Agenda and minutes

Northern Area Planning Committee - Tuesday, 11th April, 2023 2.00 pm

Please Note:

Our committee pages will be unavailable on Saturday 25 May due to website maintenance.

Venue: Stour Hall - The Exchange, Old Market Hill, Sturminster Newton, DT10 1FH. View directions

Contact: Megan Rochester  01305 224709 - Email: megan.r.rochester@dorsetcouncil.gov.uk

Media

Items
No. Item

160.

Apologies

To receive any apologies for absence.

 

Minutes:

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

 

161.

Declarations of Interest

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.

 

Minutes:

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

 

 

162.

Minutes pdf icon PDF 164 KB

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on Tuesday 7th March 2023.

Minutes:

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

 

163.

Public Participation

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. Please refer to the Guide to Public Speaking at Planning Committee.  GuidanceforspeakingatPlanningCommittee.doc.pdf (dorsetcouncil.gov.uk).

 

The deadline for notifying a request to speak is Wednesday 5th April at 8.30am

Minutes:

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.

164.

Planning Applications

To consider the applications listed below for planning permission.

Minutes:

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

165.

P/RES/2022/06180- Common Mead Lane, Gillingham pdf icon PDF 503 KB

Erect 80 No. dwellings, carry out works to form associated infrastructure and public open space. (Reserved matters application to determine appearance, landscaping, layout and scale, following the grant of Outline Planning Permission No. P/OUT/2021/04019); and discharge Condition Nos. 7 (Arboricultural Method Statement) and 18 (Electric Vehicle Charging Scheme) of Outline Planning Permission No. P/OUT/2021/04019.

Minutes:

The Case Officer gave an update as follows:

·       Dorset Council Highway Engineer was satisfied that amended plans had addressed concerns.

·       The applicant wanted it made known that 5 units within the scheme would be fully wheelchair accessible. Also, that they were prepared to undertake further tree planting in the northern field.

·       Additional condition proposed to remove permitted development rights for the insertion of new first floor windows in the northern gables of Plots 1 and 7, in the interests of adjoining amenity.

·       A typo in the report related to the wildlife corridor, which should have read 7m in width, rather than 9m.

 

With the aid of a visual presentation, The Case Officer showed members aerial photographs and a map of the site. In addition to this, details were also provided regarding site access, changes in design of dwellings, as well as the proposed location and design of affordable housing units. Members were informed that additional planting had been reconsidered by the Applicant and that more plantations would be on site. The Case Officer’s presentation also provided artist impressions of the street scene elevations and provided members with further information regarding the SUDS basin and the management of it. Further details about wildlife corridors and distribution of house types across the site were discussed. The officer’s recommendation was to grant.

 

Public Participation

The agent spoke in favour of the application. Mr Cross informed members that a lot of work had gone into the development and assured them that the development would be completed to a high standard. He discussed the inclusion of affordable housing on the site as well as the benefits of the public open space. Mr Cross had worked with Gillingham Town Council and local primary schools to discuss the educational purposes of biodiversity which would be created from the public open space. He asked officers to accept and approve the officer’s recommendation.

 

Mr Briggs spoke in objection of the development. He believed that it was a sensitive site and residents did not deem it acceptable. He felt that the site didn’t meet the character of the area and were concerned about road width for emergency vehicle use. Mr Briggs was pleased about the inclusion of wildlife corridors but did not feel it was good enough. He urged members to refuse the application. However, he made note that if members did grant, residents would hope that further conditions could be added, especially regarding working hours and wildlife corridor maintenance.

 

Members questions and comments

·       Members asked for points of clarification on tree planting conditions set out in the officer’s report.

·       Clarification regarding allocated parking for affordable housing and whether the road was sufficient for on street parking and passing of emergency and refuse vehicles.

·       Members questioned as to whether there had been any negotiations with Gillingham Town Council regarding allotments on North facing field.

·       Condition the inclusion of accessibility in affordable housing for disabled residents. Prior to any development above slab level, a scheme indicating the location of 5 wheelchair  ...  view the full minutes text for item 165.

166.

P/OUT/2022/04243- Wessex Park Homes Okeford Fitzpaine pdf icon PDF 614 KB

Demolish existing industrial buildings and erect 47 dwellings (outline application to determine access only).

Minutes:

With the aid of a visual presentation, The Case Officer showed members aerial photographs and a map of the site. Members were shown the location of the site and were informed that it was near the AONB but was not within it. The Case Officer showed members an illustration layout plan as well as various photographs of the site, including existing structures and views from the eastern and southwestern boundary. The recommendation was to grant subject to conditions outlined in the officer’s report and the completion of section 106 agreement.

 

Public Participation

The agent addressed the committee and informed members that the site was redundant, and no other interest had been expressed. Mr Bennett discussed the local need for housing and believed that the scheme was well designed and would meet the housing needs. He did not feel as though the site would diminish Okeford Fitzpaine or Shillingstone, but integrated buildings would enhance the character of the area. Mr Bennett discussed the scale of the existing site as well as footpath links to the neighbouring villages. He also believed that there would be a reduction on vehicle movements. The agent commended the officers report asked members to support.

 

Members questions and comments

·       Clarification regarding prior approval of building conversions from industrial use to residential units.

·       Clarification regarding local boundaries and if neighbourhood plans comply.

·       Members were pleased to see the use of a redundant brown field site and welcomed the inclusion of 40% affordable housing in an already established village.

·       Concerns regarding contaminated land and residents becoming isolated. 

·       Clarification regarding footpath links from the site to the centre of Okeford Fitzpaine.

·       Mitigation for wastewater.

·       Members noted that the site was outside the village settlement boundary and would create a loss of industrial land.

·       Clarification regarding housing teams supporting the scheme.

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 representatives; and what they had heard at the meeting, a motion to approve the officer’s recommendation to approve planning permission as recommended, was proposed by Cllr Ridout, and seconded by Cllr Jones subject to conditions.

 

Decision: To grant subject to conditions

 

167.

P/FUL/2022/05382- Unit 48 Enterprise Park, Piddlehinton pdf icon PDF 325 KB

Construction of extension, parking area and service area.

Minutes:

With the aid of a visual presentation, The Case Officer showed members aerial photographs and a map of the site. Details regarding the site being near the AONB but not within it as well as Rights of Way were also discussed. The presentation also included photographs of the existing building, site, and proposed floor plans for the extension. The recommendation was to grant.

 

Public Participation

Mr Summers spoke in favour of the proposal. He informed members that the proposed extension would allow for further employment and would make the workplace more efficient for a local business. He informed members that a lot of consideration had gone into the extension plans to ensure they would fit in with other dwellings. The applicant also discussed the installation of solar panels if granted as well as controlled deliveries and collections to support the local villages requests. Mr Summers assured members that the site would only be used during normal working hours and no chemicals were on site. He hoped members would support the officer’s recommendation.

Mr Ebdon spoke on behalf of the Parish Council. He informed members that the Enterprise Park was the main employment for Piddle Valley and the Parish Council supported the economic benefits. However, Mr Ebdon could not support the application as he believed it was contrary to policy 10 of the neighbourhood plan and the proposed scale of the extension would be detrimental to the visual immunity and therefore would impact the character of the area. Concerns were also raised regarding an increase in traffic, particularly larger vehicles. Mr Ebdon believed that the site would be better suited for smaller businesses. He hoped members would refuse this application.

 

Members questions and comments

·       Clarification regarding job creation on the site as well as whether the proposed extension would be the tallest building on site.

·       Condition to mitigate light pollution. Prior to the commencement of any development above foundation level, details of a lighting scheme shall have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority.  Thereafter, the lighting scheme shall be installed, operated, and maintained in accordance with the approved scheme and there shall be no further lighting of the development, other than in accordance with the approved scheme.

·       Condition per minable surfaces to reduce water runoff. Drainage condition for surface water. Prior to the commencement of any development hereby approved, details of the surface water drainage work shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the approved drainage scheme shall have been completed before the occupation of the development.

·       Members were pleased to support a growing business.

 

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 representatives; and what they had heard at the meeting, a motion to approve the officer’s recommendation to approve planning permission as recommended, was proposed by Cllr Les Fry, and seconded by Cllr Carole Jones, subject  ...  view the full minutes text for item 167.

168.

P/FUL/2022/07272- 3 Stevens Close, Blandford Forum pdf icon PDF 242 KB

Erect 1 No. dwelling, form new vehicular access and create 1 No. parking space, (demolish existing garage).

Minutes:

With the aid of a visual presentation, The Case Officer showed members aerial photographs and a map of the site. Details regarding the site being near the AONB but not within it as well as Rights of Way were also discussed. The presentation also included photographs of the existing building, site, and proposed floor plans for the extension. The recommendation was to grant.

 

Public Participation

Mr Summers spoke in favour of the proposal. He informed members that the proposed extension would allow for further employment and would make the workplace more efficient for a local business. He informed members that a lot of consideration had gone into the extension plans to ensure they would fit in with other dwellings. The applicant also discussed the installation of solar panels if granted as well as controlled deliveries and collections to support the local villages requests. Mr Summers assured members that the site would only be used during normal working hours and no chemicals were on site. He hoped members would support the officer’s recommendation.

Mr Ebdon spoke on behalf of the Parish Council. He informed members that the Enterprise Park was the main employment for Piddle Valley and the Parish Council supported the economic benefits. However, Mr Ebdon could not support the application as he believed it was contrary to policy 10 of the neighbourhood plan and the proposed scale of the extension would be detrimental to the visual immunity and therefore would impact the character of the area. Concerns were also raised regarding an increase in traffic, particularly larger vehicles. Mr Ebdon believed that the site would be better suited for smaller businesses. He hoped members would refuse this application.

 

Members questions and comments

·       Clarification regarding job creation on the site as well as whether the proposed extension would be the tallest building on site.

·       Condition to mitigate light pollution. Prior to the commencement of any development above foundation level, details of a lighting scheme shall have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority.  Thereafter, the lighting scheme shall be installed, operated, and maintained in accordance with the approved scheme and there shall be no further lighting of the development, other than in accordance with the approved scheme.

·       Condition per minable surfaces to reduce water runoff. Drainage condition for surface water. Prior to the commencement of any development hereby approved, details of the surface water drainage work shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the approved drainage scheme shall have been completed before the occupation of the development.

·       Members were pleased to support a growing business.

 

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 representatives; and what they had heard at the meeting, a motion to approve the officer’s recommendation to approve planning permission as recommended, was proposed by Cllr Les Fry, and seconded by Cllr Carole Jones, subject  ...  view the full minutes text for item 168.

169.

Urgent items

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.

Minutes:

There were no urgent items.

 

170.

Exempt 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.

Minutes:

There was no exempt business

Update Sheet pdf icon PDF 259 KB