Agenda and minutes

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 David Taylor and Cllr Tim Cook declared an interest to agenda item 6. It was agreed that they would not take part in the debate or discussion.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on Tuesday 26^th September 2023.

The minutes of the meeting held on Tuesday 26^th September were confirmed and signed.

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.  Guide to Public Speaking at Planning Committee

The deadline for notifying a request to speak is 8.30am on Friday 20^th October.

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.

Hybrid planning application for the phased development for up to 490 No. dwellings and non-residential uses comprising:

Outline planning application (to determine access) to develop land by the erection of up to 340 No. dwellings (Use Class C3), local centre with flexible floorspace including Commercial, Business and Services (Use Class E), Drinking Establishments and hot food takeaways (Use Class Sui Generis) and Local Community (Use Class F2); land for a three-form entry primary school and associated playing pitches (Use Class F1 Learning and non-residential institutions); form public open space, replacement allotments including allotment building, new sports pitches, parking, access, infrastructure, landscaping, and carry out ancillary and site preparation works, including demolition of existing buildings and removal of existing allotments.

Full planning application to erect 150 No. dwellings (Use Class C3), form public open space, attenuation basins, parking, access, infrastructure, landscaping, and carry out ancillary and site preparation works.

The Case Officer provided the following update sheet:

·       Cranborne Chase AONB had written to say that if members were minded approving the application, then some of the conditions should be tightened up.  This suggestion is reflected below.

·       Cranborne, as in Cranborne Chase, was misspelt as Cranbourne several times in the report. The correct spelling is Cranborne.

·       DC Street Lighting Team’s comments were omitted; top of page 9.  They had no objections to the proposed development whilst noting the necessity for new lighting along the A354 bypass to access the site; the need for roads and footpaths to require lighting if they are to be adoptable; and they encourage the applicant to use horizontal traffic calming features as they don’t not require lighting by statute. These comments were from 2022 and the applicant has since engaged with this Team to demonstrate how their landscaping and Lighting Strategy Plan can work together.

·       Stour Paine Parish Council though not consulted have submitted comments: raising objections questioning the need for more housing, a poor road network in Dorset, a shortage of school spaces, impact on the CC AONB, and the climate emergency more generally.

·       Conditions had been amended or added to the following five slides.

With the aid of a visual presentation including plans and aerial photographs, the Case Officer identified the site and explained the proposal and relevant planning policies to members. Members were informed that the site was within Blandford Forum however a section was within Pimperne Parish. He discussed both neighbourhood plans within the presentation. Photographs of the proposed development site, access and layout plan were shown. The history of Cranborne Chase and Blandford AONB were also highlighted as well as their location in relation to the site. The presentation confirmed that part of the application site was within the AONB (the proposed school and the allotments), and the remainder being within the setting of the AONB, and thus the relevant paragraphs of the NPPF would apply accordingly.

The Case Officer referred to NPPF policies and discussed flood zones, dwelling mix, tree protection plans and the parameter plan which included details of the landscape and open space strategy. Illustrative masterplans were also shown. The recommendation was to approve subject to the completion of Section 106 agreement within 6 months of a committee decision.

Alison Curtis (Development Team Leader) discussed access to the development. A priority junction onto the A354 Salisbury Road was proposed which had provided access to existing allotments. She informed members that a shared use path was also proposed to link the development to the town centre. Members were assured that signalised crossings would be implemented to ensure safety of pedestrians and cyclists crossing the A354 and A350. In addition to this, vehicular access to the southern development was presented as the proposed roundabout. The Development Team Leader also discussed the Transport Assessment and highlighted key points to members. Vehicle speeds, car and cycle parking were also discussed. In conclusion, the Highway Authority considered that the submitted Transport Assessment  ...  view the full minutes text for item 34.

Erect 12 No. dwellings, form vehicular access from Motcombe Road and carry out other associated works.

With the aid of a visual presentation including plans and aerial photographs, the Case Officer identified the site which was situated with an existing residential development and explained the proposal and relevant planning policies to members. Photographs of the proposed site layout plan, distant views towards the site location and initial and amended street scenes were also included. The landscape scheme was also discussed, and members were informed that there were no issues regarding design and appearance. The Case Officer’s presentation also highlighted parking which was considered acceptable by highways. The recommendation was to grant subject to conditions and completion of section 106 agreement or refuse if the development failed to secure obligations by 24^th April 2024 or such extended time as agreed by Head of Planning.

Public Participation

Residents of Motcombe spoke in objection to the application. They highlighted their concerns regarding pedestrian safety as Motcombe was surrounded by narrow country roads which weren’t safe to walk. The development of more houses would add to road traffic due to additional residents and construction workers. Flooding and sewage were also another concern for residents. They felt as though this had been ignored and were not satisfied by the planning officer’s response. The management of the attenuation pond and an increase in surface water flooding due to climate change were also a cause of discussion. Residents explained that flooding was already an issue due to other developments and an additional would be unforgiveable. In addition to this, residents also raised concerns regarding the proposed materials. They did not feel as though they were in keeping with the area and were disappointed that there was no inclusion of solar panels or electrical charging points. On balance, residents felt that another development would impact privacy of neighbouring properties, additional road users would impact the climate and an increasing danger for road users. They also did not feel as though there was a sufficient drainage strategy, and the development would impact the character of the area. They hoped members would refuse the officer’s recommendation.

The agent spoke in support of the application. He commended the quality of the officer’s report and presentation. Mr Miell informed members that the site was intended to be a high-quality residential development. He highlighted to members that the economy had changed and there had been a gap within the housing market, therefore the proposal was not viable to include affordable housing. Mr Miell discussed the housing mix and the character of the development. The site was not within the flood zone and was supported by drainage strategy. He hoped members would support the officer’s recommendation.

Cllr Dunlop spoke in objection to the application. He referred to the neighbourhood plan and had concerns regarding the deliverability of the proposal. He did not feel as though residents’ sewage and flooding concerns had been addressed and felt as though there would be significant damage to properties from overlooking and flooding. Cllr Dunlop reiterated concerns regarding road safety. He had noted the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 35.

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

This application has come back to committee as the proposal is subject to vacant building credits for brownfield sites. The site has a fallback situation for prior approval for residential conversion to 47 dwellings. This requires the affordable housing contribution to be reduced by a proportionate amount (as it is government policy to encourage reuse of brownfield sites). Other than housing land supply position, the circumstances have not changed in relation to the recommendation of the original report and all issues save affordable housing remain the same.

With the aid of a visual presentation including plans and aerial photographs, the Case Officer identified the site and explained the proposal and relevant planning policies to members. Details of the existing layout and illustrative plans were included. In addition to this, the Case Officer showed members photographs of the site as well as views from the eastern boundary. The recommendation was to grant subject to conditions and completion of section 106.

Public Participation

The agent spoke in favour of the proposal. He reiterated to members that the site was a Brown Field site and that there had been difficulties in the cost of developing the site. Mr Parke highlighted to members that the proposal was for residential development and had the inclusion of a different housing mix despite no affordable housing. He hoped members would support the officer’s recommendation to grant planning permission.

Members questions and comments

·       Clarification as to whether the site was abandoned and whether pollution had been considered.

·       It was confirmed by the officer that they would not be classed as abandoned, and there was a condition requiring a remediation 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 GRANT planning permission as recommended, was proposed by Cllr Les Fry, and seconded by Cllr Belinda Rideout.

Decision: To grant the officer’s recommendation for approval.

Erect building for use as Learning Resource Centre.

With the aid of a visual presentation including plans and aerial photographs, the Case Officer identified the site and explained the proposal and relevant planning policies to members. Illustrative designs and street scenes were also included as well as photographs of the existing site. The officer explained that the design had been amended to incorporate a pitched roof so that it was more in keeping with the conservation area, and that in certain respects the proposal would improve the appearance of the site. The recommendation was to grant subject to conditions.

Public Participation

There was no public representation.

Members questions and comments

·       Cllr Carole Jones commended the design of the proposal.

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 GRANT planning permission as recommended, was proposed by Cllr Carole Jones, and seconded by Cllr Stella Jones.

Decision: To grant the officer’s recommendation for approval subject to conditions.

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.