design features would integrate into Child Okeford and the positions of housing had been considered to prevent loss of privacy. Additional information regarding pedestrian crossing and trees was highlighted. 

Members Questions and Comments

Members asked questions and made comments relating to the following:

·       Work needed to be done to improve the design as it didn’t reflect the village.

·       Layout for parking and the location of affordable housing needed to be considered.

·       Lack of consultation with residents.

·       Concerns regarding wildlife barriers

·       Near an AONB but not within it.

·       Plantation of trees

Having had the opportunity to discuss the merits of the application and an

understanding of all this entailed; having taken into account the officer’s report

and presentation; the written representation; and what they had heard at the

meeting, in being proposed by Cllr Tim Cook, and Seconded by Cllr Matt Hall on being put to the vote.

Decision: That the application be refused.

Erect a four storey extension comprising of 4 No. 2-bedroom apartments and a two storey detached building comprising 83 sqm of commercial, business and services uses (Use Class E) on the ground floor and 2 No. 1-bedroom apartments on the first floor.  Carry out associated landscaping and car parking

The members were introduced to the application of 2 extensions. The presentation included site and floor plans, street elevation and aerial views of the development which was next to 2 listed buildings. Members were assured that the design was for solar gain using energy efficient materials within the development. Having low impact on neighbouring immunities. The recommendation was to grant the application.

Public Speakers

Cllr Biggs stated that he lived opposite the building and considered it would be an over development in being infilling to the last existing green space across from the conservation area. He had an issue with the green area not being considered. He was concerned that the replacement of the roof wouldn’t be maintained. Concerned also at pedestrian access as there was a need to cross dangerous junctions. He said it didn’t fit in with the conservation area.

Cllr Les Fry made a statement on behalf of himself as the Ward Member which was read out by David Northover in his absence. He said there was no architectural merit to it. He thought there would be high scrutiny of it – with the intention to accommodate the NHS – it should be a key space for key workers. He considered it to be detrimental to the Keep building and would restrict daylight to those in the main building and visibility to barrack road. Again, he felt there was no architectural merit to it. He asked for the application to be refused given the loss of green space and lack of parking.

Dorchester Town Councillor Robin Potter also considered the proposals to be out of keeping with the area and being situated so closely to the main building, would be detrimental to the residents there.

Members Questions and Comments

Members asked questions and made comments relating to the following:

·       Adequate parking for both residents and those using the café facilities.

·       Members liked the design and felt it was in keeping with the area.

·       It wasn’t considered an overdevelopment

·       The maintenance of the roof needed to be conditioned

·       Overlooking local houses

Having had the opportunity to discuss the merits of the application and an

understanding of all this entailed; having considered the officer’s report

and presentation; the written representation; and what they had heard at the

meeting, in being proposed by Cllr Carole Jones and Seconded by Cllr Belinda Ridout on being put to the vote, it was agreed.

Decision: That the application be granted on the conditions of the maintenance of roof.

Develop the land by the erection of up to 6 no. dwellings (2 no. detached houses & 4no. semi-detached bungalows) (Outline application to determine access).

The committee considered an application for the erection of 6 dwellings. The application was presented including aerial views of the site, street views and the site access. Members were informed of no affordable housing or individual driveways. The application was previously refused in November 2020 due to no affordable housing. The committee was informed that since the last application, the neighbourhood plan was more than 2 years old so is no longer relevant. There was a lack of provision of affordable housing but provides 6 houses in a boundary. The recommendation was to approve.

Public Speakers

The Agent considered the neighbourhood plan to be out of date and land wasn’t available for affordable housing.

Motcombe Parish council considered that a 2-year neighbourhood plan was long enough. It was outside Motcombe development boundary. As the Plan needs to be valid, they were objecting.

The Ward member spoke in objecting the application. He discussed the hard work that was put into creating the Motcombe neighbourhood plan and how 2 years validity wasn’t long enough. Members were informed that the neighbourhood plan was only 3 months out of date, so it was still weighted. He also discussed how there was a need for affordable housing but lacks an affordable element. On that basis it should be refused.

Members Questions and Comments

Members asked questions and made comments relating to the following:

·       Validity of affordable housing- access now, outside of boundary.

·       The cost of neighbourhood plans.

·       The lack of affordable housing despite there being a need in Motcombe

Having had the opportunity to discuss the merits of the application and an understanding of all this entailed; having considered the officer’s report and presentation; the written representation; and what they had heard at the meeting, in being proposed by Cllr Belinda Ridout and Seconded by Cllr Carole Jones on being put to the vote, it was agreed.

Decision: That the application be refused.

Carry out repairs to Mohuns Little Bridge.

The committee considered an application to repair Mohuns Little bridge. Members were drawn to the displacement of the bridge and the proposed work. They were assured that there would be no significant harm to the bridge. The recommendation was to approve the application.

Members Questions and Comments

There were no questions or comments from members.

Proposed by Cllr Jones, Seconded by Cllr Hall.

Decision: That the application be approved.

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.